WANA (Mar 17) – The Speaker of Iran’s Parliament said recent regional developments have fundamentally altered the security dynamics of the Strait of Hormuz, emphasizing that the strategic waterway will no longer return to its previous conditions. His remarks came as part of a broader analysis of the recent war, Iran’s political structure, and evolving regional power balances.

 

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf made the remarks during a televised interview with Iran’s state television network. At the beginning of the conversation, he praised what he described as the Iranian public’s awareness and resilience, saying that public support has played a key role in enabling the country’s armed forces to operate effectively.

 

The “Leader–People” Relationship in Iran’s Political System

A significant portion of Ghalibaf’s comments focused on the political foundations of Iran’s system of governance. He described the relationship between leadership and the public as a central pillar of the political structure, arguing that legitimacy and effectiveness depend on both public support and religious authority.

 

He referred to historical precedents to underline the role of public support in governance, stating that even legitimate leadership structures cannot function without societal backing. He also referenced the testament of Iran’s revolutionary founder, which calls on citizens to support the system’s leadership as a way to preserve national stability.

 

Post-war Developments and Political Continuity

Ghalibaf also addressed the political situation following the killing of Iran’s previous supreme leader, saying the transition that followed demonstrated the resilience of the country’s political institutions.

 

According to him, the leadership transition occurred rapidly despite complicated security circumstances, preventing a vacuum at the highest level of governance. He described the process as evidence of institutional continuity and of strengthened connections between the state and the public.

 

Asymmetric Warfare and Military Adaptation

Discussing the recent conflict, Ghalibaf described it as a form of asymmetric warfare in which Iran had to rely on creativity, flexibility, and domestically developed capabilities.

 

He said that while Iran was initially surprised by certain aspects of the opponent’s operational approach, the response improved significantly in later stages. According to Ghalibaf, in an earlier phase it took more than fifteen hours for a coordinated response to begin, whereas during subsequent attacks the response started within less than thirty minutes.

 

He also claimed that Iranian forces had improved their air defense capabilities and had successfully countered advanced drones using domestically developed technologies.

 

Confronting the Military Balance with the United States and Israel

The parliament speaker acknowledged the military advantages held by the United States and Israel, particularly in air power, but argued that Iran had sought to offset those advantages through asymmetric strategies.

 

He claimed that early strikes had targeted and disabled key radar and monitoring systems belonging to Iran’s adversaries, creating difficulties for their air-defense networks.

 

According to him, Iran managed to maintain operational initiative and prevented its opponents from imposing their own strategic plans on the battlefield.

 

“Iran Did Not Start the War”

Ghalibaf repeatedly emphasized that Iran did not initiate the conflict and said the country’s position remains defensive. However, he added that if a war is imposed on Iran, the response would be firm and decisive.

 

He also suggested that Iran’s approach to ceasefires has changed. In his view, the cycle of conflict, temporary ceasefire, and renewed hostilities cannot continue indefinitely, and a more durable regional stability must eventually replace that pattern.

 

Criticism of U.S. Policy

Ghalibaf criticized U.S. decision-making during the conflict, claiming that American leaders had relied on inaccurate information that led to flawed strategic decisions.

 

He also argued that the U.S. military presence in the Middle East has not produced stability but instead contributed to regional tensions.

 

According to him, many countries in the region are increasingly recognizing this dynamic.

 

The Strait of Hormuz Enters a New Phase

In the final section of the interview, Ghalibaf focused specifically on the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy transit routes.

 

He said the current conditions in the strait are the direct result of security developments and military tensions rather than a deliberate Iranian policy to restrict passage. According to him, shipping activity has already been affected because many vessels are unwilling to transit under current security conditions.

 

“With the level of intervention and developments that have taken place,” he said, “the Strait of Hormuz cannot return to its previous legal and operational conditions.”

 

War as Both Threat and Opportunity

Ghalibaf concluded by reflecting on the broader meaning of war in history, describing it as both a threat and an opportunity. He argued that if managed properly, crises can create conditions for technological advancement, national cohesion, and strategic transformation.

 

He expressed confidence that Iran’s internal capacities—including public mobilization, military experience, and political cohesion—would allow the country to navigate the crisis and ultimately emerge stronger, potentially contributing to a new regional security order.