Discernment Council at the time the remarks were made, warning the Arab and Muslim countries of the region about the objectives of the Zionist regime, had said that accompanying the project of expanding discord and conflict in the region could have heavy consequences.
The basis of this warning is that weakening regional security is not in the long-term interest of any of the countries of the region. If political rivalries or short-term considerations push regional governments toward cooperation in military actions against one another, the result can be increased security dependence, the expansion of instability, and greater vulnerability of vital infrastructure. Under such circumstances, the cost of today’s decisions may be far beyond the initial estimates of governments.
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the Speaker of Iran’s Parliament, also, referring to the necessity of preventing financial and infrastructural support for companies that, according to him, play a role in supporting military aggressions, has warned about cooperation in the field of data and artificial intelligence. This position shows that from Tehran’s perspective, the scope of support for military operations is not limited to bases and combat equipment, and economic, technological, and infrastructural capacities can also find a place in security calculations.
The message of these positions for the countries of the region is clear: governments must, before providing any possibility for military operations against Iran, weigh the direct and indirect consequences of such a decision. Participation in warmongering, even if it initially appears limited or indirect, can increase the scope of their responsibility and vulnerability.
Iran Will Not Surrender to Pressure
For the Islamic Republic of Iran, the issue is not merely a temporary dispute or a limited regional rivalry. When American and Zionist officials speak of objectives that, from Tehran’s perspective, threaten the country’s existence and independence, it is natural that the issue of defending national security should be at the center of Iran’s calculations. Under such circumstances, expecting Iran to surrender to threats and military pressure is not a realistic estimate of the country’s political will.
The Leader of the Islamic Revolution also, in one of his recent messages to Hezbollah forces, emphasized the continuation of jihad and resistance and stated: “No path remains ahead except jihad and resistance, and steadfastness on this path will grant the mujahideen on the path of truth the promised divine assistance.”
In this framework, Iran’s warning to the countries of the region should be seen as part of an effort to draw security red lines. Tehran expects neighboring governments not to allow their territory, facilities, and infrastructure to become a tool for attacking Iran. This warning is not an invitation to expand the conflict; rather, it is an emphasis on the reality that preventing the expansion of war requires the responsible decisions of all governments in the region.
The countries of the region now face an important choice: they can, by avoiding accompanying military adventures, strive to reduce tension and create mechanisms for collective security, or, by providing the ground for hostile actions, expose themselves to the foreseeable consequences of a widespread crisis. Sustainable security is not achieved through the instrumental use of neighbors’ soil and facilities. Iran’s message is clear: regional security must be for everyone, because in the interconnected geography of West Asia, no country can ignite the fire of insecurity in its neighbor’s house and be sure that its flames will never reach its own house.
MNA
