As US President Donald Trump threatens that he is approaching a decisive choice between reaching an agreement with Iran or “wiping Iran out”, Tehran says it has received “information” indicating that the US administration is preparing to resume its attacks.
At the same time, Iranian warnings are becoming increasingly expansive, ranging from promises of an unprecedented response and the use of new weapons to threats of widening both the geographical scope of the war and the range of targets.
Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps spokesman Hossein Mohebbi said on Monday that any renewed aggression would be met with “major” changes in the geography of the war and in the types of weapons and equipment Iran would use. He stressed that Iran was prepared for a prolonged war and unprecedented retaliation.
“The targets are no longer the same as they were before,” Mohebbi said, revealing that there were “new targets that have not yet been attacked” and warning that they could be struck.
His remarks came a day after Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya headquarters for military operations said it had received “information” that the United States had decided to resume the war.
In a statement, the headquarters said: “America, in an effort to cover up its defeats and manufacture false achievements in a war that began by relying on the lies and fabrications of the Zionists and continued through deception and trickery, has once again decided, with a green light from some countries in the region, to resume its actions against Iran through a joint meeting in a European country.”
The Khatam al-Anbiya headquarters warned Washington against committing any “mistake” against Iran, saying such a move would be met with “painful attacks”.
The warning came as Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said on Sunday that the Strait of Hormuz “will not reopen unless Iran’s conditions are met”. At the same time, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Secretary Mohsen Rezaei said in a post on X that Tehran had presented Washington with seven conditions for returning to negotiations.
Iran Says the Battlefield Could Expand Far Beyond Previous Limits
Former Revolutionary Guard commander Hossein Kanaani-Moghaddam told Al-Araby Al-Jadeed that the Khatam al-Anbiya headquarters was referring to a recent conference held by US Central Command, CENTCOM, in Germany, attended by Gulf countries, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, the United States and European states.
Kanaani-Moghaddam said Washington was seeking to ignite an Arab-Iranian war while drawing on NATO bases and capabilities.
He said Iran’s defence doctrine had shifted towards the option of pre-emptive operations, meaning that any concentration of these forces anywhere in the region, including the Indian Ocean and open waters where they can be detected and engaged, would fall within the target set and geographical scope of any future war.
He said the next confrontation would be an “asymmetric war”, in which Iran would adopt a policy of “qualitative retaliation”.
Under this approach, he explained, an attack on an Iranian vessel could be answered by striking a US destroyer or military base.
Kanaani-Moghaddam said the policy would extend to all US and Israeli bases and facilities in the region. He added that previous rules under which Iran would refrain from retaliating against Israel when attacked by the United States had changed.
“There is no longer a situation in which we would not respond against Israel if the Americans strike us,” he said.
What Does Iran Mean by a “New Geography of War”?
Iranian military analyst Mehdi Bakhtiari told Al-Araby Al-Jadeed that the Revolutionary Guard’s reference to a “new geography of war” was not limited to the Bab al-Mandab Strait.
He said that although Bab al-Mandab could become one of the most important strategic cards in a future war following developments in Yemen and what he described as Ansar Allah’s complete control over the strait, the concept extends much further.
According to Bakhtiari, Mohebbi’s warning was directed more specifically at the United States.
He said Washington had moved warships, including aircraft carriers and destroyers, further away in recent months in the belief that this would place them beyond the reach of Iranian missiles and drones.
Bakhtiari said Iran possessed new missiles capable of striking those vessels from greater distances, effectively extending its potential battlefield into more distant areas.
US bases and interests in different parts of the region could also be targeted, he added, saying those interests could include economic assets.
Bakhtiari noted that Iran did not attack Jordan during the previous war, but had repeatedly targeted the US base in the country in recent months, describing this as another expansion of the war’s geography.
He added that a wider conflict could also extend to European countries, particularly Britain, following what he described as “hostile measures” against Iran.
According to Bakhtiari, Iran considers itself entitled to target the sources from which such attacks or threats originate, particularly British facilities placed at the disposal of the United States.
Other bases used by Washington, from Diego Garcia to facilities elsewhere across the region, could also fall within the range of Iranian missiles, he said.
Northern Indian Ocean Could Become a New Front
Iranian military analyst Mohammad Taheri told Al-Araby Al-Jadeed that Tehran had not previously extended the conflict into the northern Indian Ocean, where the US maritime blockade line is located.
Until now, he said, Iranian maritime control had been limited specifically to the Strait of Hormuz.
Taheri said that if the United States moved against Iran again, the northern Indian Ocean and the US maritime blockade line would this time come under fire, making the area part of Iran’s expanded geography of war.
Another part of that expansion, he said, concerns US bases in regional countries and states neighbouring Iran that Tehran previously avoided attacking because they had not been used operationally against it.
Those facilities had instead provided defensive, radar and intelligence support to the United States. Taheri said such bases could be targeted in the next round of fighting.
He also pointed to Israeli interests near Iran’s north-western borders, particularly in Azerbaijan, which Iran has not attacked so far. He said those sites and Israeli interests could be struck in any future confrontation.
At the same time, Iran appears intent on advancing its missile capabilities beyond their previous limits by exceeding a range of 2,000 kilometres and entering longer-range categories.
Taheri said that because US strategic bombers have at times taken off from European countries to strike targets in Iran, US bases in those countries could also potentially be targeted in another round of war if Iran extends the range of its missiles.
Iran Threatens to Deploy New Weapons
On the new weapons the Revolutionary Guard has threatened to use, Taheri said Iran’s arsenal, particularly its missiles and drones, had undergone qualitative improvements in accuracy and destructive power since the ceasefire of 8 April.
He noted that the most recent confrontation between Iran and the United States several weeks ago saw Tehran use anti-ship ballistic missiles for the first time.
Iran, he said, would rely in any future confrontation on upgraded and newly developed weapons incorporating lessons learned from previous battles.
Negotiations, Hormuz and the Risk of Wider Escalation
Iranian political analyst Ali Gholhaki told Al-Araby Al-Jadeed that recent US moves were intended to pressure Iran into negotiations.
He attributed Washington’s approach to what he described as the “critical and complicated position” facing the Trump administration ahead of the congressional midterm elections.
Gholhaki said Vice President JD Vance understood this reality particularly well and was seeking to secure an agreement with Iran that could be presented among Trump’s achievements before the elections.
According to Gholhaki, Washington is insisting that Iran enter negotiations within no more than 45 days, with the aim of reaching and signing an agreement. He said the nuclear issue would be placed on the table and settled from the first day, alongside the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
Gholhaki outlined several possible scenarios for the escalating tensions.
The first would see Iran reopen the strait in exchange for the United States lifting its blockade and ending its actions at that point.
Although he described the scenario as unlikely, he said there were circles within both governments that favoured it. Such an outcome, he argued, would spare Washington further costs and lead to a rapid and substantial fall in fuel prices, while Iran could portray the result as a victory in what it considers an existential confrontation.
However, he said the option remained remote because of the high level of tension and what he described as the obstructive role played by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The second scenario, according to Gholhaki, would involve controlled and limited military escalation, a pattern that had already been tested over recent months without producing tangible results for the United States.
Gholhaki concluded that previous efforts to reach an agreement based on the “Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding” had failed because of obstacles from both sides, particularly the United States.
For that reason, he said the most likely scenario was a broad and sharp military escalation, followed by containment of the confrontation and a subsequent return to negotiations aimed at reaching an agreement.
