In that message, he stated:
“Certainly, the leverage of closing the Strait of Hormuz must continue to be used. Regarding the opening of other fronts where the enemy has little experience and would be highly vulnerable, studies have been conducted, and their activation, if the state of war continues and based on consideration of interests, will take place.”
At the time, it may not have been clear to many observers what exactly was meant by these other fronts, where they could be opened, or what capabilities they might involve. However, as time passed, parts of this strategy became clearly visible on the ground.
Beyond what had been imagined, as the war continued, the scope of the confrontation and the nature of the attacks expanded, with several important targets and centers in new geographical areas coming under attack.
In the Battle of Hormuz, one of these arenas involved multiple attacks in different locations, including Bab al-Mandab. This front, as part of a coordinated action, saw resistance forces play a role alongside other operations by the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and this route also became one of the important points of pressure on the enemy.
On the other hand, the increase in unexpected and impactful attacks against locations in Jordan and several other countries was not merely a matter of increasing the number of targets. These attacks fundamentally changed the geographical scope of the war and brought its sensitivity into a new phase, a phase that was unexpected and difficult to calculate for many international observers, particularly the “criminal president of the United States.”
In other words, at a time when the Strait of Hormuz was activated as one of the main pressure points, other fronts were also opened to demonstrate that the arena of confrontation with the Islamic Republic of Iran was not limited to a single geographical point or a specific route.
The importance of this strategy becomes clearer when it is understood that, according to informed sources, not all of the anticipated capabilities for opening new fronts have yet been activated, and some remain on standby. The activation of these capabilities depends on battlefield conditions and assessments of interests.
Response to Ceasefire Violation Timely and Decisive
Another key aspect relates to one of the other important measures taken by the Islamic Republic of Iran during the leadership of Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei, namely the approach toward violations of the ceasefire in Lebanon.
One of the defining features of this strategy was the speed and decisiveness of the response. When the Zionist regime violated the Lebanon ceasefire, the Islamic Republic of Iran placed a military response on its agenda.
According to experts, this action should be understood within the framework of an important principle in the Islamic Republic’s defense strategy: the enemy must not believe that violating red lines will come without consequences.
In reality, the message behind this action was that under any circumstances, if the opposing side breaches existing rules, an immediate shift in the situation and a return to confrontation remain possible.
From this perspective, the timing of a response is as important as the intensity of the response itself, because a swift reaction deprives the enemy of the opportunity to consolidate gains or create a new reality on the ground.
Understanding the Enemy’s Project Before It Is Implemented on the Ground
Perhaps one of the most important measures at the beginning of Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei’s leadership was the precise identification of the enemy’s internal project within the country.
In his message on March 19, following remarks by Trump and Netanyahu about the need for unrest in the streets, he referred to an important part of this plan and stated:
“This war took place after the enemy became disappointed with the prospect of a significant popular movement in its favor, and based on the illusion that if it targeted the leadership and martyred a number of influential military figures, it could create fear and despair among our dear people, cause you to leave the scene, and thereby realize its dream of dominating Iran and then dividing it. However, during this blessed month, you combined fasting with jihad and created a broad defensive line across the country, with strong positions equal to the number of fields, neighborhoods and mosques, delivering such a confusing blow to it that it was forced into making contradictory statements and numerous absurd remarks, signs of a lack of awareness and cognitive weakness.”
In reality, the main calculation was that by targeting the leadership and martyring a number of commanders and influential figures, a vacuum would be created in the decision-making structure, and that this vacuum would lead to widespread fear and despair among the people.
The next objective was also clear: for people to withdraw from the scene, social cohesion to be weakened, insecurity to spread, and ultimately for what the enemy had begun on the military front to transform into a political and social crisis inside the country.
This was precisely where the timely identification of the enemy’s project became significant.
The strategy adopted in response to this project was to activate the country’s social capacity and turn the people into part of the front line of defense.
Emphasizing unity among all sections of society, encouraging people to maintain an active and visible presence on the scene, stressing broad participation in Quds Day rallies, encouraging mutual assistance and support, and most importantly, preventing the creation of an atmosphere of fear and despair were among the measures included in his first message in response to this project.
Of course, these points represent only a limited and publicly discussable part of the effects of the leadership of Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei during this period.
NOURNEWS