The Secretariat of the Defense Council of the Islamic Republic of Iran issued a statement on Tuesday, January 6, condemning the escalation of threatening rhetoric and interventionist comments against the country, and emphasizing: "Iran's security, independence, and territorial integrity are an uncrossable red line, and any aggression or continuation of hostile behavior will be met with a proportionate, decisive, and decisive response."
The Secretariat further noted that within the framework of legitimate self-defense, the Islamic Republic of Iran does not limit itself solely to responding after an action has taken place.
According to the statement, clear and tangible signs of threat are considered part of Iran’s security equation, underscoring a security approach based on deterrence and preparedness.
The statement emphasizes: The escalation of the language of threats and intervention, which goes beyond a verbal stance, can be understood as hostile behavior; a path whose continuation will result in a proportionate, decisive, and decisive response, and the full responsibility for the consequences lies with the designers of this process.
The core of the Supreme Defense Council statement emphasizes two aspects: one is the right to “self-defense” and the other is “preemptive attack.”
The first is based on Article 51 of the UN Charter. Although, according to Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter, known as the principle of “non-use of force,” “Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or from any act inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,” if an aggression is committed against a country, according to Article 51, the “right of self-defense” of the attacked country is permissible and legitimate and can respond.
Therefore, one aspect of the Defense Council statement is based on the “principle of self-defense.” However, the more important aspect of this statement concerns “objective signs of threat.” In this context, as the statement states, Iran will not limit itself to responding to a military attack and will take action against “objective threats.”
Given the threats from the US and the Zionist regime against Iran's territorial integrity under the pretext of its nuclear and missile programs and even support for unrest, these threats have moved beyond the "mental" and "psychological" aspect and entered the "objective" phase.
This phase shift can be seen by reviewing the statements of American and Zionist officials in recent days.
US President Donald Trump recently said during a reception for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had traveled to Palm Beach, Florida, the US presidential residence: “I have heard that Iran is trying to rebuild its (nuclear capabilities) and if it does, we will destroy it. Of course, I hope that does not happen.”
He also explicitly threatened Iran’s missile program: “If Iran continues to develop its missile program, it will be attacked immediately.”
In response to whether he would allow Benjamin Netanyahu to attack Iran again, Donald Trump said: “For ballistic missiles, yes. For nuclear weapons, quickly!”
About two weeks before Netanyahu’s visit, Trump had also proposed a preemptive strike on Iran’s missile program. The US President said in a press conference in the Oval Office on Thursday, December 10: "The Iranians are rebuilding their missile program very quickly. They can try. But it will take a long time for the Iranians to revive their nuclear program, and if they try to rebuild it without an agreement, we will destroy it again. We can also disable Iran's missiles very quickly."
A few days after this trip and meeting with Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday: "Israel will not allow Iran to revive its ballistic missile program."
Netanyahu also said: "The Israeli cabinet has made a major and important decision to attack Iran to eliminate threats such as its nuclear program and ballistic missiles."
Before Netanyahu's visit to the United States, NBC News reported, citing four former American officials, that Israeli officials, concerned about the expansion of Iran's ballistic missile program, are preparing to brief Trump on possible options for another attack on Tehran.
Regarding support for the Iranian unrest, the US President once again intervened in domestic affairs in a post on the social network Truth Social: "If Iran opens fire on peaceful protesters and violently kills them, the United States will come to their aid. We are fully prepared to act."
After that, Trump once again said that the United States was closely monitoring the protests in Iran and promised a strong response from Washington if there were casualties.
He referred to Iran's domestic issues in a group of reporters and, continuing his interventionist policies, claimed: "We are closely monitoring the situation. "If they start killing people like they did before, I think they will be hit hard by the United States."
These remarks were a repeat of Trump's previous unprecedented message in support of Iranian protesters on the social network Truth Social.
In line with Trump, Netanyahu also said in support of the rioters: We in Israel support the "Iranian nation" in its struggle to achieve "justice and freedom."
Aiming to incite domestic public opinion in Iran, the Israeli Prime Minister added: "We are probably in a critical situation right now where the "Iranian nation" is determining its own destiny."
Based on these “objective threats” and stated by American and Zionist officials, Iran has spoken of “preemptive war” and is considering it as an option.
The importance of this issue lies in the element of surprise. Although Iran was initially surprised by the Zionist regime’s aggression in the 12-day war, the experiences from that war and the existence of objective threats mean that “preemptive war” can overcome this element.
Accordingly, Iran can manage the initiative in threats against its national security with “preemptive war” and reduce the cost of any aggression against its territory.
