Strategic reasoning of Iran

by Thierry Meyssan

The muslim Republic of Iran has been shaping its view and concept of strategical action from the very beginning. The fresh war Israel and the United States waged led her to coordinate the armed forces and diplomacy. Military successes allowed her to consider how to prosecute revolutionary goals while protecting her population.

Voltaire Network | Paris (France) |16 June 2026.

عرب

Imam Khomeini's idea

1. Imam Ruhollah Khomeini was not an expert in global relations. Nevertheless, he realized that Britain and the United States were conventional opponents of Iran. He besides saw Israel as an Anglo-Saxon facility in the mediate East [ 1 I'm sorry.

2. In the face of the Iraq War, imposed by the West, he was appalled by the usage of missiles fired towards Iranian cities from which chemical weapons were released. He felt that his country should never go to the usage of weapons of mass destruction, specified as this, or even atomic weapons. In 1988, erstwhile the war had already lasted for a decade and triumph was inevitable, he issued a fatwa ordering the abolition of a military atomic program inherited from chess and France. It was a hard decision that further prolonged the war.

This fatwa was accepted by Ayatollah Ali Chamenei. It seems naive to me that the muslim Revolutionary defender Corps – this heavy indoctrinated body – would be willing to break it or even let another Iranians to break it.

3. Chomeini's 3rd position was that defending the unity of Islam (Ummy) had precedence over any victory. He made a pact on non-aggression with Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. He met him in 1938 and made a pact with him in 1947 [ 2 However, both men never shared the same imagination of Islam and since 1949 the Brotherhood has become a secret society, partially controlled by the British.

Iran presently maintains relations with the Muslim Brotherhood and invites its members to its yearly Lady-Slam Conventions, but at the same time Tehran fights against organizations specified as Al-Qaida and the muslim State, whose leaders were or are members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In 2005, president Mahmud Ahmadinejad initiated the industrialization of his country, which has so far been based almost exclusively on oil revenue. He then launched a comprehensive technological program to master fusion. Its aim was to revive the anti-imperialist revolution of the imam Khomeini by developing a origin of energy that would put an end to the dominance of oil companies and liberated developing countries. This task was never full implemented due to the fact that Israel murdered leading scientists in this field in Iran.

Right of defence against the attacks and liberation of occupied states

The war launched by Israel and the United States on 28 February 2026 provoked Iran to make strategical decisions. incapable to respond to the United States, 10,000 kilometres away, the Iranian Revolutionary defender attacked US military bases in the Gulf. The United States was amazed at the far-reaching consequences of these actions: without regional bases, the aggressor was defenseless. To proceed the offensive, he had to operate with Diego Garcia (Mauritius) and Germany.

In support of their position, diplomats indicated that global law recognises the legality of their actions. They reiterated UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) and confirmed that the right to defy aggression besides includes states with abroad military bases utilized for aggression [ 3 I'm sorry.

Some of these countries, specified as the United arabian Emirates, have been bypassing the US blockade for almost 50 years (which the West mistakenly called “sanctions”) and were allies of Iran. All Western strategists thought it was unthinkable that Iran would attack its own allies. However, the Revolutionary defender has decided to attack its own allies to show that the United States does not defend them but even endanger them.

Iranian diplomats reminded their arabian neighbors that under global law they are required to ban the usage of their bases for acts of aggression; otherwise they would become accomplices to aggression.

Arab political elites, especially those in the Persian Gulf, stay influenced by erstwhile colonial powers. They frequently admire it. The United arabian Emirates did not gain independency until 1971. Until then, they were part of the British Empire and subordinate to the British Indians.

Iran's attacks struck like lightning:
(1) The United States, the leading military power of the Cold War, was incapable to defend themselves against them;

(2) The United Nations was besides incapable to defend it, as Resolution 2817 (of 11 March 2026) infringe global law;

(3) The Persian Gulf states were so susceptible due to the fact that no of them had a crucial army (the armies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar are mainly made up of abroad fighters).

Faithful to the teachings of the Imam of the Chomeini Watch Tower Revolution, they directed their attacks both to destabilise arabian societies in the Persian Gulf and to encourage their countries to separate themselves from the Anglo-Saxons.

Control of the Ormuz Strait and liberation of abroad banks under the supervision of the Ministry of Finance

The first country to take this step was the Sultanate of Oman. Although it did not have US bases, it closed its airspace for the US Air Force and its territorial waters for U.S. Navy ships.

Recognizing the panic this caused among Western shipping companies, the Revolutionary defender realized that control of the Strait of Ormuz would let them to attack the economy of the West, which for half a century supported the Anglo-Saxon blockade of Iran. Iranian diplomats one more time rushed Iran with help, stressing that global law permits the closure of the strait, but not all, but only the aggressors.

The Revolutionary defender so decided to ban ships flying the Anglo-Saxon flag or chartered by Anglo-Saxon companies from passing through the Strait. Diplomats replied that global law does not let to charge for tolls through the strait, but allows bordering countries to take precautions to defend the environment. For example, Iran and Oman could jointly require tankers to supply disaster guarantees specified as the Amoco Cadiz disaster.

With the creation of the 1st May Persian Gulf Strait Administration (PGSA), not even waiting for the approval of Oman, the United States Revolutionary defender made the Gulf War a scene for its anti-imperialist revolution. To flow through the strait, Western powers must deposit funds in Iranian banks that are returned to them after they have sailed. Problem: The Anglo-Saxon siege of Iran is besides carried out through the SWIFT banking system. All Western banks committed to the U.S. Treasury Department not to trade with Iran under the threat of astronomical penalties. For example, BNP Paribas, who traded with Iran and Cuba, was late sentenced to a fine of $9 billion. So no western bank will break the Anglo-Saxon siege of Iran... unless, of course, shipping companies are going to force political decision-makers to free themselves from the Anglo-Saxon yoke.

The problem of the Ormuz Strait does not so concern the introduction of a road charge – which never existed – but the submission of the United States allies to the abroad Accounts taxation Disclosure Act (FATCA); the submission of this bill makes them partners of the United States.

It should be remembered that the West as a civilization developed in the mediate Ages on the basis of the Catholic Church's condemnation of military sieges and that the Church inactive opposes the sieges of Cuba, Iran and North Korea.

In addition, Iran urged Ansar Allah to close the Bab el-Mandab Strait for aggressor ships. According to the army of this Yemeni group, Israeli and American ships may be the mark of the attack. However, so far these threats have not been realised.

ceasefire in Lebanon and disconnect Washington from Tel Aviv

While the question of the co-participation of Western powers remains unresolved in Anglo-Saxon capitals, The Iranians were amazed that the United States, which agreed on 11 April in Islamabad to the rule of ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon, had not responded to Israel's actions in Lebanon, despite president Trump announcing a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon on 16 April [ 4 The Iranians began to worry about the relation between Washington and Tel Aviv.

One 3rd of them believed that the United States and Israel were pursuing the same goal as hegemony, but different means. Another 3rd thought that they shared the roles of a "good and bad cop" and the another 3rd thought that Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanjah no longer shared the same opinion.

Either way, they all decided to effort to separate the 2 nations. They declared that the resumption of the battles in Lebanon was contrary to the first agreements with Islamabad and thus to the ceasefire. Consequently, they threatened to resume the bombings of the judaic state. The president of the United States, for whom support for Israel is simply a historical and unnegotiable issue, was incapable to accomplish peace in the Persian Gulf due to the actions of Benjamin Netanyahu in Lebanon.

He first forced peace negotiations between Israel and Lebanon in Washington. The talks began in the presence of Elbridge Colby, Deputy Secretary of defence and the main strategist of the American attack on Iran. The Israelis demanded the complete demilitarisation of Hezbollah, while the Lebanese government, which shared this objective, demanded first of all the implementation of "mechanism" (i.e. ceasefire of 27 November 2024).

However, in 1948 the arabian states declared war on the State of Israel erstwhile David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel, ignoring the alleged “Palestinian Division Plan” of the United Nations.

The Lebanese armed forces under Emir Magid Arslane achieved respective victories, but Britain, rushing with the aid of the judaic community in Palestine (Jishuw), sent the Jordanian army under General John Bagot Glub (known as ‘Glubb Pasha’) and his British officers to repel the Arabs. This Arab-Israeli war is falsely portrayed by the West as Israel's victory, while in fact it was a British victory.

Nevertheless, in 1965, the League of arabian States decided to break all contact with the self-appointed State of Israel. Lebanon subsequently passed a law prohibiting Lebanese citizens from entering into any agreements—financial, cultural or intellectual—or any another relation with Israeli institutions or individuals. It provides for a punishment of between 3 and 10 years of forced labour and a fine of between 5000 and 40,000 Lebanese pounds for each perpetrator.
In addition, Articles 273, 275 and 285 of the Criminal Code criminalize any "contacts with the enemy" and supply for the death penalty.

Nevertheless, the delegations of both countries met in Washington, although the Lebanese Parliament did not waive this law.

As the next circular of illegal negotiations between Lebanon and Israel began on May 29, the Israelis resumed the attacks, forcing civilians to flee and bombing its homes. This offensive ended with the capture of the "Beau Fort" Crusader castle on May 31. The Guardians of the Revolution recognized that Israel was only negotiating to gain time, and resumed the bombing of the judaic state.

President Trump initially threatened Iran with serious consequences, but then stepped down. He forced Israel to cease the war and accepted Iran's main demands. Iran has just broken relations between Washington and Tel Aviv, creating a hierarchical alternatively than a coordinated relationship.

Thierry Meyssan Translation Werner Leuthäusser