Iran’s Space Industry Advances Toward New Satellite Era

Pars-2 Earth Observation Nears Launch, 

Shahid Soleimani Constellation Advances

TEHRAN – Iran’s space industry is pressing forward with renewed momentum, as the minister of information and communications technology announces underway plans for the imminent launch of the “Pars 2” satellite and deployment of the “Shahid Soleimani” constellation by the Persian year-end, despite damage inflicted during the recent U.S.-Israeli war of aggression.

Speaking Wednesday at a meeting with experts and managers of the Iranian Space Research Institute, Minister Sattar Hashemi described the space sector as strategically vital, citing its extensive capacities for smart agriculture, water resource management, land management, and data-driven governance. 
Hashemi praised the resilience of Iran’s space infrastructure during wartime conditions, describing the continued operation of satellite services as a significant achievement.
“The continuation of the country’s space activities under difficult conditions is the result of the commitment, expertise, and round-the-clock efforts of colleagues in this field,” Hashemi said.
Hashemi confirmed that “the necessary planning is underway to place the ‘Pars 2’ satellite into orbit.” Pars-2 is an advanced domestically-developed high-precision imaging satellite manufactured by the Iranian Space Agency with the primary mission of Earth observation, remote sensing, and environmental monitoring. The satellite was unveiled last year and is now undergoing final tests ahead of launch.
The minister also stressed that the “Shahid Soleimani” satellite constellation, focusing primarily on telecommunications, will be ready for launch by the end of the current Iranian calendar year (March 2027). Hashemi described the development of satellite constellations, especially in the field of communications satellites, as “among the country’s priorities.”
Hassan Salarieh, head of the Iranian Space Agency, reaffirmed that space projects are continuing at high speed and rejected claims that the industry had been disrupted by wartime conditions.
“The damage inflicted during the Ramadan War does not mean that our space industry has stopped; the country’s space industry is still operating,” Salarieh stressed.
Salarieh emphasized the distributed nature of Iran’s space infrastructure, explaining that the system is not centralized in a way that would allow it to be halted by targeting a single site. He noted that services such as satellite communication, data reception, and imagery remain fully operational even during wartime conditions.
“Some imagined the space industry was crippled, but that’s not reality,” Salarieh said. “The industry is completely distributed, extensive, and based on indigenous knowledge.”
He explained that numerous companies and universities are working across the sector, and the loss of some buildings or equipment does not represent the totality of Iran’s space capacity. “Knowledge and technology in the country are indigenous and in the hands of specialists in this industry,” he added.
Salarieh also confirmed that communications and data reception from national and domestic satellites remain fully operational, with services provided throughout the war.
Mehdi Mokari, head of the Iranian Space Research Institute, confirmed that no key activities have been halted and that satellite services, including those from the Nahid-2 satellite, continue to operate without interruption.
“Nahid-2 is still providing services to government agencies and various industries,” Mokari said. He added that laboratories are being rebuilt to ensure continued development of domestic satellites.
Mokari detailed the immediate post-attack response, explaining that a crisis management center was activated immediately after the incident. “With rapid debris removal, some vital equipment was extracted, repaired, and restored, and currently laboratories 
are being rebuilt so that the process of developing domestic satellites can continue with full strength,” he said.
Looking ahead, Mokari outlined ambitious plans including the Nahid-3 communications satellite, aimed at geostationary orbit at approximately 36,000 kilometers altitude, making it Iran’s first satellite in geostationary orbit, which will provide continuous coverage for military and civilian purposes. 
He also discussed the Pars-3 remote sensing satellite with imaging precision of one meter or better, representing a significant leap in Iran’s Earth observation capabilities, as well as the development of remote sensing satellite constellations.
Hashemi reaffirmed that Iran is actively pursuing two primary strategies to enhance the resilience and growth of its space sector: deepening technological diplomacy with aligned nations and actively integrating the capabilities of the domestic private sector.
“The development of satellite constellations, especially in the field of communications satellites, is among the country’s priorities,” Hashemi said.
The minister further stressed the importance of identifying new markets for space services. He proposed that energy management, resource management, and other national needs could create new demand for space-based solutions, urging that marketing and commercialization receive serious attention alongside technological development.
Hashemi also called for a unified national roadmap for achieving e-government and data-driven governance, emphasizing that specialized space sector entities must play an effective role in this area.
Mokari highlighted the growing practical applications of Iran’s space program, noting that the institute has signed agreements with various organizations including the Geological Survey to utilize satellite imagery for land subsidence monitoring, flood management, desertification assessment, and mineral exploration.
“These agreements demonstrate the expanding peaceful applications of this industry,” Mokari said.
Ahmad Soleimani, in charge of space services development at the institute, provided further analysis of the attack’s implications. He argued that the enemy had underestimated Iran’s technological maturity by targeting a facility focused on public service delivery.
“We have passed the technology acquisition phase and have now reached the application phase,” Soleimani said. 
“Engineering knowledge has been accumulated in the minds of our specialists; therefore, even if physical laboratories are damaged, we are able to resume the production and restoration of subsystems in the shortest possible time, relying on the confidence points created in other centers.”
Soleimani said that Iran’s space industry “has transformed into a knowledge network that is impossible for the enemy to overcome.”

America's paper tiger sunset: How US traded values for vanity and suffered staggering fall

By Ahmad Habibullah

The decline and fall of the American Empire has attracted increasing attention from leading political scientists, strategic thinkers, intellectuals, and academics over the years.

Numerous books and research papers have examined this phenomenon from various perspectives, both directly and indirectly. However, this process of decline can also be understood as a process of shrinking.

Historically, every empire expands during its formative stages in political, economic, military, and cultural dimensions. After reaching its zenith, however, it gradually begins to contract until it eventually fades into the pages of history.

In a metaphorical sense, this shrinking is akin to the long-standing depiction of the United States as a “paper tiger” in print and electronic media as well as in scholarly literature.

The shrinking of any state or empire begins first in the minds of its people, although its rulers and elites may hold a completely different perception. In the case of the United States, this phenomenon is increasingly visible today.

Many intellectuals and ordinary Americans express concern about the country's deteriorating status as a leading global power. On the other hand, segments of the political elite, senior military officials, and the ruling establishment continue to operate under the belief that the United States remains an unchallenged superpower.

The United States was founded upon the principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence, which emphasized freedom, equality, human rights, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, justice, and peace. Over time, however, successive US administrations have gradually distanced themselves from these founding ideals.

This departure has affected not only American citizens but also has had far-reaching consequences for people in numerous other countries, depriving them of these same principles. From this perspective, there has been a continuous and uninterrupted erosion of America's founding values, both domestically and internationally.

Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence refers to God as the “Supreme Judge of the world” and reflects a firm reliance on divine providence by the representatives of the colonies at the time of its adoption. The contemporary US policy has moved away from this foundation and instead places overwhelming reliance on military power.

This shift has manifested itself through armed conflicts, geopolitical interventions, orchestrated wars, coups d'état, resource exploitation, regime-change operations, support for controversial governments, and other actions seen as destabilizing and destructive.

Domestically, policies such as the legalization of abortion, the sale of alcohol, and the recognition of same-sex marriage are evidence of a broader departure from traditional religious values. From this viewpoint, faith in God has gradually been supplanted by a secular-fascist system of governance that relies primarily on military and material power to advance national interests and project influence abroad.

Higher education is another sphere in which the United States has experienced a significant decline. During the 1980s, American universities dominated global rankings, with more than 16 of the world's top 20 universities often located in the United States. For talented students across the globe, studying in America represented the pinnacle of academic aspiration and professional opportunity.

This position has weakened considerably in recent years. This decline can be attributed to factors such as restrictions on academic freedom, heavy-handed responses to campus protests, the use of police force against students and faculty members, increasingly restrictive visa procedures, declining scholarship opportunities, political interference in academic affairs, and the diversion of national resources toward military expenditures. As a result, American universities have gradually lost their standing in global higher education.

According to a recent assessment of global university rankings in 2025, American institutions no longer dominate the world's top positions to the extent they once did. China has surpassed the United States in several indicators of academic and scientific output, including the number of doctoral dissertations, research citations, and patent registrations. Consequently, many outstanding students from around the world are increasingly choosing destinations such as Canada, Australia, Europe, and China for higher education, reflecting what critics see as a broader shift in the global academic landscape.

To maintain its position as a global hegemon and self-appointed world policeman, the United States pursued a range of policies and strategic maneuvers designed to project power and instill fear among governments, political leaders, military establishments, and populations around the world.

There was a time when a message from the US president could compel even powerful governments to comply with Washington's demands. Today, however, that hegemonic influence has significantly diminished and has increasingly been replaced by a willingness among states to challenge, resist, and reject American directives. It has lost much of its former ability to dictate outcomes to smaller nations and enforce its preferences across the international system.

America's foreign policy, particularly its long-standing support for the Zionist regime and its repeated use of the veto power at the United Nations, has contributed to a gradual decline in international support for US positions. On many important global issues, even traditional American allies have become increasingly reluctant to back US-sponsored resolutions, often abstaining on key votes.

In numerous instances, voting outcomes at the UN have highlighted a stark divide between the US and the Zionist regime on one side and a substantial majority of member states on the other. According to this perspective, such developments reflect a shrinking of American diplomatic influence and a weakening of its ability to shape international consensus.

Internal stability is another piece of evidence of American decline. In any developed nation that aspires to global leadership, maintaining a peaceful and secure domestic environment is considered a fundamental responsibility of political leaders and law enforcement institutions. The US faces serious internal challenges in this regard.

The factors that can be cited are high levels of gun violence, mass shootings, violent crime, hate crimes, drug abuse, suicide, and social unrest as indicators of a deteriorating social environment. Rising firearm ownership another reflection of growing public insecurity and declining confidence in public safety.

Furthermore, police brutality, particularly toward minority communities, has generated widespread controversy and sparked repeated nationwide protests on many occasions in recent years. These developments reveal a gradual erosion of social cohesion and public trust. The shrinking of a peaceful and stable environment across both urban and rural America has contributed to recurring episodes of unrest, especially following high-profile incidents involving minority victims.

Technology and innovation, long considered pillars of American strength, are also areas where the United States faces increasing challenges. Silicon Valley was once widely regarded as the unrivaled global center of technological innovation. Over time, however, many manufacturing and technology-related activities were outsourced to countries such as China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and others, contributing to the emergence of powerful new competitors. The staggering collapse of Silicon Valley Bank is a symbolic indication of vulnerabilities within the broader American economic and technological ecosystem.

The technological monopoly once enjoyed by Silicon Valley has weakened considerably as countries such as China have developed advanced capabilities in areas including artificial intelligence, telecommunications, and high-tech manufacturing. New companies and innovation hubs have emerged around the world, challenging American dominance in cutting-edge sectors.

A significant proportion of scientists, researchers, postdoctoral scholars, and faculty members working in American universities and industries during the late twentieth century were immigrants. The increasing political polarization, job insecurity, workplace inequities, restrictive immigration policies, and growing geopolitical tensions have made the United States less attractive to highly skilled international talent.

As a result, many top researchers and technology professionals are increasingly seeking opportunities elsewhere, particularly in China and other rapidly advancing economies. Hence, the US has experienced a gradual decline in its ability to attract and retain world-class technological talent, thereby weakening one of the key foundations of its influence.

The ultimate demonstration of power in international affairs is the ability to compel an adversary to come to the negotiating table during a war, accept one's demands, and safeguard one's strategic interests. The recent war illegally imposed against the Islamic Republic of Iran by the United States and its long-standing ally, the Zionist regime, has instead become a strategic nightmare for Washington.

As a self-proclaimed superpower, the United States entered the war with clearly defined objectives, including “regime change” in Iran and the dismantling of its nuclear program through attacks on key nuclear facilities. However, the US failed to achieve its objectives and was ultimately compelled to halt its aggression in the face of determined resistance by the Iranian nation, especially the Iranian armed forces.

The Iranian people demonstrated remarkable resilience during the war. Through public mobilization and expressions of support for their leadership and armed forces, Iranians helped frustrate expectations that external military pressure would lead to internal collapse or “regime change.” Consequently, what some American politicians and military commentators had envisioned as a pathway to political transformation in Iran instead evolved into a costly and unsuccessful military adventurism.

The US war machine, after suffering substantial military and strategic setbacks, was forced to return to negotiations and moderate its rhetoric toward Iran. This is evidence of a broader decline in American military influence. Despite possessing the world's most advanced military technology, nuclear arsenal, and largest military budget, Washington was ultimately unable to impose its preferred outcome and instead had to accept conditions largely favorable to Tehran in order to bring the imposed war to an end.

History demonstrates that great civilizations and powerful states do not emerge overnight. Rather, they are built over centuries through the hard work of their people and through the pursuit of justice, equality, stability, and responsible governance.

Lasting influence beyond national borders is achieved not through military strength but through moral authority and the promotion of peace and justice. Such states earn respect both from their own citizens and from the international community.

The United States has increasingly departed from these principles, and this departure has accelerated in recent decades. Like many powers before it, the United States is experiencing a fast decline in its moral authority and global standing. Such a decline often begins long before it becomes visible in material terms.

Just as previous empires eventually faded after reaching their peak, the United States will ultimately face a similar historical trajectory.

Future generations will study the United States for its disastrous legacy of military interventions, engineered wars, resource exploitation, and global hegemony.

Dr. Ahmad Habibullah is a faculty member and freelance writer on international politics. He teaches academic leadership and research ethics at a university.

Iran-US MoU codifies Tehran's strategic leverage, cementing its status as regional superpower

By Press TV Strategic Analysis Desk

Military campaigns invariably begin with grand declarations and sweeping promises of decisive victory, yet the final verdict is never written in the heat of battle but only when the guns fall silent and the political terms of peace are laid out.

The signing of the memorandum of understanding (MoU) by the presidents of Iran and the United States early on Thursday has fundamentally altered the strategic landscape of the region. It represents the formal acknowledgment of Iran's strategic victory in a war that was imposed on it, and its definitive emergence as the preeminent regional superpower.

This is no diplomatic compromise born of mutual exhaustion, but rather a document of  American capitulation and a recognition that the Islamic Republic has not only survived the most serious existential threat since its founding but has decisively transformed its position from a sanctioned, isolated state into an indispensable power.

It is undeniable evidence of Iran’s resilience under immense pressure, the durability of its vibrant political system, and its rise as the most influential independent power in the region.

America's war aims: A catalogue of complete failure

The foundational truth of this war lies in the comprehensive failure of the US war machine to achieve any of its declared war objectives. It had confidently spoken of “regime change,” the partition of Iran, and the plundering of Iranian resources, but now finds itself signing an agreement that explicitly acknowledges its inability to deliver on any of these goals.

Washington entered this unprovoked and illegal war at the behest of its Zionist proxy with maximalist goals, which included the destruction of the Islamic Republic system, the fragmentation of Iranian territory, the neutralization of Iran's regional influence, and the dismantling of its indigenous nuclear and missile programs.

Every single one of these objectives failed. The Islamic Republic remains intact, its territorial integrity explicitly recognized in the agreement, its influence over the Resistance Front formally acknowledged, and its nuclear knowledge and missile capabilities undiminished.

This failure is not merely tactical but strategic. The US war machine realized that, despite possessing the world's most powerful military, it could not bring about “regime change” in a nation of Iran's size and resilience. More importantly, it understood that its military power cannot translate into political victory when confronted with a determined adversary possessing asymmetric leverage and overwhelming public support.

This reality alone speaks volumes. The Islamic Republic survived one of the most serious challenges in its history without surrendering its sovereignty, abandoning its strategic posture, or yielding to the enemy’s demands aimed at transforming the nature of the state.

More importantly, desperate attempts to foment internal divisions, activate proxy forces, or facilitate terrorist infiltration into Iranian territory failed to produce meaningful results. The system remains fully functional, national cohesion has been preserved, and Iran’s strategic decision-making apparatus continues to operate effectively.

The recognition of a new regional order

Perhaps the most significant achievement articulated in the 14-point MoU is the formal recognition of Iran's expanded sphere of influence. It acknowledges Iran's political, security, and military influence in the region and an unbreakable bond with the Resistance Front, a validation that no previous American administration would have countenanced.

The inclusion of Lebanon in the ceasefire framework represents a watershed moment. For the first time, the United States has effectively conceded that Iranian influence in Lebanon is a reality that must be accommodated and acknowledged. The linkage of the war's termination to the cessation of hostilities in Lebanon means Washington has accepted Tehran as the guarantor of Lebanese security and the interlocutor for Hezbollah.

This transforms Iran into a recognized regional superpower with formal security responsibilities. Washington, in effect, has finally acknowledged that any regional crises cannot be resolved without Iranian participation and consent.

Also, importantly, rather than disintegrating, the Resistance Front emerged more unified and politically relevant than before the recent imposed war, representing one of the most enduring geopolitical consequences.

Strait of Hormuz: Iran's permanent strategic leverage

Another pillar of the memorandum concerns the Strait of Hormuz, arguably the world’s most important maritime chokepoint. Its provisions regarding this strategic waterway represent perhaps the most effective demonstration of Iran's battlefield victory.

Iran has not merely compelled the United States to lift its illegal naval blockade; it has secured formal recognition of its role in managing the world's most critical energy chokepoint through which 20 percent of the world's crude oil supply transits.

The agreement acknowledges that Iran will coordinate the reopening of the strait, maintaining sovereign regulatory authority and a role in its future management. This is not a return to the pre-war status quo but a fundamental restructuring of maritime governance in the Persian Gulf and preserving it as a powerful deterrent against future threats.

As analysts have noted, the ability to control the Strait has proven more valuable to Iran than its nuclear program as a deterrent. By securing acknowledgment of its role in the management of the Strait, Iran has ensured that any future aggression against it carries a cost that will be felt in boardrooms and households across the globe.

This is asymmetric leverage at its most potent and a guaranteed source of influence that will endure regardless of the outcome of future negotiations.

The inversion of the nuclear dynamic

Perhaps the most brilliant strategic maneuver in Iran's playbook has been the inversion of the nuclear issue. For years, the nuclear file served as the primary pressure point against Iran, the axis around which illegal and unjust sanctions were constructed and international scrutiny organized. This MoU has fundamentally altered this dynamic.

By linking nuclear negotiations to the implementation of ceasefire provisions, Iran has transformed the nuclear issue from a weapon of pressure into a bargaining chip of its own making.

The MoU explicitly conditions nuclear talks on the fulfillment of American commitments, including Israeli military withdrawal from Lebanon and the release of Iranian frozen assets. This means Washington cannot obtain nuclear concessions without first demonstrating good faith on issues of immediate strategic concern to Tehran.

More significantly, the agreement explicitly acknowledges the option of Iran moving toward nuclear weapons in the event of American non-compliance. This is a departure from decades of diplomatic euphemism, embedding in an official document the understanding that Iran's nuclear program serves as a deterrent that can be reactivated if the deal breaks down.

In strategic affairs, deterrence often depends less on actions than on perceptions. By expanding the range of possible responses available to Tehran, the memorandum signed on Thursday strengthens Iran’s long-term negotiating position.

The economic dimension: Sanctions neutralized

The economic provisions of the MoU constitute a remarkable reversal of fortune for Iran.

The suspension of illegal oil sanctions, the release of billions in frozen assets, and the commitment to secure substantial investment in Iran's reconstruction represent not merely sanctions relief but sanctions neutralization.

If fully and earnestly implemented, these measures could unlock significant economic opportunities and facilitate long-term development in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

For decades, sanctions were designed to isolate Iran economically, restrict access to global markets, and limit the country’s ability to generate revenue from its energy sector.

The United States has now conceded that its economic warfare against the Islamic Republic failed. The blockade of Iranian oil exports, the freezing of assets, and the attempt to economically strangle the Islamic Republic have all been abandoned in favor of diplomacy.

More tellingly, Washington has committed to facilitating reconstruction investment totaling hundreds of billions of dollars, a clear admission that Iran's infrastructure damage should be repaired at least partly with American support.

This is, in every sense, the acknowledgment of a defeated party that its economic tools proved insufficient to compel Iranian capitulation after a full-scale military aggression.

The regional implications: Israel's isolation

The MoU has profoundly altered Israel's strategic position in the region. For years, the genocidal child-murdering regime had sought to shape American policy toward Iran and the Resistance Front, advocating for unlawful military action and “regime change.”

The memorandum, which came nearly 110 days after the failed US-Israeli military gamble, represents a decisive rejection of that approach, with the United States effectively prioritizing strategic stability and economic considerations over Israeli demands.

Israel's continued military aggression and occupation in Lebanon now stand in direct opposition to the framework established by its closest ally and benefactor.

The growing public friction between Washington and Tel Aviv over Lebanon is not merely a diplomatic disagreement but a fundamental divergence in strategic priorities. The US has signaled that it values an end to the war with Iran more than Israeli objectives in Lebanon.

This has accelerated the emergence of a new regional balance of power in which Iran serves as an anchor state. The Persian Gulf states, recognizing this reality, have engaged in quiet diplomatic outreach to Tehran in recent weeks, acknowledging that their security interests are better served through accommodation than confrontation.

The Israeli agenda of a regional axis against Iran – through the failed “normalization” gimmick – has effectively collapsed in the past three months.

At the same time, the MoU and its embedded provisions signal a deeper realignment in the regional balance of power, tilting decisively in Iran's favor, while heralding the terminal decline of the Zionist settler-colonial project.

The enforcement architecture: A test of American credibility

Iran has constructed an enforcement architecture that demonstrates its understanding of American unreliability, given the bitter past experiences. The step-by-step structure of the deal, conditioning Iranian commitments on phased American implementation, provides Tehran with multiple exit points should Washington violate its pledges.

Unlike arrangements requiring unilateral compliance, the memorandum ties Iranian commitments directly to corresponding actions by the United States. This framework reflects lessons learned from previous diplomatic experiences and seeks to ensure that commitments are implemented gradually and reciprocally.

The phased approach gives Iran leverage throughout the process while preserving the ability to respond to violations or breaches through a range of strategic instruments.

The Strait of Hormuz remains Iran's ultimate enforcement mechanism. Any American breach of commitments can be met with restrictions on vessel transit, ensuring that violations carry costs beyond the bilateral relationship. Military response options are explicitly reserved, signaling that Iran will not absorb attacks as "minor infractions" as it has in the past.

This is the structure of an agreement imposed by a victor on a defeated party that cannot be trusted to honor its obligations. The asymmetry of enforcement mechanisms – Iran retains multiple tools to pressure the United States while Washington has effectively abandoned its coercive instruments – tells the story of the outcome of the third imposed war.

 The rise of the regional superpower

The MoU marks a watershed moment in the region’s history. Iran not merely survived a full-scale war of aggression imposed by two nuclear powers, but emerged from it with its strategic position enhanced, its regional role recognized, and its deterrent capabilities acknowledged by both friends and foes.

The United States, by contrast, suffered a strategic defeat of significant proportions. Its military power, economic leverage, and diplomatic influence proved insufficient to achieve any of its objectives. The agreement represents not a negotiated settlement but a recognition of that failure and an acknowledgment that the Islamic Republic has become too powerful to be overthrown and too important to be isolated.

For Iran, the MoU consolidates its status as a regional superpower capable of defending its interests against the world's superpower. The Islamic Republic demonstrated that strategic sophistication and asymmetric leverage can defeat an enemy with technological superiority and conventional military might.

Having said that, this MoU itself does not guarantee peace. It establishes a framework that will be tested in the coming months. But the fundamental reality is that Iran has won.

It has secured formal recognition of its expanded sphere of influence, enhanced its leverage over global energy markets, neutralized the economic warfare against it, and demonstrated that it is an indispensable actor in any regional arrangement.

Karbala Key to the Iranian Nation’s Victories

By: Kayhan Int’l

The month of mourning softens our hearts, moistens our eyes, and enlightens our minds with discourses of the greatest ever tragedy to have ever afflicted any person or group.

Muharram in which our beloved martyred leader of the Islamic Revolution is to be laid to rest, freshens up our memories every year regarding the heroic stand of Imam Husain (AS), who refused to give his hand in allegiance to a tyrant, by preferring the glory of martyrdom to an abject life under an oppressive and corrupt system. 

Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei as a devoted disciple of Martyr of Karbala preferred to drink the elixir of martyrdom rather than seek the safety of bunker when all indications pointed out that the devilish US-Israel duo intended to attack Iran any time.

From the heroic path blazed by the Grandson of Prophet Muhammad (SAWA) the Iranian people stand united and has defeated the combined might of the US and the illegal Zionist entity.

Thanks to the Majalis-e Aza or mourning ceremonies, where the faithful gather in great number to listen to, and participate in, the marsiya of elegiac poetry, noha or lamentation, matam or the rhythmical beating of chests in mourning, every year our spirit is rejuvenated.

These dynamic ceremonies have ensured that successive generations continue to commemorate the world’s most heartrending tragedy so as to practically implement its lessons in daily life.

This is indeed the key to our success in the wars on the battlefields and the talks at the diplomatic tables, where our devilish enemies, although defeated, are ever intent to deceive us, rather than manly deal with us.

No wonder, Muharram and its life-inspiring rituals transcend geography, political boundaries, economic sanctions, and historical developments, to triumph over the forces of Yazid in every age and place.

These ceremonies have generated revolutions, shattered empires, and ushered in technological transformations, to the extent that not just Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain, and the Indo-Pak Subcontinent, the message of Karbala resonates all over the world.

Trump, Netanyahu, and other dastardly devils have no future like Yazid are destined for the fires of hell.

The memory of Imam Husain (AS) thus serves as a perpetual reminder that power must never prevail over justice and that moral courage sometimes demands sacrifice. 

Architecture of endurance: Understanding Iran's defense doctrine beyond Western spin

By Iqbal Jassat

Led by the Israeli regime and Zionist allied "think tanks", Western political leaders, military planners and media institutions have portrayed Iran as an "irrational actor" driven by ideological extremism and regional aggression. 

This deceptive narrative has served a strategic purpose by obscuring a more uncomfortable reality: Iran's military doctrine is not built around conquest, expansion or conventional battlefield dominance, but around survival.

Absent from much of the public discourse is the fact that Iran's entire military structure evolved in response to isolation, sanctions, encirclement and repeated threats of "regime change."

Following Iran's historic 1979 Islamic Revolution, which overthrew a Western puppet and was followed by a devastating Western-imposed war by Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime on Iran, Tehran concluded that it could not compete directly with the overwhelming technological superiority of the US and its allies.

The result was the development of a defense doctrine focused on deterrence, endurance and resilience rather than conventional superiority.

What is routinely presented as aggression is often the visible component of a much broader strategy designed to impose costs on any adversary contemplating aggression. The objective is to make any act of military aggression so costly, prolonged and disruptive that political leaders in Washington or Tel Aviv reconsider the value of war itself.

While Western militaries often seek rapid, decisive victories through technological superiority and overwhelming firepower, Iran seeks to stretch war over time. The longer a war continues, the greater the financial, political and social burden imposed on its adversaries. Iranian strategists calculate that democratic societies have lower tolerance for prolonged military and economic pain than Iran itself does.

This explains its enormous investment in missiles and drones.

The logic is simple. A relatively inexpensive drone can force an adversary to expend interceptor missiles costing many times more. The objective is not merely military damage but economic exhaustion. Every interception becomes a financial drain.

Every wave of drones becomes a test of sustainability. The battlefield extends beyond military installations into budgets, supply chains and political patience.

This approach exposes a vulnerability rarely discussed in mainstream coverage. Advanced military technology often comes with extraordinary costs. Iran's strategy seeks to weaponise that imbalance.

Another element routinely omitted from public discussion is the extent to which Iran has redefined the battlefield itself.

Through support for Hezbollah, Iraqi Resistance, the Ansarullah and Palestinian liberation movements Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Iran has developed what it describes as an Axis of Resistance. Western governments portray these relationships exclusively through the language of proxy warfare. Yet from Tehran's perspective, they represent strategic depth.

A war against the Islamic Republic of Iran can thus no longer be confined to a single battlefield. It immediately and automatically becomes regional.

The beneficiaries of narratives that reduce these dynamics to simple "terrorism frameworks" are clear. Such framing eliminates historical context and removes discussion of broader regional security calculations. It simplifies a sophisticated deterrence architecture into a morality play that is easier to sell to domestic audiences.

Perhaps the most significant and least understood component of Iran's doctrine is its decentralized command structure.

For decades, Western and Israeli military planning has relied heavily on leadership decapitation strategies. The assumption is straightforward. Removing key commanders and military organizations makes them ineffective.

Iran spent years studying the failures of Saddam Hussein's military during the 2003 US invasion of Iraq and concluded that centralized command structures were fatal vulnerabilities. The result was the development of the mosaic defense doctrine.

Under this model, Iran is divided into multiple semi-autonomous regional commands capable of functioning independently if central leadership is affected. Each command possesses local intelligence capabilities, logistics infrastructure and operational authority. If communications collapse or senior leaders are martyred, regional commanders are expected to continue fighting under preplanned directives.

If one commander is martyred, another immediately assumes responsibility. The objective is simple: ensure that the military never stops functioning.

Iran's military doctrine also treats geography as an active component of warfare.

Its mountainous terrain provides natural defensive barriers. Vast distances complicate any ground invasion. Underground missile complexes carved deep into mountains preserve critical assets from aerial bombardment.

Most importantly, the Strait of Hormuz gives it leverage over one of the world's most important energy chokepoints.

Western reporting frequently focuses on missile inventories and military hardware while giving far less attention to the strategic reality that geography itself remains one of Iran's most powerful deterrents.

The ability to influence global energy markets transforms regional war into an international economic crisis. This expands the political costs of war far beyond the immediate participants.

Then comes the element or information dissemination. Iran knows the importance of correct messaging. The United States, NATO members, Israel, Russia and China all engage in similar information operations. Yet mainstream discussion often presents Western strategic communication as public diplomacy while framing Iranian messaging as propaganda.

The most important lesson from Iran's military doctrine is that it was never designed to produce traditional military victory. Its purpose is deterrence and evidently has proven to be successful, as we observe in how both the US and Israel have been pushed into a corner.

Iran's military planners have built a system designed to survive bombardment, absorb leadership losses, stretch wars over time and impose escalating economic and political costs on aggressors.

This reality is frequently absent from public debate because it complicates prevailing narratives of "irrationality and aggression". It reveals a military doctrine shaped less by ambitions of conquest than by calculations of survival.

The evidence demonstrates that Iran's strategic focus is not battlefield dominance but endurance.

Iqbal Jassat is an executive member of the Media Review Network, Johannesburg, South Africa.