Exporting The Islamic Revolution In The Next Phase Of Regional Conflict

Waseem Shehzad

For much of its post-1979 history, the Islamic Republic of Iran has framed its foreign policy through the dual necessities of Islamic commitment and strategic survival. This approach was recognized by the notorious American war criminal Henry Kissinger, who once accurately pointed out, Iran is not just a state; it is also a cause. Just like the US itself is not simply a nation-state, but a global driver of militant liberalism and cut-throat capitalism.

Central to Iran’s framework of balancing ideals and pragmatism was the concept of exporting the Islamic Revolution—an approach that sought to empower mustad‘afin (the oppressed) and challenge western-imposed despotic regimes across the Muslim world.

Yet over the past 25 years, Tehran effectively placed this policy on pause, adopting instead a posture of strategic pragmatism. This recalibration prioritized engagement with existing regimes, including those structurally aligned with the United States, in the belief that coexistence, co-option, and gradual influence would yield greater long-term prosperity for the Muslim Ummah.

While this strategic pause was based on the Islamic principle of Husnu Zann, it rested on a flawed assumption: that western-backed regimes in the Arab and broader Muslim world could be politically reformed or even brought into a more balanced relationship with Iran.

It should also be noted that despite what the western propaganda claims, the Islamic leadership of Iran does not impose its vision on other societies. Tehran opted for exporting the Islamic model of governance only to those willing to import it. Unfortunately, because most Muslim societies understand Islam only through a ritualistic lens, they were not ready to import Islam in its totality.

The US-Israeli aggression against Iran exposed the limits of Iran’s pause approach. When push came to shove, the western-backed despotic regimes demonstrated their structural dependency on western security architectures, directly and indirectly aligning against Iran. Thus, this outcome is a moment of strategic clarity for Tehran—one that necessitates a fundamental recalibration of how it understands and operationalizes the export of its Islamic revolutionary ethos. The ongoing phase of the regional war provides a unique opportunity for Iran to rally the Muslim street behind it.

---

From Revolutionary Zeal to Strategic Restraint

In the immediate aftermath of the Islamic Revolution, Iran’s leadership articulated a foreign policy rooted in ideological expansion. Exporting the revolution was not merely rhetorical; it involved support for Islamic movements, cultivation of transnational networks, and an explicit rejection of western hegemony in the Muslim world. This posture positioned Iran as both a state actor and an Islamic civilizational project, seeking to reshape political consciousness across the Muslim Ummah.

By the mid-2000s, a combination of internal and external pressures led to a gradual pause. The US invasions of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) placed American military forces on Iran’s eastern and western borders. Simultaneously, tightening sanctions regimes—particularly after 2010—exerted economic pressure. However, these were not the key factors in pausing the export of the revolution. The primary issue was the successful use of the sectarian card against Iran by the US and Israel.

These constraints incentivized a more cautious approach. Rather than actively promoting revolutionary change, Tehran pursued what can be described as strategic patience—engaging diplomatically with regional governments, avoiding direct confrontation, and seeking to stabilize its immediate environment. This was evident in Iran’s outreach to Gulf states at various points, as well as its participation in multilateral negotiations culminating in the 2015 nuclear agreement.

The Logic of Co-option and Strategic Miscalculation

At the heart of Iran’s strategic pause was a belief in the possibility of co-opting adversarial regimes. The logic was straightforward: sustained engagement, economic interdependence, and regional dialogue could gradually reduce hostility and create space for a more balanced regional order. This approach implicitly assumed that Arabian regimes, even if aligned with the US, retained a degree of strategic autonomy that could be leveraged.

Yet this assumption underestimated the depth of structural alignment between these regimes and western powers. Many Arab regimes are deeply embedded within US-led security architectures, relying on American military aid, intelligence cooperation, and political backing for survival.

By extending the benefit of the doubt to these regimes, Iran engaged in what can now be seen as a miscalculation. It overestimated its ability to reshape regional dynamics through diplomacy while underestimated the lack of agency and corrupt nature of the western backed dictatorships in the Arab world.

The Stress Test: Regional Confrontation and Alignment

The recent phase of confrontation involving Iran, the US and Israel has functioned as a decisive stress test for Tehran’s pragmatic approach. Faced with direct and indirect aggression, Iran was compelled to activate its regional deterrence networks, engaging in calibrated responses designed to impose significant costs to western backed regional dictatorships.

Crucially, this confrontation revealed the true positioning of Arab regimes. Despite years of diplomatic outreach and attempts at de-escalation, these regimes either supported or facilitated US-Israeli aggression—whether through intelligence sharing, logistical cooperation, or political alignment in international forums.

This outcome underscores a key reality: regime interests in these states are structurally tied to the preservation of a western-dominated regional order. Their primary concern is regime survival, which is underwritten by external support rather than domestic legitimacy. As such, expecting them to adopt a neutral or balanced stance in a confrontation involving Iran was unrealistic.

Strategic Failure and the Limits of Pragmatism

The failure of Iran’s strategic pause can be traced to three interrelated factors:

1. Misreading Regime Incentives
   Iran assumed that shared regional interests—such as stability and economic development—could override ideological and security alignments. In reality, these regimes prioritize alignment with the US as a guarantee of their survival.
2. Overestimating Diplomatic Leverage
   While Iran achieved notable successes in diplomacy, including the nuclear agreement, these gains did not translate into a fundamental shift in regional power structures.
3. Underestimating Structural Dependency
   The depth of military, economic, and political dependence of Arab regimes and the US proved to be non-reformable.

The net result is a strategic contradiction: Iran exercised restraint and pursued engagement yet faced the same adversarial alignment when the US and Israel attacked it. This suggests that pragmatism, in this context, did not produce the intended strategic dividends.

Toward Strategic Recalibration: Returning to the People

The current moment demands a reassessment of Iran’s approach to exporting its revolutionary ethos. However, this does not imply copying the Lebanese or Iraqi models Iran implemented there. Each locality requires a specific approach.

The current situation calls for an updated strategy that prioritizes organic societal movements over regime-level engagement.

Such an approach will likely involve:

• Strengthening ties with grassroots organizations and civil society actors across the Muslim world
• Supporting movements that challenge authoritarian governance and external dependency
• Leveraging media, education, and cultural outreach to shape public consciousness

This bottom-up strategy offers several advantages. First, it aligns with the original spirit of the Islamic Revolution, which emphasized empowerment of the oppressed rather than accommodation with ruling elites. Second, it creates a more resilient network of influence that is less susceptible to sudden shifts in regime policy. Third, it enhances Iran’s ability to withstand future confrontations by ensuring broader regional support at the societal level.

Insulating Against Future Schemes

It is increasingly evident that the current round of hostilities is unlikely to be the last. The structural drivers of conflict between Iran, the US, and Israel remain firmly in place, including competing visions of regional order.

In this context, Iran’s long-term security will depend on its ability to build a multi-layered offensive deterrence architecture that extends beyond military capabilities. While its advancements in missile technology and asymmetric warfare have enhanced its defensive posture, these tools must be complemented by a robust network of societal alliances.

By actively investing in relationships with the people rather than regimes, Iran can create a form of strategic depth that complicates adversarial planning and reduces the effectiveness of external pressure. This approach does not eliminate the risk of conflict, but it does reshape the battlefield in Iran’s favor on a much deeper level.

Conclusion: From Illusion to Clarity

The past two decades of Iranian foreign policy reflect a balance between ideological aspiration and strategic pragmatism. The decision to pause the export of the Islamic Revolution was rooted in a rational assessment of immediate constraints. However, it was also predicated on assumptions that have now been decisively challenged.

The recent alignment of Arab regimes with US-Israeli aggression has stripped away any remaining illusions about the potential for regime-level co-option. What remains is a stark reality: Iran’s security cannot be entrusted to the goodwill or neutrality of regimes whose survival depends on its adversaries.

Strategic recalibration is therefore not a choice but a necessity. By returning to a people-centered approach—one that engages with the organic forces of change within Muslim societies—Iran can realign its foreign policy with both its ideological foundations and geopolitical realities.

In doing so, it may not only insulate itself from future conflicts but also revive the transformative potential that once defined its revolutionary project.

Islamic Republic of IranIslamic Revolution

Resilience And Global Viability Of The Islamic Revolution

Muslim Mahmood

The Islamic Revolution is often mistakenly viewed as a localized historical event confined to the borders of Iran. However, a deeper analysis reveals that it is a universal, repeatable process driven by a profound intellectual shift and a global political consensus.

After nearly half a century of existence, its continued survival in the face of intense external aggression is not a sign of unviability, but rather a testament to the resilience of an ideology rooted in what is described as the “divine paradigm.”

Intellectual Foundations of the Movement

The core of revolution’s viability lies in a preceding “intellectual revolution.” This process involves a fundamental revision of how Muslims understand their history and destiny. It moves away from a stagnant, frozen theology toward a dynamic science of movement and achievement.

By using the life-example of the Prophet (ﷺ) as a “goal achieving system” rather than a mere collection of historical facts, the movement gains the ability to generate new political and social theories. This intellectual shift allows the revolution to transcend the limitations of the post-colonial order, enabling Muslims to regain control over their historical direction.

Resilience through Regenerative Power

A critical distinction must be made between structural power and regenerative power. Structural power—the physical institutions, bureaucracies, and administrative systems of a state—is inherently destructible. In contrast, real power is found in the values of faith, piety, and commitment.

This regenerative power allows a movement to recover from defeat and overcome overwhelming technological disparities. The history of modern struggles in regions like Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Somalia serves as evidence that faith-driven movements can successfully defy superpowers.

The resilience of the Iranian people is a manifestation of this power, suggesting that the Islamic Revolution is sustainable because its strength is not purely material, but rooted in the unwavering commitment of the masses.

Convergence of Global Political Thought

The global viability of this revolutionary model is further supported by a growing convergence of political thought across the Muslim world. Historically divided along sectarian lines, Sunni and Shi’i political perspectives are increasingly aligning on the essential need for a single, pious leader to guide the community. This convergence views the concept of the guardianship of the jurist not as a sectarian quirk, but as a functional equivalent to the classical khilafat. This shared political mindset creates a “global political consensus” that transcends national, racial, and linguistic boundaries.

By rejecting the western-imposed nation-state model, which is often viewed as a tool for neo-colonialism, the movement seeks a total transformation of the global order.

A Model for Replicability

The 1979 Islamic revolution is best understood as a “point in time” where forces of change converged, rather than an isolated phenomenon. It serves as an “open university” for the global Ummah, providing a blueprint for the “next Islamic Revolution and the one after that.”

While the Iranian state initially relied on old administrative structures, the theory of the revolution emphasizes that future Islamic states must move toward modest, low-cost systems that reflect the simplicity and justice of the early Islamic era. This process of change is not always sudden; it often moves through “partial revolutions” and interim movements that build the necessary experience and leadership for a total transformation.

Relevance in a Rapidly Evolving World

In the contemporary world characterized by shifting global hegemonies and moral uncertainty, the Islamic Revolution offers an alternative civilization based on justice and piety. Its viability is not measured by its acceptance by the west, but by its ability to provide a moral structure for its people. The strategic resourcefulness displayed in leadership transitions and the continued defiance of external hegemony indicate that the revolution is not only feasible but increasingly relevant.

As the global Islamic movement continues to mature, it aims to dismantle the legacy of colonialism and establish a new world order that prioritizes divine values over secular consumerism and exploitation.

· What are the specific stages of an Islamic Revolution? · How does Dr Kalim Siddiqui define the role of muttaqi leadership? · Why is an intellectual revolution necessary before a political one?

The Resilience and Global Viability of the Islamic Revolution

The provided texts explore the evolution and global potential of Islamic political movements, primarily through the framework of Dr. Kalim Siddiqui’s scholarship and the historical example of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. These sources argue that a fundamental intellectual revolution is necessary to move beyond stagnant theology and neo-colonial structures to reclaim Muslim destiny. The literature emphasizes that the Sirah and Sunnah of the Prophet serve as timeless paradigms for generating modern political power and social transformation.

Current global pressures, such as western hostility and the failure of secular nation-states, are seen as catalysts driving a global consensus toward total revolutionary change. Despite internal sectarian barriers and external aggression from western powers, the texts maintain that the Islamic movement remains a resilient and sustainable force. Ultimately, the author view the Iranian experience as a viable precursor to a broader, international revival of the Islamic State.

· How can the Prophet’s life serve as a modern political model? · What defines the ‘intellectual revolution’ needed for global Islamic change? · Why is the current nation-state system considered incompatible with Islam?

The provided text examines the enduring legacy and global viability of Iran’s Islamic Revolution nearly five decades after its inception. Despite facing significant external pressures and geopolitical aggression, the author argues that the movement remains a potent ideological force in the modern era. The narrative highlights the populace’s resilience and the government’s ability to seamlessly transition leadership as evidence of its systemic stability.

Furthermore, it explores the potential for these revolutionary principles to be exported and implemented successfully in other international contexts. Ultimately, the source asserts that the revolution’s ability to survive suggests it is a sustainable model for those pursuing social and political justice. What core principles make the Islamic Revolution’s ideology sustainable today? How can the Iranian model be applied to other regions? What role does leadership play in the revolution’s ongoing resilience?

Islamic Republic of Iran

War On Iran, War On the Ummah: Power, Resistance, And Betrayal

Firoz Osman

War today is not confined to a single battlefield. It is being waged across multiple fronts of the Muslim world: Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, and now Iran.

These are not isolated conflicts, but interconnected theatres within a broader geopolitical struggle for power, resources, and ideological dominance.

To understand the present escalation against Iran, one must situate it within a longer historical arc defined by intervention, resistance, and the contest over sovereignty in the Muslim world.

1979: The Turning Point

The modern phase of confrontation with Iran began with the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The revolution overthrew the Shah, a monarch whose rule had been secured through foreign intervention. In 1953, a CIA-backed coup removed Mohammad Mossadegh after he nationalized Iran’s oil industry, previously dominated by British interests. Reinsated in power, the Shah ruled through repression, enforced by the SAVAK—his feared security apparatus known for widespread torture and brutality.

Resistance to this regime grew steadily until it culminated in the Islamic revolution. On February 11, 1979, the Islamic Republic was declared, fundamentally altering the regional balance of power.

Iran and Palestine: Ideology and Alignment

The Islamic revolution immediately signaled a shift in foreign policy priorities.

Within days, Iran handed over the former Israeli embassy in Tehran to the Palestine Liberation Organization. Yasser Arafat became the first foreign leader to visit post-revolution Iran, symbolizing a new strategic alignment.

Later that year, Imam Ruhollah Khomeini declared Al-Quds Day an annual global mobilization on the last Friday of Ramadan dedicated to the liberation of Al Quds (Jerusalem).

Iran’s support for Palestine was not framed as optional diplomacy, but as a religious and ideological obligation rooted in the defense of the oppressed.

Why the west felt Threatened by the Revolution

The Islamic Revolution represented more than regime change; it disrupted the architecture of western influence in the region.

The Shah had been a critical ally, ensuring:

• Western access to oil resources

• Regional stability favorable to western interests

• Strategic alignment with Israel

With his removal, the United States, Britain, and Israel lost a central pillar of their regional order.

Two strategic imperatives, control over energy resources and the protection of Israel, have long shaped western policy in West Asia (ak the Middle East). The emergence of a defiant, independent Iran challenged both.

Containment: Sanctions and Isolation

In response, Iran was subjected to sustained economic and political pressure.

For decades, sanctions have been used as a tool to weaken the Islamic Republic, limit its influence, and undermine internal support for its revolutionary model.

This pattern extends beyond Iran. Any state that challenges dominant global structures risks economic strangulation or military confrontation.

Palestine: Siege and Resistance

While Iran faced sanctions, Palestine endured siege.

For nearly two decades, Gaza has been blockaded, its population confined, monitored, and economically suffocated. Despite these conditions, Palestinian resistance movements developed extensive underground networks, enabling them to organize, train, and sustain their struggle.

Support from Iran, alongside coordination with groups such as Hizbullah, contributed to the evolution of this المقاومة (resistance) infrastructure.

Arab Normalization and Strategic Betrayal

Parallel to Palestinian suffering, several Arabian regimes moved toward normalization with zionist Israel.

Countries including Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan established or strengthened ties with Israel—prioritizing regime stability, economic cooperation, and security guarantees.

This shift reflected a broader calculation: survival of ruling elites over solidarity with Palestine.

Reliance on western military protection, particularly through US bases in the Gulf, reinforced this alignment.

October 7: A Strategic Shock

On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a daring large-scale attack on Israel, an operation it called Tufan al-Aqsa (Al-Aqsa Flood).

The operation disrupted long-standing assumptions about Israeli military invulnerability and triggered a regional escalation. It also reactivated a network of allied groups, including:

• Hizbullah in Lebanon

• Ansarullah (Houthis) in Yemen

• Armed factions in Iraq

This constellation, often described as the “axis of resistance,” demonstrated coordinated, multi-front pressure against Israel and its allies.

Why Iran Supports Palestine

Although Palestine is not explicitly named in Iran’s constitution, the leadership in Iran grounds its support in broad principles:

• Defense of the oppressed

• Opposition to injustice

• Commitment to Muslim unity

Article 152 of Iran’s constitution frames foreign policy around these ideals, providing the basis for its consistent pro-Palestinian stance.

Leadership, Sacrifice and Narrative Power

The resistance narrative is reinforced through figures regarded as martyrs, including:

Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, General Qassem Solaimani, Ismail Haniyeh, Yahya Sinwar, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, Imam Ali Khamanei and Ali Larijani.

These figures are presented not merely as leaders, but as symbols of resistance.

Narratives of sacrifice such as accounts of Sinwar fighting until his final moments serve to strengthen morale and legitimize ongoing struggle.

Leadership and Moral Authority

Accounts attributed to figures like Imam Ali Khamenei emphasize a model of leadership rooted in shared risk and moral consistency.

The idea is simple but powerful:

A leader cannot call for sacrifice while avoiding it himself.

This framing draws deeply from Islamic historical memory particularly the legacy of Imam Husain where steadfastness in the face of overwhelming odds is seen as the highest form of integrity.

Al-Quds Day: Meaning and Mobilization

Al-Quds Day functions as more than a symbolic event. It is:

• A tool of political mobilization

• A reaffirmation of ideological commitment

• A global expression of solidarity

It connects local struggles to a broader تصور (vision) of unity within the ummah.

War, Power, and the Future

The current confrontation with Iran cannot be reduced to a single issue. It reflects deeper structural tensions:

• Between independence and external control

• Between المقاومة (resistance) and normalization

• Between ideological commitment and political expediency

For its supporters, Iran represents defiance against a global order perceived as unjust. For its adversaries, it represents a destabilizing force that must be contained.

What remains clear is that the conflicts across Palestine, Iran, and the wider region are not isolated. They are interconnected expressions of a larger struggle, one that will continue to shape the political and moral landscape of the Muslim world.

***************************************************

Dr. Firoz Osman, Executive Member, Media Review Network, Johannesburg, South Africa

US imperialismZionist IsraelIslamic Republic of Iran

Trump indulged in lies and hype to pacify Americans angry about the war

Crescent International

Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu: Two war criminals who belong in prison for the crimes they have committed against innocent people.

Donald Trump’s much-hyped speech (April 01) turned out to be a rehash of the nonsense he has uttered ever since he returned to the White House in January 2025.

Here are some salient points of his speech:

1: No nuclear weapons for Iran; they are a threat to the US and Israel;

2: Iranian proxies were responsible for bombing the marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon;

3: He even blamed Iran for attack on the USS Cole of October 2000 in Aden, Yemen. It was carried out by al-Qaeda;

4: He alleged “45,000 Iranian protesters” were killed in December 2025 – January 2026.

How he came up with this fantastic figure when an estimated 3,000 people were killed, we do not know. The vast majority were killed by US-Zionist agents.

5: He boasted about killing General ‘Solomany’. He admitted committing a war crime.

6: He also boasted about terminating Barack Obama’s horrible deal (JCPOA 2015); and gave $1.7 billion to Iran;

7: They would have had a nuclear weapon with Obama’s deal but “I stopped them”;

8: We totally obliterated their nuclear sites;

9: Iran has developed conventional missiles; they would soon have had missiles that would threaten the US; we took them all out;

10: Again, Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb; for years people said so, but only I took action;

11: Iran’s navy has been obliterated; its air force is gone; missiles are just about gone or about to be gone. One wonders how Iran is able to fire drones and missiles at US military bases in the region and at Zionist Israel every day, including today (April 01).

12: While claiming the US armed forces have performed tremendously well, he again said, no nuclear weapons for Iran;

13: We are going to finish the job, without defining what the job is.

14: Thanked allies in the Middle East: Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar;

15: In trying to assure the American public, he claimed gas price hikes are because of Iran (he referred to it as the “terrorist regime”) attacking tankers but will be “short term”.

16: This, Trump claimed had nothing to do with the war. Gas prices will come down once the war is over. How that will occur, he did not explain.

17: I have built the best US economy ever;

18: Again, no nuclear weapons for Iran;

19: Under my leadership, we are the #1 oil producer in the world. We are also getting oil from Venezuela;

The US produces more oil than Saudi Arabia and Russia combined;

20: We have completely decimated Iran, militarily and economically;

21: Those who get oil from the Persian Gulf, should go and open the Stait of Hormuz; we will help;

22: They should develop some courage; and also buy oil from us;

23: When the war is over, Hormuz will automatically open; prices will come down. How this will happen was not explained.

24: Our economy is strong and will come roaring back;

25: Operation Epic Fury will achieve all of our military objectives, we will hit them very hard;

26: Regime change was not our objective but has occurred; The new leaders are much more “moderate”.

27: If there is no deal, will hit all of their electric generating plants. This constitutes a war crime. We have not hit their oil facilities;

28: Their radars are obliterated;

29: Their nuclear sites are so badly damaged, it will take them years to recover;

30: In trying to mollify people’s concerns about the war that nearly 75 percent of Americans oppose, he drew comparison with the first and second world wars, the Vietnam and Korean wars that lasted for years. This one has only lasted for 32 days and will end in 2-3 weeks. How that would occur, he did not say.

31: The war, he claimed, is an “investment in your and your children’s future”. Again, he did not explain how that was the case.

32: Every American can look forward to a nuclear-free Iran, the world is watching;

33: When it’s all over, we would have achieved our objectives.

What precisely are those objectives, Trump did not say apart from repeating in every second sentence that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.

If Iran wanted nuclear weapons, it would have had them by now.

A day before his live televised broadcast, Trump had indulged in his typical incoherent rant with the New York Post.

He told the paper that he believes the Iran war is likely to end soon and that other nations can reopen the Strait of Hormuz without US military action.

This was meant to assure a jittery stock market, leading to its rally and optimism that elevated fuel costs will drop.

“We’re not going to be there too much longer.”

So here you have it; the most nonsensical speech from an American president who lies every time he opens his mouth.

Donald TrumpUS war crimeszionist war crimesIslamic Republic of IranStrait of Hormuz

Iran downs two advanced US jets, including second F-35

Iranian forces shot down two more advanced US fighter jets today, including second F-35, while simultaneously obliterating a secret hideout of American pilots in the UAE as part of the expanding 'Operation True Promise 4'.

The operations are part of Iran's swift and massive retaliation against the unprovoked aerial aggression launched by the US and Israel on February 28, which came some eight months after their previous attacks on the country.

In a statement on Friday, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) said that its newly developed and advanced air defenses had shot down a stealth F-35 fighter jet in central Iran.

The downed aircraft belonged to the Lakenheath squadron, it said, adding that the fighter jet was completely destroyed and crashed.

Due to the complete disintegration of the aircraft, the fate of the pilot remains unknown, it noted.

Earlier on Friday, the IRGC announced that another advanced enemy fighter jet was targeted by air defense systems south of Qeshm Island.

The advanced aircraft subsequently crashed between Hengam and Qeshm islands, plummeting "into the depths of the ever-Persian Gulf."

The downing was a direct rebuke to recent rhetoric from Washington. The IRGC noted that Donald Trump had previously claimed that US forces had destroyed Iran's air defenses.

"Following the false claim of the liar US President regarding the complete destruction of the IRGC's air defense, moments ago an advanced enemy fighter jet was hit in the south of Qeshm Island by the modern advanced air defense system of the IRGC Navy, under the control of the country's integrated air defense network," the IRGC statement read.

These interceptions adds to a growing list of staggering aviation losses for the US military. On March 11, the IRGC successfully hit a US Air Force F-35 stealth fighter jet in central Iran's airspace.

While US media later confirmed that an F-35 made an emergency landing at a US airbase in West Asia due to what was believed to be Iranian fire, a subsequent report by NPR noted that the heavily damaged aircraft would not be able to resume operations anytime soon.

Furthermore, the US military has confirmed the loss of three US F-15s and one KC-135 tanker during the ongoing war. The Pentagon has continuously attempted to cover up these catastrophic losses, portraying the downings as "friendly fire" or "accidents."

Recently, the US military even announced the fall of an F-35 in Nevada, an announcement that military experts widely view as a desperate cover story for the loss of stealth fighter jets in the war with Iran.

Strikes on US assets and pilot hideouts

Since dawn today, the IRGC Navy has continued the 91st wave of Operation True Promise 4, according to a statement by the force's public relations

During this phase, military and infrastructure targets belonging to US-Zionist terrorists in the southern countries of the Persian Gulf were heavily attacked with a massive barrage of ballistic missiles, Qadir cruise missiles, and suicide drones.

In a strike in the North Indian Ocean, the aggressor American Abraham Lincoln strike group was targeted with four Qadr 380 cruise missiles, said the statement.

The second wave of this intelligence and offensive operation delivered a devastating blow to US personnel. Using precision-guided ballistic missiles, the IRGC directly hit a secret gathering place and hideout of American flight engineers and fighter pilots outside an enemy base in the United Arab Emirates.

According to the IRGC, field reports and extensive ambulance traffic at the site indicate a massive number of dead and wounded American personnel.

In the next phase, Iranian forces launched a heavy assault against a US "MQ1" drone unit stationed at the Ali Al Salem airbase.

Massive strike on Israeli-occupied territories

Simultaneously, the devastating wave of attacks extended deep into the occupied territories. Troop deployments, military-industrial companies, and support equipment of the Zionist regime in western Tel Aviv and the port of Eilat were targeted and completely destroyed, said the IRGC.

These strikes were carried out using long-range liquid and solid-fuel, as well as super-heavy missile systems.

This phase of Wave 91 was conducted by the IRGC Aerospace Force, alongside Yemeni armed forces, according to the IRGC.

The sound of massive and consecutive explosions echoing through the center and heart of the occupied lands forced more than five million settlers to flee to underground shelters.

According to the IRGC, this sheer scale of panic and destruction has "stripped the Zionist intelligence agencies of the ability to censor and distort the realities of the battlefield."

The IRGC noted that the continuous, combined, and comprehensive operations of this wave against Zionist targets and American bases in the region are actively ongoing.