By Ivan Kesic
Centered on the formidable capabilities of Iran’s indigenous missile arsenal, which was on full display during the imposed war, Nasirzadeh's remarks came on the occasion of the country's Defense Industry Day.
He articulated a clear military doctrine — one of strategic deterrence, forged through self-reliance amid Western sanctions, and vowed a strong response that is “deadly, surprising, painful, and beyond calculation,” if the enemy resorts to further military adventurism.
The minister’s account of the 12-day war, which began with the unprovoked Israeli aggression on June 13, pictured a country subjected to a coordinated onslaught.
He described a “combination of military and terrorist operations” launched by the Zionist regime against the Islamic Republic with full-fledged backing from the United States and other Western and regional powers.
This initial offensive, aimed at assassinating senior military commanders and nuclear scientists to cripple Iran’s defense structure, proved counterproductive and ignited a calculated missile response that reshaped the course of the war.
Battlefield as a proving ground
At the core of Nasirzadeh's remarks lay the performance of Iran’s missile systems, which he presented as the decisive factor that tilted the balance in Iran's favor during the war.
To underscore their effectiveness, he provided precise and calculated metrics.
Initially, he noted, approximately 60 percent of Iranian missiles penetrated the enemy’s layered air defenses—a coalition equipped with some of the most advanced American systems, including THAAD and Patriot, as well as Israel’s David’s Sling and Arrow.
This penetration rate, already significant against such sophisticated air defense systems, surged to 90 percent in the final hours of the war, pushing the regime on the back foot and forcing it to seek a ceasefire.
According to the minister, this was no accident. It was the product of a process unfolding in the heat of the all-out war — a war imposed on the Islamic Republic.
For the first time, Iran deployed newly developed missile systems, specifically the Fattah, Sejjil, and Kheibar Shekan models. The introduction of these platforms, combined with the accumulated experience of Iran’s armed forces gradually changed the scene and the equation of the battle.
His account portrayed a military that learns and adapts in real-time, transforming combat itself into a proving ground to refine tools and tactics with devastating precision.
Nasirzadeh also emphasized the discipline and accuracy of Iranian strikes. In stark contrast to the enemy’s deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure and residential areas, he asserted that nearly 150 Iranian missile targets were exclusively military and intelligence-based: air bases, command-and-control centers in Beersheba, the Mossad headquarters, and the ministry of the military affairs in the occupied territories.
The precision of these strikes, he maintained, was reflected in the estimated $12–20 billion in damages and the substantial military casualties, figures he cited as proof of highly effective hits on high-value targets.
Strategic message of Al-Udeid
The most striking demonstration of Iran’s calculated military doctrine was its response to direct American involvement in the Israeli aggression against the Islamic Republic.
When the US attacked Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities, Tehran faced a critical strategic decision. Nasirzadeh emphasized that, despite possessing a “large bank of targets” across the region, the Islamic Republic exercised deliberate restraint to prevent a wider regional escalation.
This restraint, however, was not a retreat. It was a precise, calibrated display of power.
Iran launched a limited strike — 14 missiles — against one of the largest and most symbolic American bases in the region: Al-Udeid in Qatar. The message was unmistakable.
According to Nasirzadeh, although the US president initially downplayed the impact, it “gradually became clear that the pinpoint missiles had completely destroyed several radar installations.”
This was not an attempt to ignite a broader war with a dying superpower. Rather, it was a surgical show of force, designed to demonstrate capability and resolve, directly prompting ceasefire requests through regional intermediaries.
A warning of enhanced capabilities
Nasirzadeh's remarks presented a clear deterrent against any future aggression. In a chilling warning, he revealed that the missiles used in the recent war were, in fact, manufactured years ago.
“Today,” he declared, “we have produced and possess missiles with far greater capabilities than those previously deployed.”
This assertion forms a central pillar of Iran’s deterrent strategy, signaling that the 90 percent penetration rate and destructive power witnessed by the adversary represented only a preview, not the full extent of Iran’s missile arsenal.
The promise that these advanced missiles “will be used in response to the enemy’s potential adventurism” transforms the threat from mere retaliation into a commitment to qualitative escalation.
The enemy’s already vulnerable defense systems would face a new generation of technology, specifically designed to overwhelm and neutralize them entirely.
Doctrine of endogenous deterrence
Nasirzadeh’s statements articulated a cohesive and formidable military doctrine of the Islamic Republic. Iran’s missile power is presented not as a tool of offensive aggression, but as the guarantor of national sovereignty, born out of necessity and forged under more than 46 years of sanctions, which compelled the nation to develop fully indigenous defense industries.
These missiles embody a broader philosophy of “endogenous security,” resilience, and stability and represent the hard power that underpins Iran’s soft power message of regional peace, security, and multilateral cooperation through organizations such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
Yet the willingness to engage diplomatically is anchored by an ironclad guarantee: military coercion against Iran is obsolete.
The doctrine conveys a dual message to adversaries. First, any attack will provoke a response that is precise, devastating, and technologically superior to any intelligence prediction. Second, and more fundamentally, the era in which external powers could dictate terms to Iran through overwhelming force is long over.
As Nasirzadeh emphasized, any future “adventurism and evil” will be met with a response that is not merely proportional, but “beyond calculation,” delivered by a new generation of missiles, poised in their silos, awaiting the command to launch.
No comments:
Post a Comment