Marandi warns Israel: The rules of war have just changed.

• uncut-news.ch 9 June 2026.uncutnews-ch/warnt-israel-die-regeln-des-krieges-haben-sich-gerade-veraendert

In an interview, Seyed Mohammad Marandi presents a image of a region where a dramatic change in strategical rules has occurred. His main message is that Iran no longer waits until Israel, the United States or their regional allies establish the facts on the ground. Tehran is now in a fresh war phase – and This fresh phase is no longer just about Iran itself, but besides about Lebanon, Hezbollah, Yemen and the Axis of Resistance.

Marandi starts with fresh night events in the Persian Gulf. respective tankers attempted to cross the Straits of Ormuz without Iran's permission. They were warned, but they didn't react. 1 of the tankers was then hit by an Iranian missile, then the remaining ships turned around. Later, the United States attacked a communications tower on the island of Keshm and then a port in Sirik. The Iranian consequence was aimed at U.S. facilities in Kuwait and Bahrain, and Marandi believes that the 5th U.S. Fleet in Bahrain was besides hit.

For Marandi, it is crucial that the US and Western media systematically distort the situation. Washington has since the beginning of the war claimed that Iranian rockets and drones have been intercepted or have done no harm. According to Marani, it's propaganda. Iran precisely hits its targets, and the United States is only trying to hide its own losses and the defencelessness of its bases.

Marandi is peculiarly critical of Western media reports that They claim that the United States secretly carried dozens of ships from the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Ormuz. He finds this version pure fiction. If 40 or 70 ships did actually cross the strait, media specified as the “New York Times” or “Wall Street Journal” could name them. Since that did not happen, he considers that this claim is part of a intellectual operation to calm oil prices and commodity markets.

The conclusion is clear: so far, the US has not succeeded in removing ships from the Gulf without Iran's approval. all effort will neglect until Tehran allows it. And all American attack will face Iran's sharper reaction.

Iran has a stronger military position present than before the war. The number of modern missiles has increased, and older missiles are sometimes intentionally fired to empty supplies and make area for newer systems. Drone capabilities have besides increased, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Iran is working on greater precision, better capability to penetrate air defence systems and further improvement of its underground rocket bases.

Marandi besides points to an crucial tactical element: lures. The United States and Israel bombed thousands of Iranian decoys while wasting billions. Chinese lures are seemingly so effective that Western forces barely separate them from real targets. For Marandi it is simply a signal that Iran sucks out not only militaryly but besides psychologically and economically.

In his opinion, the next phase of escalation will be achieved much faster than before. Iran will not respond slow next time, but will rapidly advance on the escalation ladder. The same applies to his regional allies, especially Yemen. Yemeni forces utilized periods of peace to grow their rocket and drone capabilities. Yemen will play a much greater function in another major conflict.

At the same time, Marandi believes that Donald Trump does not presently want a direct military escalation. It indicates that the United States did not respond further after fresh Iranian retaliatory attacks. Trump became more cautious – both in his rhetoric and military actions on the spot. However, Marandi remains skeptical: it is not clear whether this restraint will persist due to the fact that the situation in Lebanon could at any time become a fresh catalyst.

That's the point of this conversation.

Marandi sees Lebanon as a fresh key front. Israel killed a high-ranking Lebanese general and 2 of his comrades – just after the Lebanese president took a stand against Iran and the opposition movement. For Marandi, this incidental shows the weakness and humiliation of Lebanese leaders. They went to political concessions with Israel, had direct talks and opposed Tehran—and in return only received further Israeli attacks.

His criticism of the current leadership of Lebanon is brutal. The president and Prime Minister are little curious in protecting Lebanon than Iran itself. They were appointed by abroad powers, do not have a broad political background and act as attorneys for Washington and the Gulf Regional monarchy.

It is peculiarly serious to accuse Marandi that the Lebanese authorities are preventing Shiite refugees from fleeing the opposition zones to another parts of the country. Western embassies, Western NGOs, Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and their local allies allegedly cooperate to keep opposition supporters in circumstantial areas. Assistance from Iran and Iraq is blocked – not in the form of military aid, but in the form of humanitarian aid. According to Marandi, it aims to break the morale of the opposition circles.

This is 1 of the most serious accusations in this conversation: opposition opponents in Lebanon wanted not only to weaken Hezbollah, but besides to humiliate, isolate and starve his social base.

Marandi so refers to Lebanese authorities as collaborators. He claims that they acted against the Constitution, conducting direct talks with Israel and effectively encouraging the Israeli side to break the ceasefire. Iran, on the another hand, allegedly tried to force the ceasefire and the Israeli troops to withdraw.

This reveals a fresh strategical reality: Iran is not ready to accept an agreement excluding Lebanon. According to him, the United States would be willing to end the war if Iran left Lebanon. But Tehran refused. Iran says: There is no agreement without Lebanon.

Marandi so simply denies the claim that Iran is utilizing Hezbollah as leverage. To him, it is rather the opposite: Iran could make an agreement easier by sacrificing Lebanon. The fact that Tehran does not do so proves that Hezbollah and Lebanon are not simply tactical cards in the game, but integral elements of Iran's strategical safety architecture.

The key point of the discussion is: For the first time since the Iranian Revolution, Tehran openly says that the attack on Lebanon or Hezbollah will trigger Iran's reaction.

According to Marandi, this is simply a historical change.

So far there has been a rule: if Israel attacks Iran, Iran will answer.

The fresh expression is now: If Israel attacks Lebanon, Iran will besides be able to respond.

According to Marandi, Tehran changed the rules that way. Lebanon is no longer just a local battlefield between Israel and Hezbollah. It becomes part of the regional doctrine of deterrence. Israel is to realize that attacks on Beirut, confederate Lebanon or opposition structures will not stay unpunished by Iran.

Marandi connects this improvement with Syria. He claims that Iran did not act out of sympathy for Bashar al-Assad, but due to the fact that the overthrow of Syria was part of an operation led by the CIA, authorized by Obama and supported by Western intelligence agencies, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and thousands of abroad militants. The aim, he claims, was to destruct Syria, break down Axis of opposition and strategical strengthening Israel.

For Marandi, the war against Syria was not an interior uprising, but an imperial war under the cloak of sectarianism. Those who justified it with spiritual or sectarian reasons yet acted in the interests of Israel. The fact that Netanyahu considered the demolition of Syria a success confirms this analysis.

Marandi argues that the fresh Syrian reality now leads to the closure of the border with Lebanon, which weakens Hezbollah. At the same time, erstwhile supporters of the war in Syria in the West are silent due to the fact that they know that their erstwhile function has contributed to the current weakening of the resistance.

Marandi then extends its analysis to the full region. The United States has utilized their regional allies against Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. The Gulf States provided US bases during the Yemen bombing. They besides played a function erstwhile Israel attacked Iran with the full support of the Americans. Without the United States, Israel would not have survived even 12 days.

From this it comes to a simple conclusion: anyone who believes that the authorities of Lebanon or the Persian Gulf regimes operate independently is naive. They are part of a regional structure utilized by the US and NATO in the interests of Israel.

Marandi's main informing appears at the end: Iran changed the rules.

Israel can no longer automatically treat Lebanon as an isolated battlefield. The United States can no longer presume that their bases in the Persian Gulf are untouchable. The Gulf Monarchies can no longer be certain that their cooperation with Washington will stay without consequences. The Lebanese authorities can no longer claim that they defend national interests, since, according to Marandi, they actually support the goals of Israel and America.

Whether we agree with Marandi or not, his message is geopolitical.

Iran signals that it is expanding its regional deterrent measures. Lebanon becomes a litmus paper. If Israel exacerbates the situation, Tehran can respond with retaliation. And if Washington intervenes, the conflict can spread from the Persian Gulf through Bahrain, Kuwait and Yemen to the east Mediterranean.

Marandi's message to Israel is clear:

The old order in which Israel attacked and others only protested ended.

The fresh order is as follows: Whoever attacks Lebanon risks Iran's reaction.