Nournews: The unprecedented warning by Admiral Ali Shamkhani, the Supreme Leader’s representative on the Defense Council, which was published last night, should be assessed as a compact yet multi‑layered strategic message—one issued at the height of psychological warfare by the U.S. president and senior American officials against Iran, and simultaneously with the exaggeration of Washington’s military presence in the region. The significance of this position lies not merely in its brief text, but in the stature of its author and the timing of its release. Shamkhani is among the few commanders who possess experience in senior military command, have spent years at the helm of the country’s national security decision‑making institutions, and currently play a role at the highest level of defense policymaking as the Supreme Leader’s representative on the Defense Council.

In the text of the message, the core content is stated with clarity: a firm rejection of the concept of a “limited strike” and an emphasis that any U.S. military action—from any origin and at any level—will be considered the initiation of war, and that Iran’s response will be immediate, comprehensive, and directed at the aggressor and its supporters, including the Zionist regime. This assertion effectively delineates Iran’s “operational red line” without ambiguity and directly targets the prevailing discourse in U.S. and Israeli security circles regarding controlled, low‑cost attacks.

However, the strategic importance of this warning goes beyond rejecting the idea of a “limited strike” and can be analyzed within a broader framework. First, this stance and the emphasis on readiness to enter a comprehensive and all‑out confrontation demonstrate that Iran has prepared itself for a hybrid and long‑term situation—one that is not purely military but simultaneously encompasses psychological, media, political, and security dimensions. The release of such a message amid intense U.S. pressure indicates that Tehran views these moves not as a temporary display, but as part of a sustained pressure campaign, and has calibrated its response accordingly.

Second, within Iran’s security logic, decision‑making is not confined solely to the moment of direct confrontation. In the first official statement of the Defense Council, published several weeks ago, it was emphasized that the emergence of credible signs and indicators of a threat itself constitutes part of the process of initiating conflict, and that the Islamic Republic of Iran does not monitor developments only at the stage of final action. This analytical framework severely limits the opposing side’s room for maneuver in gradual actions, creeping pressure, or high‑risk but ostensibly non‑war measures.

Third, the rejection of a “limited strike” implicitly means rejecting the notion of a low‑intensity and controllable war. From Iran’s perspective, any military action—even if carried out with the aim of sending a message or creating deterrence—will inevitably lead to a “comprehensive confrontation.” This expansiveness is not a political choice, but a natural outcome of geography and force deployments in the region. The United States maintains dozens of military bases across various countries in the region—bases that, in the event of war, would be considered legitimate targets under accepted legal and military principles. This reality makes it inevitable that the scope of the conflict would unintentionally and unavoidably extend to the host countries of those bases.

Fourth, in such a scenario, the main battlefield—unlike some short‑term conflicts of the past—would shift to maritime domains, from the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman to the Red Sea and even the Indian Ocean, turning them into the focal points of confrontation. This is precisely the arena in which Iran has, in recent years, made targeted and extensive investments—from the design and production of indigenous equipment suited for asymmetric naval warfare to the training of specialized forces for operations in complex, multi‑layered maritime environments. In such a theater, the balance of power can change rapidly and unpredictably.

Fifth, Shamkhani’s emphasis on a broad and comprehensive Iranian response inherently underscores an undeniable reality that must be taken into account in Washington’s political calculations. Significant human casualties—particularly when a war is extensive and prolonged—are events from which the aggressor cannot remain immune. Past experiences have shown that this factor quickly becomes a decisive variable in U.S. domestic equations, and its political repercussions for Trump personally would be unavoidable.

Highlighting this component is part of Iran’s deterrence logic—a deterrence based not on ambiguity, but on the clear articulation of costs.

The warning issued last night by Admiral Shamkhani should therefore be understood not as an emotional reaction, but as part of a calculated deterrent message; a message that, relying on the speaker’s position, clearly cautions the United States, the Zionist regime, and regional actors that the notion of a limited and controllable war against Iran is a strategic miscalculation with uncontrollable consequences.