Persian edition of “Siddhartha” republished

TEHRAN- The 17th edition of the Persian translation of German-Swiss novelist Hermann Hesse’s “Siddhartha” has recently been published.

Mahi Publications in Tehran is the publisher of the book translated by Soroush Habibi.

Published in 1922, “Siddhartha” is a lyrical exploration of the human spirit's quest for enlightenment. Set in ancient India during the era of Gautama Buddha, the narrative follows Siddhartha—whose name in Sanskrit signifies "one who has found meaning"—on a lifelong odyssey to discover the truth of existence.

Siddhartha begins his journey as the privileged son of a Brahmin, possessing intellect and beauty but lacking inner peace. Driven by a spiritual hunger, he renounces his home to join the Samanas, ascetic monks who embrace extreme deprivation. However, he eventually discovers that asceticism is merely a temporary escape from the self. This realization leads him to the Buddha, referred to in the text as Gotama. While his friend Govinda joins the Buddha's monastic order, Siddhartha departs alone, concluding that enlightenment cannot be taught through doctrine; it must be experienced individually.

Siddhartha’s path then shifts from the spiritual to the material. In the city, he meets Kamala and enters the world of commerce under the businessman Kamaswami. Utilizing the discipline of his past, he quickly amasses wealth. Yet, the luxury of the city becomes a gilded cage. Entangled in gambling and indulgence, Siddhartha reaches a breaking point and contemplates suicide by the river. It is here that he experiences a spiritual rebirth, hearing the holy sound "Om," which reconnects him to the universe.

Siddhartha decides to remain by the water, apprenticing himself to Vasudeva, a humble ferryman. Under Vasudeva’s guidance, he learns to "listen" to the river, realizing that it contains all the voices of time—past, present, and future. This peace is tested when he reunites with Kamala and discovers he has a son. After Kamala’s death, the boy becomes rebellious and eventually flees. Though Siddhartha is desperate to follow him, Vasudeva urges him to let the boy find his own path, just as Siddhartha did in his youth. Through this loss, Siddhartha realizes that time is an illusion and that suffering is an integral part of the jubilant fellowship of all connected things. Having passed his wisdom to Siddhartha, Vasudeva departs into the woods, leaving Siddhartha peacefully fulfilled.

The novel reaches its resolution when Govinda, now an elderly monk, seeks out the legendary enlightened ferryman. He does not initially recognize the man as his childhood companion. When Govinda asks for the secret of wisdom, Siddhartha explains that language is too limited to capture the fullness of truth; for every true statement, there is an opposite that is also true. He urges Govinda to love the world in its completeness, recognizing that nature works in a self-sustaining cycle. 

In a final, transcendent moment, Siddhartha asks Govinda to kiss his forehead. Through this touch, Govinda experiences the same visions of timelessness and unity that Siddhartha found by the river. Bowing to his radiantly smiling friend, Govinda finally understands that the journey to enlightenment is not a destination, but a continuous flow of becoming. 

Tags

• “Siddhartha”
• Persian Translation
• Hermann Hesse

Former NCTC director warns US cannot defeat Iran, demands immediate Middle East withdrawal

TEHRAN — In a scathing public statement, former National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) Director Joe Kent called on the US government to immediately halt military operations in the Middle East, pull back troops, and negotiate directly with regional adversaries, warning that American forces cannot defeat Iran militarily.

Kent’s comments mark a significant escalation in his criticism of current US foreign policy, following his high-profile resignation from his post on March 17, 2026, when he stated he could no longer support the administration's military campaign against Tehran.

In his statement posted to X, Kent argued that Washington has reached a strategic dead end and cautioned against further military involvement across the region. "Keep in mind that we could not militarily defeat the Houthis in 2025. We know we can’t militarily defeat Iran now. We will certainly not be able to defeat both of them simultaneously," Kent wrote. He urged policymakers to "skip the decades of carnage" and negotiate exit deals immediately, drawing parallels to previous American military exits from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria.

Focusing on global shipping and economic security, Kent emphasized that Iran currently controls two vital maritime transit corridors: the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandeb. Rather than attempting a high-risk military solution to reopen these passages, he urged strategic realism, arguing that pulling US troops out of harm’s way would actually increase American diplomatic leverage and prevent a crippling global energy crisis.

Kent also directed sharp criticism toward Washington's national security establishment, urging leaders to tune out "the neocons and the Israeli lobby’s tired talking points about WMD," which he characterized as bait used to draw the country into a disastrous quagmire. Reinforcing the rationale behind his March resignation, Kent reiterated his position that Tehran poses no imminent threat to the US homeland and that American involvement in the conflict has been largely driven by pressure from foreign allies and domestic lobbying networks.

A former Green Beret and CIA officer with 11 combat deployments, Kent served as the Director of the NCTC until his departure. Directly addressing President Donald Trump, Kent concluded that withdrawing forces now provides the best opportunity to avoid a mass-casualty event or an economic collapse while restoring public trust.

Tags

• former National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) Director Joe Kent
• Iran
• Donald Trump

Attacks on Iran's infrastructure may amount to ‘collective punishment’: Italian analyst

 By Sahar Dadjoo

Chinappi says targeting ports and power networks reflects a hybrid warfare model designed to erode civilian life

TEHRAN - Giulio Chinappi, an Italian political analyst and researcher from the Center for Mediterranean Eurasia Studies (CeSEM), believes the collapse of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding reflects not a failure of diplomacy but a deliberate turn toward coercion by Washington and Tel Aviv.

In an interview with the Tehran Times, Chinappi discusses the structural weaknesses behind the memorandum's breakdown, Israel's strategic objectives, Europe's alignment with Washington, and the legal questions raised by attacks on civilian infrastructure. 

The following is the full text of the interview:

Only weeks before the renewed attacks, diplomatic channels still appeared to be open. Looking back, do you think diplomacy genuinely failed, or was military escalation becoming the preferred option for one or more of the parties involved?

I would not describe what happened as an inevitable failure of diplomacy. Diplomacy did not exhaust all its possibilities; rather, it was progressively subordinated to a strategy of military and economic coercion. The Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding demonstrated that a negotiated framework was possible. The 14-point document provided for a ceasefire and a 60-day period in which the outstanding disputes could be addressed. Its very existence disproves the argument that there was no diplomatic alternative. 

The fundamental problem was that diplomacy was not understood in the same way by the two sides. Tehran regarded it as a reciprocal process that should end hostilities, remove the blockade, protect Iranian sovereignty and create the conditions for separate negotiations on the nuclear question. Washington appeared to regard the ceasefire as a temporary instrument through which it could reopen the Strait of Hormuz and then extract strategic concessions from Iran while retaining military and economic pressure.

In my assessment, escalation became the preferred option for those in Washington and Tel Aviv who were unwilling to accept an agreement between sovereign equals. They expected negotiations to produce Iranian capitulation rather than a balanced settlement. Once it became clear that Iran would not surrender its fundamental rights, military force was reintroduced as a means of changing Tehran’s calculations. The renewed blockade and successive rounds of American air strikes therefore represented a political choice, not the unavoidable result of diplomatic failure. The current military campaign has expanded despite evidence that earlier attacks had failed to force Iran into strategic submission.

The Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding was initially seen as a potential breakthrough. In your assessment, what were the structural reasons behind its collapse, and who ultimately benefited from the failure of that diplomatic process?

The memorandum collapsed because it rested on fundamentally incompatible interpretations. Iran viewed it as the beginning of a reciprocal process leading to the definitive end of the war. The United States treated it more as a provisional arrangement designed to restore maritime traffic while postponing—or preserving—its principal instruments of pressure.

The first structural weakness was the absence of credible enforcement guarantees. Iran was expected to comply with restrictions and security commitments, while Washington retained control over sanctions, the naval blockade and the timing of military operations. This created an inherently unequal arrangement. The second weakness concerned sequencing. Tehran insisted that the cessation of aggression and the removal of the blockade could not be made conditional upon concessions concerning its peaceful nuclear program. Washington instead sought to connect the end of hostilities to nuclear, missile and regional issues.

A third problem was the accumulated deficit of trust. Agreements cannot survive when one party reserves the right to reinterpret or suspend its obligations unilaterally. Iranian officials repeatedly stated that Tehran would respect the memorandum provided that the United States did the same, but subsequently accused Washington of plunging the agreement into crisis through unilateral measures. 

Israel’s role must also be considered. Any agreement that ends the war while leaving Iran sovereign, territorially intact and capable of maintaining an effective deterrent conflicts with the more maximalist Israeli objective of permanently weakening the Islamic Republic. For those pursuing regime change or the strategic disarmament of Iran, a reciprocal settlement was therefore less attractive than prolonged confrontation.

In the immediate term, the failure benefited the political and military forces that opposed compromise and sought to preserve the logic of permanent pressure. It also allowed the Israeli leadership to keep the United States militarily engaged in a conflict that serves Israel’s regional objectives. In strategic terms, however, there has been no genuine beneficiary. The renewed conflict has destabilized energy markets, increased fuel prices, endangered navigation and intensified the suffering of civilian populations throughout the region. In the United States, average petrol prices have again exceeded four dollars per gallon as fighting has disrupted traffic through Hormuz. 

Several countries attempted to facilitate dialogue between Tehran and Washington before the latest escalation. Why were these mediation efforts unable to prevent renewed military confrontation? 

Pakistan, Qatar, Oman and other regional actors performed an important diplomatic function, but mediation has clear limits. A mediator can transmit proposals, reduce misunderstandings and create a negotiating environment. It cannot compel a major power to respect an agreement or prevent a third party from acting as a spoiler.

The central problem was therefore not the quality of the mediation, but the absence of political will among the actors possessing the greatest military power. Pakistan could help draft an agreement, but it could not guarantee that Washington would remove the blockade permanently. Qatar and Oman could maintain channels of communication, but they could not oblige Israel to accept a settlement that preserved Iran’s strategic capabilities. Nor could any mediator provide Tehran with an enforceable guarantee against renewed attacks.

The imbalance of power also weakened the process. Washington continued to regard military and economic pressure as legitimate negotiating tools, while Iran was expected to demonstrate restraint before receiving reciprocal guarantees. Under those conditions, mediation risked becoming a mechanism for managing coercion rather than overcoming it.

Recent conflicts have increasingly blurred the line between military operations and attacks on critical infrastructure. In the case of Iran, are we witnessing a new model of warfare in which a country's economic arteries, transportation networks, and public infrastructure become the primary battlefield. What strategic logic underpins such an approach?

What we are witnessing is a model of total or hybrid warfare in which the distinction between the military battlefield and civilian economic life is deliberately eroded. Ports, airports, energy installations, communication systems, transportation networks, payment systems and maritime routes become components of the war plan.

The strategic logic is to produce cascading effects. Destroying or blockading a port does not affect only military logistics; it interrupts imports, exports, employment and access to essential goods. Damaging an electricity network also affects water distribution, hospitals, refrigeration, communications and industrial production. Striking transport infrastructure interferes with both the movement of goods and the normal life of the population.

The objective is therefore not merely to degrade Iranian military capabilities. It is to turn the daily hardship of civilians into political pressure against the state, creating shortages, inflation, unemployment and social anxiety in the hope that the population will blame its own government rather than the external aggressor. Recent American strikes have concentrated heavily on southern Iran, including ports, coastal installations and transportation infrastructure. They have aggravated electricity and water problems, but reporting from the affected areas indicates that the attacks have not generated the anti-government uprising apparently anticipated by Washington. 

This model raises extremely serious legal questions. The International Committee of the Red Cross has stressed that energy systems serving civilians are, in principle, civilian objects. They cannot lawfully be attacked merely to weaken an adversary’s economy, force it to negotiate or influence the political will of its population. The ICRC has warned that deliberate attacks on essential civilian infrastructure may amount to “war crimes”. 
What is being presented as strategic pressure is therefore often a form of collective punishment: an attempt to achieve political objectives by making ordinary citizens pay the price.

Can external military pressure realistically alter the strategic calculations of a state like Iran, or does history suggest that such campaigns often strengthen domestic resilience and national cohesion instead?

External pressure can impose enormous economic and human costs, but that does not mean it can achieve its political objective. There is a fundamental difference between damaging a country and compelling it to surrender its strategic independence.

When a state perceives the threat as existential, military pressure usually reinforces rather than eliminates its determination to resist. Concessions made under fire may invite further demands because the aggressor interprets them as evidence that coercion is working. Iranian leaders therefore have strong reasons to avoid creating the impression that bombing produces political rewards.

Foreign aggression can also alter domestic political dynamics in ways the aggressor does not anticipate. Iranian society contains real disagreements over economic management, social policy and institutional questions. Yet people who criticize their own government do not necessarily accept foreign bombardment or regime change imposed from abroad. Recent reporting from Iran found that the attacks had deepened hardship without producing the expected revolt; instead, they generated expressions of national solidarity and opposition to external aggression. 

In my view, continued aggression may produce the opposite strategic result from the one intended. It may strengthen arguments in favor of greater military self-sufficiency, deeper cooperation with Russia, China and the BRICS countries, tighter control of Hormuz and even a reconsideration of Iran’s traditional nuclear restraint. A state repeatedly attacked while lacking a nuclear deterrent will inevitably study the experience of countries that achieved greater security only after acquiring one.

 European governments have largely aligned themselves with Washington despite growing public criticism. Do you believe Europe still has an independent foreign policy in the Middle East, or has strategic autonomy become largely symbolic?

The European Union’s official statements have concentrated on restoring freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, ensuring toll-free passage and restricting Iran’s nuclear and ballistic capabilities. European measures have also expanded the sanctions framework against Iranian actors accused of threatening maritime traffic. At the same time, there has been no comparable readiness to sanction the United States or Israel for initiating and escalating military operations, attacking Iranian territory or damaging essential infrastructure. 

The asymmetry of the European language is revealing. The European Union’s High Representative stated that Iran was “waging war on the global economy”, a formulation that isolates Tehran’s response from the aggression and blockade that produced the crisis. This is not neutral diplomacy; it reproduces Washington’s interpretation of events. 

Europe could have played a different role. It could have demanded an unconditional end to the attacks, defended the principle that the nuclear question must be resolved diplomatically, opposed the targeting of civilian infrastructure and offered concrete guarantees for a reciprocal agreement. Instead, most European governments have treated transatlantic loyalty as more important than international law or their own economic interests.

Strategic autonomy will remain symbolic until Europe is prepared to disagree with Washington when American policy threatens European security, energy supplies and relations with the wider world. At the same time, public criticism is increasing because European citizens are being asked to bear higher energy prices and greater insecurity for a strategy over which their governments exercise little genuine control.

To what extent has Israeli security doctrine influenced the broader regional trajectory?

Israel’s strategic objective is not limited to preventing a specific Iranian military program. It seeks to prevent the emergence of any regional power capable of challenging Israeli military superiority, its undeclared nuclear monopoly and the political order protected by the United States.

This explains Israel’s preference for preventive war, targeted assassinations, sabotage and the permanent degradation of its adversaries’ capabilities. From this perspective, an agreement that leaves Iran sovereign, politically stable and capable of maintaining missile, maritime and regional deterrence may be regarded as inadequate even if it imposes limitations on the nuclear program. Diplomacy becomes acceptable only when it achieves objectives equivalent to strategic disarmament.

The joint American-Israeli attacks launched on 28 February targeted not only military installations but also Iran’s leadership, while President Trump publicly linked the campaign to the possibility of Iranians overthrowing their government. That indicates that the objective extended beyond narrowly defined non-proliferation concerns.

Israeli doctrine has profoundly influenced the regional trajectory by normalizing the idea that anticipated or hypothetical threats may be answered through preventive force. It has blurred the boundaries between defense, punishment and regime change. It has also encouraged Washington to treat Israeli assessments as the starting point for wider American policy in West Asia.

This approach is strategically dangerous. Every attack presented as necessary to prevent Iranian deterrence strengthens Tehran’s belief that only more powerful deterrence can guarantee its survival. Israel’s doctrine may therefore generate precisely the outcome it claims to prevent: a more militarized Iran, a deeper regional alignment against Israel and a stronger Iranian debate over whether conventional deterrence remains sufficient.

What developments will you be watching most closely over the coming months to determine whether the region is moving toward renewed diplomacy or a more prolonged confrontation?

The most important indicator will be the sequencing of any new ceasefire. Will Washington stop its attacks and remove the blockade before demanding further Iranian concessions, or will it once again use the cessation of violence as leverage over the nuclear question? A genuinely diplomatic process must begin with reciprocal de-escalation, not with the demand that Iran negotiate under bombardment.

I will also be watching the status of the proposed 10-day ceasefire and whether it can lead to the restoration of the Islamabad framework. The continued involvement of Pakistan, Qatar and other regional mediators is positive, but their efforts will be meaningful only if the parties accept binding and verifiable obligations.

A second decisive issue is the Strait of Hormuz. Any sustainable settlement must reconcile international navigation with Iran’s legitimate security interests as a principal coastal state. If Washington insists on imposing maritime arrangements militarily while maintaining a blockade on Iranian ports, renewed confrontation will remain almost inevitable.

Third, Israel’s conduct will be crucial. Even if Tehran and Washington reach another temporary understanding, unilateral Israeli attacks against Iran, Lebanon or other components of the regional resistance front could destroy it. A ceasefire that does not restrain Israel will remain structurally unstable.

Finally, the economic front will be decisive. If attacks continue against ports, energy systems, transportation routes and public services, this will confirm that Washington is pursuing a prolonged war of attrition rather than a diplomatic settlement. Conversely, the suspension of attacks on infrastructure, the release of frozen assets, the restoration of normal trade and serious guarantees against renewed aggression would indicate that diplomacy is regaining primacy.

The fundamental choice is therefore clear. The region can move toward a collective security framework based on sovereignty, reciprocity and international law, or it can remain trapped in a cycle in which every temporary ceasefire merely prepares the ground for the next escalation.

Tags

• Us attack on Iran
• civilian killings
• international law

How human values and national scientific advancement became the driving forces behind Iran?

 By: A.R. Shahani

In recent days, more than forty million people participated in the farewell and funeral ceremonies for the martyred leader of the Revolution, Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei, in just five cities across Iran and Iraq: Tehran, Qom, Mashhad, Najaf, and Karbala. These ceremonies were marked by deep emotions and anti-American and anti-Zionist slogans.

At the same time, similar large-scale public gatherings were held in many other cities in Iran as well as in several other countries, including Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Nigeria, Pakistan, and India, although no official statistics have been released regarding the total number of participants. These events point to one fundamental reality: that the Islamic Revolution of Iran and its martyred leader have established a profound connection with the hearts of people around the world. This article seeks to explain the reasons behind this enduring public support by examining three interrelated themes: the historical foundations of the Islamic Revolution, the leadership of Ayatollah Khamenei, and the central role of science and technological advancement in preserving Iran's independence and confronting with the hegemonic international order.

1. The circumstances of the occurrence of the Islamic Revolution of Iran

The Islamic Revolution of Iran took place at a time when the international system was divided between two competing power blocs: the Western bloc led by the United States and the Eastern bloc led by the Soviet Union.
For centuries, the front of truth had found little opportunity to emerge on the global stage. It was under these circumstances that the Islamic Revolution of Iran, following a massive popular uprising in response to the call of Imam Khomeini, triumphed. The Islamic Revolution represented an independent alternative to both blocs. Inspired by Imam Khomeini's leadership and guided by the slogan "Neither East nor West, but the Islamic Republic," the Revolution sought to establish a political order founded upon two essential pillars: Islam as the ideological and legal framework of the state and popular participation as the foundation for establishing, administering, and safeguarding the political system. In essence, the Revolution was realized on the basis of the Iranian people's profound belief in the Islam of the Prophet Muhammad, Imam Ali, and Imam Husayn.

The first decade following the Revolution, under the leadership of Imam Khomeini, was devoted to laying the foundations of the new political order and introducing and consolidating the values of the Islamic system. The significance of this ten-year period lies in the fact that the Islamic Republic—understood as a system of governance based on the teachings of the Qur'an and the Ahl al-Bayt—was established at a time when no previous model or practical precedent for such a system existed within the prevailing international order. Consequently, the design and institutionalization of this novel model in the modern era stand among Imam Khomeini's most significant and enduring achievements.
Throughout this entire decade, however, the country was confronted with numerous crises and challenges, including the eight-year War of Saddaam’s regime with Iran.

2. The leadership of Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei

Following the death of Imam Khomeini, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei assumed the leadership of the Islamic Republic for the next thirty-seven years. During this period, the collapse of the Soviet Union transformed the international system into a predominantly unipolar order centered on the United States. This made the period particularly challenging for the Islamic Republic of Iran.
This era also coincided with significant technological advances in the West, during which the United States and its Western allies prominently promoted the concept of globalization. According to this perspective, globalization represented an American theoretical framework for consolidating its dominance over the world's peoples and establishing a modern form of hierarchical international order. By taking advantage of modern technology, this project was presented with an attractive appearance intended to appeal to global public opinion. Beneath this appealing image—characterized by the age of communications, closer interaction among nations, and the removal of borders—lay a darker agenda designed to advance hegemonic objectives. These underlying characteristics included:

1.    Undermining the cultural and national identities of peoples.

2.    Weakening the religious and ideological foundations of societies.

3.    Eliminating national boundaries against Western cultural invasion.

4.    Undermining the institution of the family.

5.    Ridiculing enduring moral values through the promotion of homosexuality, consumerism, and individual self-interest.

6.    Weakening the relationship between nations and their governments while fostering dependence on the United States and Western culture.

7.    Reducing population growth through the promotion of permissiveness, homosexuality, and Choosing pets over having children.

In contrast, under the leadership of Ayatollah Khamenei, the Islamic Revolution promoted values such as genuine freedom, morality, spirituality, justice, national independence, rationality, brotherhood, the centrality of the family, and the rejection of oppression and domination. These values are viewed as being rooted in human nature and are therefore regarded as timeless principles that remain meaningful and attractive to people across all over the world and all generations.

Alongside promoting and strengthening these values, the martyred leader placed particular emphasis on science, research, and technological development. In many of his public speeches and also, meetings with government officials, he consistently stressed the importance of scientific advancement and research. His frequent citation of Imam Ali's well-known saying, "Knowledge is power" (al-'ilm sultan), according to which knowledge is the source of authority and whoever lacks knowledge becomes subject to the dominance of others, remains memorable.

He believed that the survival and continuity of the Islamic Revolution, as well as Iran's ability to withstand pressure from the United States and the West, depended upon strengthening the country's scientific, technological, and economic capabilities. The expansion of universities, the development of scientific research, the establishment of the Vice Presidency for Science, Technology and Knowledge-Based Economy, and subsequently the creation of innovation centers, technology parks, and knowledge-based companies were among the outcomes attributed to his leadership. Such a sustained commitment to science, research, and technology, together with his exceptional leadership in strengthening Iran's military and defense capabilities, enabled the country to demonstrate its power during recent wars, particularly during the military confrontation involving the United States and Israel’s attack on Iran. 

When the United States was no longer willing to tolerate Iran's ideological opposition to global arrogance and the globalization project, it launched a direct military attack against Iran. With the support of Israel, NATO, and several Arab countries in the region, the United States allegedly carried out extensive bombardments against Iranian targets and, on the first day of the conflict, the eminent leader of Iran together with several senior military commanders were killed.

Iran did not surrender but instead launched retaliatory operations, targeting American military bases throughout the region as well as military and economic facilities belonging to Israel through missile and drone attacks. The United States attacked Iran with such objectives as compelling Iran's surrender, changing its government, eliminating its leadership, destroying Iranian civilization, partitioning the country, seizing its oil and natural resources, and eliminating its nuclear capabilities. However, the conflict eventually reached a point where the United States, after encountering Iran's military capabilities, suffered a major strategic defeat and subsequently called for a ceasefire and negotiations.

The broader consequences of Iran's resistance and the countries of the so-called "Axis of Resistance" against the United States and Israel—including issues such as Iran’s controlling the Strait of Hormuz, effects on the global economy, and Iran's emergence as the world's fourth superpower—are not the focus of this article. Rather, the purpose of this article is to examine the underlying reasons for the hostility of the United States and the West toward the Islamic Republic of Iran and to address the question of why the United States sought to eliminate Ayatollah Khamenei, who was both a political leader and a respected religious authority among the people of Iran and many Muslims worldwide, and why it failed to achieve the above-mentioned objectives.

In fact, the Islamic Revolution confronted the hegemonic ambitions of the United States by developing both a theoretical framework and a governing system founded upon universal human values rooted in human nature, as discussed earlier. The people of Iran sought only to live freely and independently, to organize their society around divine and human values that all prophets were sent to promote, and to prevent their natural resources, particularly oil, from being exploited by foreign powers.

The assassination of the Supreme Leader prompted Iranians to come out into the streets in a show of national unity. They expressed their anger over the U.S. and Israeli attack and called for a strong Iranian response against the aggressors. For more than four months now, people have gathered every night in the streets of Tehran and other cities across the country, declaring their firm support for the Islamic Republic. Backed by the overwhelming support of the people, the Islamic Revolution harnessed the science and technology it had developed to withstand against aggressors, ultimately overcoming the enemy's assault.

3. The second phase statement of the Islamic Revolution

Forty years after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, when the country had achieved sufficient stability and standing in the international arena, our martyred leader issued the Second Phase Statement of the Islamic Revolution [1]. In this document, after reviewing Iran's historical experience during the Qajar and Pahlavi eras and outlining the achievements of the Islamic Revolution for the country, he presented a vision for Iran's development over the following forty years.

In this statement, the first recommendation he addressed to the Iranian people was the importance of science and research. Even issues and values such as spirituality and morality, economic development, justice and the fight against corruption, independence and freedom, national dignity, foreign relations, the necessity of maintaining clear boundaries with adversaries, and lifestyle were placed after scientific advancement and research in his order of priorities.

The reason, according to the statement, was that preserving all of these values in a world governed by a hegemonic order that tolerates no opposing voice first requires national strength and power, and such strength can only be attained through the acquisition of science and technology based on scientific research. Therefore, while emphasizing the scientific movement that had taken place during the first forty years of the Islamic Revolution, he also stressed the necessity of sustaining and expanding this scientific revolution.

The statement further calls for pushing beyond the frontiers of science in key academic disciplines and regards striving in the fields of science and technology as among the country's most important national endeavor. It was these strategic directives that enabled Iran—once a weak country during the Qajar and Pahlavi dynasties, when foreign powers repeatedly separated parts of its territory—to reach a position in which it not only preserved its territory but also acquired sufficient strength to confront the United States and its allies, inflicting the most significant strategic defeat in American history.

Based on the foregoing discussion, Iran's conflict with the West, led by the United States, is fundamentally both a conflict of values and a scientific and technological confrontation.

Iran holds the upper hand in the battle of values because its principles are rooted in the teachings of Islam—values that, appeal to all free-thinking people because they are consistent with innate human nature. At the same time, having observed Iran's scientific and technological progress despite decades of American and European sanctions following the Islamic Revolution, its adversaries have increasingly sought to undermine the country's scientific and technological foundations. The assassination of scientists and university professors, together with attacks on universities and scientific-research centers, should be viewed in this context, which will remain as enduring and shameful chapters in the history of the United States and the West. 

Tags

• Iran
• Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei
• U.S.

The geography of the strait speaks for itself

 By Mohammad Javad Akhavan

If we look at the map of the physical geography of our beloved country and carefully examine the position of the Strait of Hormuz on it, an important truth becomes evident: the Strait of Hormuz is not merely a waterway, but the natural, submerged continuation of the body of the Iranian Plateau.

Relying on two fundamental characteristics—the convexity (arc) of the coastline toward the interior of Iran and the geological extension of the seabed from the heart of the Zagros mountain range—it becomes clear that this Strait constitutes an inseparable part of the natural domain of the Iranian Plateau, and any other interpretation amounts to disregarding undeniable geographical facts.

The convexity (the northward curvature) of Iran's coastline is more than a natural phenomenon; it is a God-given geometric design embedded in geography that has made Iran's complete mastery over this chokepoint possible. The deepest—and the only navigable—channel for supertankers lies precisely adjacent to the apex of this arc and the Iranian islands of Qeshm, Larak, and Hengam. This means that, in practice, the "vital artery" of maritime traffic flows in the embrace of Iran's geography, and no country can gain access to the Persian Gulf without passing beneath the shadow of this arc.

The aforementioned arc has shaped the Strait into a concave bow, with the strategic islands of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, Qeshm, Larak, Hengam, and Hormuz arranged precisely along the tip of this arrow. These islands, which military experts describe as "unsinkable aircraft carriers," enjoy a 360-degree field of vision and dominance over the shipping route without the need for movement, forming the first line of defense for Iran's maritime borders.

The narrow width of the channel and the existence of shallow sedimentary areas along the edges of the arc place severe limitations on the maneuverability of foreign naval fleets. Under such circumstances, asymmetric tactics such as the "mass deployment of fast attack boats" and the "laying of naval mines" become highly effective, and Iran, relying on its complete knowledge of the seabed, holds the security of this waterway in its hands.

Furthermore, by extending its sphere of surveillance to the port of Jask, east of the Strait, the Islamic Republic of Iran has transformed this arc into a "complete crescent." As a result, the line of defense extends beyond the chokepoint itself, enabling Iran to detect any movement kilometers before vessels enter the Persian Gulf from the Sea of Oman.

Beyond all this, from a geological perspective, the Strait of Hormuz is nothing other than the submerged continuation of the Zagros mountain range and part of the body of the Iranian Plateau. The sedimentary layers and salt domes beneath the Strait correspond entirely in structure to the southern mainland of Iran and originated from the very tectonic processes that shaped the Iranian Plateau itself. Moreover, during the last Ice Age, the Persian Gulf formed part of the dry land of the Iranian Plateau, while the Strait of Hormuz was an ancient valley through which the great rivers—the Karun and the Euphrates—flowed. This historical continuity bears witness to the intrinsic belonging of this seabed to the land of Iran.

Hydrocarbon reserves also speak to this reality. The enormous oil and gas fields beneath the Strait are the natural continuation of the resources found in the southern mainland of Iran, and this economic continuity further affirms the inseparable connection of this expanse with the territory of Iran.

The convexity of the coastal arc and the geological continuation of the seabed are two sides of the same coin, making the Strait of Hormuz an inseparable part of Iran's geographical body. On the one hand, the geometry of the battlefield enables Iran to act as the "gatekeeper" of the Persian Gulf and guarantee the security of this waterway. On the other hand, the natural continuation of the Iranian Plateau beneath the sea fundamentally invalidates any claim that this expanse is separate from the motherland.

In light of these considerations, beyond what colonial powers and maritime empires have written into treaties, the Strait of Hormuz is part of Iran's geographical reality. Indeed, even raising the issue of joint management of the Strait or involving the southern littoral states in its administration runs contrary to the natural geography of the Strait itself. Almighty God created the Strait of Hormuz in such a way that it lies within the depth of the Iranian Plateau and constitutes its natural continuation. It is precisely this geographical structure that gives meaning to its political and legal reality. Relying on these undeniable geographical facts, the Islamic Republic of Iran has always emphasized its full sovereignty over this strategic chokepoint and regards any foreign interference as contrary to the natural and historical realities of the region.

Tags

• Strait of Hormuz
• Iran
• U.S.

Betraying the Islamabad MoU and the world’s hope for peace

 Trump’s treacherous knife in Iran’s back

By Mir Mohammad Alikhan

ISLAMABAD- I stood there in Tehran, amid a sea of millions, my own eyes stinging with tears that refused to fall. As a state guest of Iran for the funeral of the martyred Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, I witnessed something no amount of Western propaganda can erase: a nation united not in defeat, but in unbreakable resolve. This wasn’t just mourning.

This was a resurrection of spirit. And yet, even as those millions poured into the streets, Donald Trump once again stabbed the entire peace-loving world in the back by violating the Islamabad MoU. This isn’t Trump’s first betrayal. It won’t be his last. But the blood on his hands and Netanyahu’s will stain history forever.

Witness to martyrdom – millions united in Tehran

The air in Tehran during those July days of 2026 was thick with grief, yet electric with defiance. I arrived as a state guest to attend the state funeral of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, assassinated in the opening salvos of the US-Israeli war. What I saw shattered every lie peddled by empire’s mouthpieces. Millions upon millions of Iranians—from every corner of the Islamic Republic flooded the streets, beating their chests, chanting slogans of resistance, and carrying portraits of their martyred leader like beacons in the darkness.

These weren’t coerced crowds. These were fathers holding their children’s hands, mothers weeping openly, young people who had never known another Supreme Leader linking arms with elders who remembered the Revolution. The martyrdom of Ayatollah Khamenei didn’t divide Iran it fused its soul. Shia and Sunni, Persian and Kurd, believer and skeptic: all stood shoulder to shoulder. I walked among them, feeling the raw humanity, the unshakeable faith that no cruise missile can bomb away. One elderly woman grabbed my arm, her voice trembling: “They killed our leader, but they birthed a thousand more.” In that moment, I understood resistance isn’t a policy. It’s blood memory.

Delegates from over 30 countries stood with us. Journalists from independent outlets, academics who refused to toe the Zionist line, economists warning of global collapse, diplomats who whispered their solidarity away from cameras. Their presence wasn’t mere protocol. It was a global rejection of American-Israeli gangsterism. I shook hands with men from Malaysia, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, and beyond. We didn’t need speeches. Their eyes said it: Iran stands for dignity. Trump and Netanyahu stand for destruction.

America’s trail of broken promises – from JCPOA to Islamabad

Trump didn’t just violate the Islamabad MoU. He spat on every norm of international decency. The fifth point—(Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements, using its best efforts, for the safe passage of commercial vessels, with no charge for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the needs for removing the technical and military obstacles, and demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.)—lies in tatters because this man cannot resist Israeli whispers.

Sound familiar? He did the exact same thing with the JCPOA, the 2015 nuclear deal that Iran honored to the letter. Iran allowed IAEA inspectors full access. Iran curbed enrichment. Iran kept its word. Trump tore it up on Netanyahu’s say-so, openly admitting the Israeli PM convinced him.

Netanyahu the same liar who’s screamed for 30 years that Iran is “weeks away” from a bomb. The same fraud who peddled the Iraq WMD hoax that cost a million lives. Trump calls this “dealmaking.” The world calls it treason against peace. Iran never betrayed an agreement with America. Not one. America betrays everyone. From the Native Americans to the Vietnamese, from Saddam’s Iraq (once an ally) to Gaddafi’s Libya (disarmed and destroyed), Washington signs papers with one hand and drops bombs with the other.

Endless wars, endless losses – America’s graveyard of empires

Let’s talk cold, hard numbers—the trillions wasted, the young American lives squandered. Since Vietnam, the United States has launched useless war after useless war and lost them all. Vietnam: over 58,000 American dead, millions of Vietnamese slaughtered, and a humiliating withdrawal. Trillions in today’s dollars, flushed away. Iraq: lies about WMDs, $2 trillion-plus, thousands of American soldiers killed, tens of thousands maimed for life—PTSD, lost limbs, broken families. Afghanistan: 20 years, another $2 trillion, Taliban back in power on day one of withdrawal.

And who benefits? Israel. Netanyahu and his predecessors drag America into these meat grinders while Israeli soldiers sip coffee in Tel Aviv. Not one Israeli life lost in these American adventures on their behalf. Zero. Yet thousands of young Americans kids from Ohio, Texas, rural America come home in body bags or wheelchairs. Their blood waters the Zionist project. Their parents receive folded flags. Israel’s lobby gets more aid, more vetoes at the UN, more impunity.

Trump thinks attacking Iran will force submission. Fantasy. Pure delusion spun from the same threads that led to every American defeat. Iran is not Iraq. Iran is not Afghanistan. Iran has strategic depth, allies across the region, and a population forged in fire.

The human cost – soldiers sacrificed for a foreign master

I think of those American boys barely men, sent to die for Netanyahu’s paranoia. Limbs blown off by IEDs in Iraq. Brains scrambled by explosions in Afghanistan. Suicides spiking at home because no one explained why they were really there. Meanwhile, Israeli politicians laugh, demand more, and never send their own sons to the frontlines of America’s wars.

This isn’t alliance. This is vassalage. America as Israel’s attack dog, bleeding treasure and youth while the puppeteer stays safe. Trump, with his “America First” slogan, is the biggest hypocrite. His administration restarts wars that destroy American wallets at the gas pump and American futures in VA hospitals. All for a man who cried wolf on Iranian nukes for decades.

Iran’s righteousness vs. Trump’s global economic sabotage

Iran stands righteous. It honored the JCPOA. It engaged in good faith on the Islamabad MoU. It allowed inspections. It sought peace after its leader was martyred in an illegal strike. Trump? Hell-bent on economic Armageddon at Netanyahu’s behest. Revoking oil waivers, striking ports, threatening escalation these aren’t pressure tactics. These are acts of global sabotage.

If the Houthis close Bab el-Mandeb through which 10-12% of world trade flows—and Iran shuts the Strait of Hormuz carrying 20% of global oil the consequences will be biblical. Oil prices could surge past $200, $300 a barrel. Global recession. American truckers bankrupt. European factories shuttered. Asian economies in freefall. History warns us: the 1973 oil crisis crippled the West. This would be tenfold. Trump doesn’t care. His imagination weaves fantasies of Iranian collapse while the real collapse engulfs the world economy he claims to champion.

I saw this resolve in Tehran. Economists at the funeral sidelines spoke of Iran’s self-reliance, its pivot to BRICS, its refusal to kneel. Academics praised its scientific achievements under sanctions. Journalists documented the hypocrisy of a superpower bullying a sovereign nation.

The path forward – unity against empire’s hubris

As I left Iran, flying out with a heart heavier yet strangely hopeful, I carried the faces of those millions with me. The martyrdom united Iran. The betrayals unite the world against this axis of aggression. From Vietnam’s jungles to Baghdad’s ruins to Tehran’s streets, America’s losses prove one truth: you cannot bomb a people into submission when their cause is just.
Trump and Netanyahu weave diabolical threads, but the fabric tears. Global solidarity grows. Delegations from 30 nations at the funeral were just the beginning. The peace-loving world sees through the lies. Iran never sought war. It seeks dignity. America, under Trump, delivers only destruction and pays the price in blood and treasure.

The Islamabad MoU’s violation is not strength. It is the death rattle of a dying empire, propped up by a parasitic ally. Millions mourned Khamenei. Billions now watch, and resist. The righteous will prevail. History bends toward justice, no matter how many trillions Washington burns or how many lies Netanyahu tells. I saw it in Tehran. The world will see it soon enough.

Tags

• Iran
• U.S.
• memorandum of understanding (MOU)

Regional Arab states unwilling to fully follow US: Chinese scholar

 By Sahar Dadjoo

Jianwei Han says the US wants to maintain hegemony in the Mideast through Israel

TEHRAN - Jianwei Han, an associate professor at the Middle East Studies Institute of Shanghai International Studies University, believes Iran has shown extraordinary resilience against U.S. military pressure, and that the current confrontation marks a watershed moment reshaping the Middle East's strategic landscape.

In an interview with the Tehran Times, she discusses the widening gap between U.S. and Israeli objectives, the sustainability of (Persian) Gulf states' neutrality, the economic fallout from the Strait of Hormuz blockade, and the prospects and limits of China-Iran cooperation under sanctions.

The following is the full text of the interview:

American officials argued that military pressure would weaken Iran. Based on recent developments, has that strategy worked, or has Iran proved more resilient than expected?

I don't think the U.S. assessment is correct. I believe Iran has demonstrated extraordinary resilience in its war against the United States, evident in various aspects such as government operations, wartime organization and mobilization, and public opinion guidance and propaganda, etc.

Do you consider the latest escalation merely another episode in the decades-long U.S.-Iran confrontation, or has it crossed a threshold that fundamentally changes the strategic landscape of the Middle East?

I believe that the recent confrontation between the US and Iran is not merely an episode; it has escalated to a new stage, and the impact on the geopolitical and security landscape of the Middle East is also profound. This war may be a significant watershed for the US influence in the Middle East, and the relationships among regional countries may undergo a remarkable reorganization and reconfiguration.

Only weeks before military operations resumed, diplomatic channels still appeared to be open. Looking back, do you think diplomacy genuinely failed, or was military escalation becoming the preferred option for one or more of the parties involved?

I believe neither the US nor Iran has the intention to launch a full-scale war. However, there is a profound trust deficit between the two sides, making them extremely difficult to reach a truly feasible agreement. This also makes the negotiation merely a means for the two sides to temporarily cease hostilities rather than the ultimate goal. But I think at some point in the future, the two sides will still have to sit down and negotiate. Continuing the war does not serve the interests of either side.

Beyond its impact on oil markets, how would instability on the Strait of Hormuz reshape regional security, global shipping, and the calculations of outside powers?

The long-term blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has had a direct impact on regional security and international shipping. Not only oil, but also fertilizers and some key raw materials cannot be transported normally, causing a severe impact on the global supply chain. At the same time, alternative supply chains around the world are emerging, especially the land routes are accelerating their construction. Although the cost is high, they remain an important alternative solution to deal with the blockade and uncertainties. The blockade may prompt countries outside the region to become more actively involved in mediating the US-Iran conflict. In any case, ending this conflict is truly in the interests of the vast majority of countries.

The Persian Gulf states have attempted to avoid being drawn directly into the conflict despite hosting American military facilities. How sustainable is this balancing strategy if the confrontation continues to intensify?

The (Persian) Gulf Arab countries generally hope to remain neutral in the US-Iran war. However, due to attacks from Iranian missiles and drones, their relations with Iran have also become tense. These countries are not willing to fully follow the US and engage in military confrontation with Iran. But the positions of different countries may vary. Some countries will be more inclined to be tough on Iran, while others will be more moderate. This depends on their own national strength and the closeness of their relations with the US or Israel. I think if Iran does not attack the civilian facilities of these countries in the future, these countries will basically still maintain a neutral stance.

To what extent do you believe Israel's security calculations have influenced the current trajectory of U.S. policy toward Iran? 
The strategic goals of the United States and Israel in the Middle East are not entirely aligned. The United States actually intends to gradually withdraw from the Middle East  and does not want to invest too many resources. However, it also wants to maintain its hegemony in the Middle East through Israel. Israel regards Iran as the greatest threat to its own security and has thus drawn the United States into this war that was originally thought to be winnable quickly. Now the US government has realized that getting embroiled in a long-term war with Iran is not beneficial and is eager to extricate itself and end the war. However, Israel still hopes to fight against Iran to the end and does not want the US to quit. This is the biggest difference between the two sides at present.

Reports indicate that bridges, ports, energy facilities, and other civilian infrastructure have suffered damage during the latest attacks. Beyond the immediate humanitarian consequences, what long-term economic and political effects could this have on Iran and the wider region?

If the war continues to expand, Iran will suffer greater material and economic losses as well as more casualties, exacerbating the domestic shortages of resources, currency depreciation and inflation crisis. This will lead to a serious humanitarian crisis and possibly trigger a severe humanitarian disaster. The war will also cause great psychological trauma to the people. Similarly, neighboring countries will continue to bear the consequences of the spillover effects of the US-Iran war. The infrastructure of the (Persian) Gulf Arab countries will be severely damaged, thereby affecting the economic growth rate, people's lives and investment security of these countries.

Could the latest U.S. attacks accelerate economic, technological, and defense cooperation between Tehran and Beijing?

The US sanctions will bring more challenges to the economic and trade cooperation between China and Iran in the short term. Currently, many Chinese enterprises are unable to operate normally in Iran due to sanctions. The high-tech cooperation between China and Iran is also facing more difficulties. As for the defense cooperation between China and Iran, the challenges may be even greater. China understands and respects Iran's position of safeguarding its national and ethnic interests. However, it also calls on both sides to sit at the negotiation table to solve the problems. China has stated that it will provide assistance and convenience for the negotiations and communication between the two sides.

Tags

• Jianwei Han
• U.S.
• Donald Trump
• Regional Arab states