In a series of recent public announcements that have dominated Iranian domestic political discourse, top military and political figures have formally cemented a fundamental shift in the country’s long-standing military doctrine, moving from a historically defensive posture to an active, offensive strategy targeting U.S. military assets across the Middle East. This policy shift follows a key leadership reshuffle ordered by new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, who appointed six new senior military commanders to replace officers killed in recent strikes carried out by Israel and the United States. While low-level discussions of a potential doctrine change had circulated for months, the new appointments have pushed the topic to the forefront of national media coverage and public debate.
Brigadier General Alireza Sheikh, deputy commander of Iran’s regular army, outlined the new strategic framework to reporters this Wednesday, pointing to recent cross-border strikes on bases belonging to Kurdish opposition groups as a tangible example of the new approach in action. Dismissing former U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent political statements as empty bluffs designed to mislead Iranian public opinion and disrupt strategic planning, Sheikh emphasized that the updated doctrine allows Iran to respond proportionally to threats and, critically, to take pre-emptive action when necessary. “This marks a clear evolution from our previous purely defensive posture to a doctrine centered on deterrence through proactive action,” Sheikh explained.
Weeks before the army’s official announcement, Mehdi Mohammadi, a senior advisor to Iran’s parliament speaker, had already previewed the new strategy, citing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) unprompted strike on U.S. military bases in Jordan on July 29 as proof of the policy change. “Iran no longer confronts its adversaries according to the old rules of engagement,” Mohammadi stated. “Surprise, rapid strikes targeting enemy sensitive infrastructure are now core components of our national war strategy.” He also rejected widespread speculation of an unwritten ceasefire between Tehran and Washington, tied to ongoing bilateral talks mediated by Oman over navigation governance in the Strait of Hormuz. “Over the past week, many analysts assumed that ongoing Omani-mediated talks would leave Iran unwilling to take action unless attacked first,” Mohammadi noted. “Events on the ground have proven that calculation completely wrong.”
The Omani-mediated talks, which aim to establish a new navigation oversight mechanism for the strategically critical strait, are unfolding against growing pressure from Iran’s powerful conservative and ultraconservative political blocs. These factions are pushing for Tehran to leverage its geographic control over the Strait of Hormuz — through which roughly 20% of the world’s traded oil passes — as a economic and military weapon against the U.S. and its regional allies. On Tuesday, Tehran’s principlist mayor Alireza Zakani, a former IRGC member with close ties to the country’s conservative establishment, reiterated calls for abandoning all talks with the U.S. and weaponizing the strait immediately. “If America wants to enjoy unimpeded access to the Strait of Hormuz, it must pay appropriate compensation,” Zakani argued. “If Qatar wants to use this waterway, it must release our frozen sovereign funds. Tightening access to this vital route will force Europe to think twice before imposing new sanctions on Iran.”
Leading conservative outlet Resalat Daily doubled down on this position in a recent front-page report headlined “The Drawn Sword of Hormuz in Iran’s Hand”, arguing that the strait should not return to the pre-attack status quo that existed before recent U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets. The publication framed a potential closure of the strait as a fully proportional response to repeated military aggression from the U.S. and what it called the “Zionist regime”, as well as the ongoing U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports. In its conclusion, the report stressed that unchallenged Iranian control over the waterway must be maintained permanently: “This drawn sword must always remain in Iran’s hands, so that peace and security are guaranteed through strength, not through begging.”
Not all Iranian political analysts and public figures support the new offensive doctrine and conservative push to weaponize the strait, however. Majid Tafreshi, a prominent independent political analyst and researcher of contemporary Iranian history, drew a parallel between today’s domestic political tensions and the period leading up to Iran’s 1988 acceptance of UN Resolution 598, which ended the eight-year brutal war with Iraq. Backed by Western military and intelligence support, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq invaded Iran’s oil-rich southern provinces in 1980, starting a conflict that killed hundreds of thousands of people on both sides before Iran agreed to a ceasefire in 1988 under the leadership of founding Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini. Tafreshi criticized hardline factions pushing for open, continuous conflict with the U.S. today, noting that identical factions pushed to continue the war with Iraq long after it became clear that a negotiated end was in Iran’s national interest.
Tafreshi also pushed back against the hardline portrayal of legendary Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani — who was assassinated in a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad in 2020 — as a figure who exclusively favored military confrontation. This popular narrative among hardliners contradicts Soleimani’s actual political record, Tafreshi argued. “Even Qassem Soleimani believed in dialogue and negotiation. He was first and foremost a diplomat who only took up arms when no other option remained,” he explained. “Yet some factions have reinvented him as a fictional action hero — a Rambo, Zorro, or Spider-Man who solves all problems exclusively through war.”
As the debate between factions over how to confront the U.S. and Israel drags on, leaving the country stuck in a prolonged “neither war nor peace” status quo, reformist-leaning outlet Sazandegi Daily has sounded the alarm over growing economic harm inflicted on ordinary Iranians by the U.S. naval blockade. The outlet’s recent on-the-ground reporting found that cargo activity at Shahid Rajaee Port, Iran’s largest maritime import and export terminal, has plummeted in recent weeks, leaving the facility far quieter and emptier than at any point in recent memory. If the blockade continues, the report warned, the impact will soon reach household kitchen tables, with store shelves quickly running out of essential imported goods.
While Iran shares extensive land borders with neighboring states that can be used to import goods, the report noted that overland transport is exponentially more expensive and time-consuming than maritime shipping, a cost difference that will disproportionately harm working-class Iranian households. “Store shelves are the last place a supply crisis becomes visible to ordinary people,” the report concluded. “The first warning signs appear much earlier, along the waterfront, among idle cranes, empty berths, and missing containers. If cargo does not arrive today, that absence will show up on Iranian dinner tables in just a few months.”