Decoding Mohsen Rezaei's Message: Is the War Ending or Entering a Harder Phase?
Mohsen Rezaei's remarks on the Iran-US confrontation and the proposal to form an economic war council suggest a possible shift into a new phase of conflict, one in which political deadlock, military constraints and intensified sanctions make Iran's readiness for a prolonged, multilayered war a strategic issue.
Ambassador Arjan - Political Group: The recent statements of Mohsen Rezaei, the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, in a conversation with Press TV, about the situation of confrontation between Iran and the United States and the investigation of the formation of the "Economic War Council", beyond an organizational proposal, provide a picture of Tehran's view of the current situation and future scenarios; The situation in which the political path has faced a relative deadlock, the use of military tools for America is facing increasing restrictions and costs, and the possibility of intensifying economic pressure through sanctions and naval blockade has increased. In such a situation, it seems that the main issue for Iran is how to maintain resilience against a conflict that will not end even with the cessation of military conflicts.
relative political deadlock; When offers are not agreed upon
In recent weeks, an important part of the developments between Iran and the United States was centered around the exchange of mutual proposals and the possibility of reaching an agreement. However, Donald Trump clearly stated that he does not accept Iran's proposal, and Mohsen Rezaei, on October 11, considered America's response to Tehran's seven-pronged proposal to be insufficient. He announced that some of Iran's conditions have been accepted by Washington, but there is still uncertainty about other parts and Tehran is no longer responding to the Americans.
This situation shows that the exchange of proposals has not been able to solve the fundamental differences between the two sides. Of course, the relative stalemate in the political path does not necessarily mean the end of diplomacy, but it increases the possibility of the continuation of confrontation; Especially if the two sides continue to insist on terms that will have a political and strategic cost for the other side.
From Tehran's point of view, the issue is no longer whether an agreement will be reached, but if an agreement is not reached, to what extent the confrontation will continue and how the country should be prepared for it. Rezaei's statements can be evaluated in this framework as an attempt to outline the current situation and describe the means of facing the upcoming scenarios.
military paradox; A power that should be turned into a political achievement
In the military aspect, one of the basic questions about America's strategy is that the continuation or intensification of military operations by the United States is supposed to achieve what new achievements for this country? If the aim of the attacks was to force Iran to accept Washington's conditions or to change Tehran's strategic calculations, one must ask which field achievement has not been achieved so far that America hopes to achieve by repeating or expanding the operation?
If the military tool failed to provide the expected political result despite the heavy costs, there are two possibilities: either Washington has not yet been able to use its military power to achieve that goal, or the military achievements obtained were not enough to change the political balance. In both cases, the continuation of the operation alone does not guarantee the achievement of the desired result and requires a clear answer to the question of what difference will more expenses create?
This issue becomes even more important when the consequences of war go beyond the battlefield and spill over into the global economy, especially the energy market. Disruption in sea traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, increase in the cost of transportation and insurance of oil tankers and concerns about the supply of oil and oil products have put increasing pressure on the energy markets. Since the Strait of Hormuz is one of the most important oil and gas transportation routes in the world, its disruption has also transferred the economic costs of the war to countries far from the conflict field.
For the US, these costs are not limited to global markets. The increase in the price of gasoline and diesel has increased the cost of transportation and goods, intensified the inflationary pressure and created social and political dissatisfaction. This matter is doubly important for the Trump administration, especially on the eve of the mid-term elections; Because the economic costs of war have now become a domestic demand to limit or end the conflict.
As a result, the paradox of using a military tool is formed here: the tool that is supposed to force Iran to change its behavior by imposing a cost, has simultaneously created significant economic and political costs for the United States and the global economy. This does not mean Washington's absolute inability to continue military operations; Rather, it shows that the ability to implement the operation is not the same as the ability to turn it into a desirable political result.
Therefore, the central question is whether the continuation of the war can change the balance in such a way that its costs are justified for the United States, or whether the continuation of the operation, without a decisive political achievement, will only add to the costs of both sides and the world economy?
from the military field to the economic field; Long-term stress scenario
Along with the restrictions on the use of military tools, evidence shows that economic pressure has become one of the important axes of Washington's policy. In recent months, the American government has spoken about intensifying sanctions, limiting oil revenues, and cutting off financial and commercial routes to Iran, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant has also emphasized the expansion of economic pressure. On October 9, Washington announced new sanctions against companies, individuals and vessels associated with Iran's oil trade.
In such a situation, it is possible that the US will give more weight to economic tools in addition to maintaining the military threat; A tool whose purpose is to reduce Iran's revenues, increase the costs of running the country, and create pressure to change Tehran's political calculations. This assessment does not mean that Washington is definitely abandoning the military option, but it indicates the possibility of combining continuous economic pressure with military threats.
On the other hand, Iran has also shown that maritime pressure against Tehran cannot be without reciprocal costs with strategies such as "encircling the blockade" and emphasizing the management of maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz based on its desired frameworks. In such a situation and the continuation of a long-term disturbance in the energy routes, it can cause serious damage to the global economy and especially the American economy.
Therefore, the current confrontation should be seen as a series of interconnected developments: the relative political stalemate can increase the possibility of continued pressure; Limits on military means may change Washington's calculations; And economic pressure can become one of the main tools to continue the conflict. These three dimensions are the sides of a single situation, not three independent developments.
Economic War Council; Rereading the Holy Defense experience
In this framework, the plan announced by Mohsen Rezaei regarding the formation of the "Economic War Council" becomes important. If the upcoming scenario is the continuation of economic pressure and blockade along with maintaining the military threat, Iran's response cannot be limited to scattered reactions and case decisions. Such conditions make coordination between economic, commercial, financial and executive capacities of the country a strategic necessity.
The experience of eight years of Holy Defense is remarkable in this field. During the Iran-Iraq war, the formation of the "War Support Headquarters" to coordinate the resources and facilities of the country and meet the needs of the front led to the formation of a functional and effective structure that solved many of the challenges before it. Mohsen Rezaei, as the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps at the time, had direct experience in managing war and organizing the country's defense capabilities. This historical experience can be considered in examining the idea of the Economic War Council; Not in the sense of repeating exactly the same military structures in the economy, but from the point of view of the necessity of centralized organization of resources and coordination between institutions in conditions of continuous pressure.
Such a structure should be able to maintain a balance between the requirements of dealing with external pressure and the necessity of maintaining the economic and social stability of the country. Resilience becomes meaningful when the pressure on the economy does not lead to the erosion of production capacity, the weakening of people's livelihood, and the reduction of the country's decision-making power.
resilience war; It is not just a matter of bearing the pressure
Now, in addition to the political and military dimensions, the confrontation between Iran and America can also be evaluated as a kind of "resilience war"; A competition in which the ability of each party to continue the path, manage costs and maintain vital capacities is important. In such a conflict, victory or defeat cannot be measured only by the number of attacks, the amount of destruction, or the severity of sanctions; Rather, it should be seen to what extent each side can manage the costs of confrontation and prevent pressure from becoming a determining tool for political decisions.
From this point of view, the Economic War Council can be an attempt to transform the experience of organizing national capacities during the Holy Defense era into a mechanism suitable for today's conditions. The importance of this idea will be seen not in its title, but in its ability to coordinate economic policies, reduce vulnerabilities and maintain the country's ability to face long-term pressures.
Rezaei's statements can be seen as a sign of Tehran's readiness to face the scenario of a long-term and multi-layered conflict; A scenario in which the confrontation between Iran and America is not necessarily limited to the continuation of the military conflict, and in addition to military threats and competition over regional equations, sanctions and economic blockade will also continue in the political arena. From this point of view, Reza'i's words should be examined in the connection between three political, military and economic dimensions: maintaining the possibility of diplomacy while preparing for the continuation of disputes, managing the costs and consequences of military confrontation and organizing the country's capacities, especially in the economic dimension, to deal with economic pressure and maintain and strengthen resilience.