WANA (Jan 23) – Mostafa Najafi, an adviser to Mohsen Rezaei, the former commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), has stated that the Iran–U.S. dispute has “moved beyond the stage of negotiations and compromise” and that, in his view, the outcome of this confrontation “will ultimately be determined by war.” His remarks come at a time when speculation about a possible resumption of talks or a de-escalation of tensions continues to circulate in international policy circles.

 

Najafi stressed that neither the suspension of uranium enrichment nor a halt to Iran’s support for Hezbollah in Lebanon would, on their own, be capable of resolving the deep-rooted disagreements between Tehran and Washington. For this reason, he said, the Islamic Republic views such options with serious skepticism.

 

He also referred to four preconditions that he said have been put forward by the United States, arguing that they effectively make any compromise impossible: the complete shutdown of Iran’s nuclear program and the handover of all enriched uranium stockpiles at the 3.67 percent, 20 percent, and 60 percent levels; restrictions on the range and number of ballistic missiles; a commitment to cease support and military assistance to groups referred to as the “Axis of Resistance”; and the formal recognition of Israel.

 

On the other side, comments by a U.S. military analyst have underscored the complexity and risks associated with any military option against Iran. Colonel Daniel Davis, a retired U.S. Army officer and a prominent critic of the war in Afghanistan, questioned whether President Donald Trump has truly abandoned the idea of striking Iran. He suggested that even a temporary retreat from such a course could indicate a greater sense of realism in Washington.

 

Why Has the U.S. Abandoned the Decision to Attack Iran?

WANA (Jan 18) – Recently, a wave of news spread across international media: the U.S. no longer intends to carry out a military strike on Iran.   This news came as a surprise to many, especially considering the severe threats from Trump and repeated warnings about military options. Axios reported that Trump’s advisors convinced him […]

Read More...

 

According to Davis, while the United States possesses overwhelming airstrike capabilities and can target virtually any country in the Middle East, the core challenge emerges in the aftermath of an attack. He argued that the U.S. lacks sufficient ground support forces and the necessary defensive infrastructure to protect its bases and interests from Iranian retaliation.

 

In his assessment, American military bases in the region do not enjoy defensive systems comparable to those of Israel and would be highly vulnerable to severe and costly counterattacks by Iran in the event of a conflict.

 

At the same time, Davis warned that despite these constraints, the “reckless push for an attack on Iran” has not come to an end. He pointed to ongoing meetings between Israeli security officials—including the head of the Mossad—and U.S. counterparts as evidence of continued pressure in this direction.

 

Within this context, Mohsen Rezaei has also issued a public warning, describing the Iranian people as “patient and dignified” but cautioning that if what he called America’s “madness” continues, Iran’s response could include widespread retaliatory strikes against all U.S. military bases across the region.

 

Taken together, these positions paint a picture of a deepening stalemate in Iran–U.S. relations—one in which doubts about the effectiveness of diplomacy are growing in both Tehran and Washington, and more costly and dangerous options are increasingly factoring into the political and security calculations of both sides.