WANA (Apr 09) – The spokesperson for the Iranian Army, Mohammad Akrami-Nia, outlined details of the recent conflict, emphasizing that the opposing side failed to achieve both its declared and hidden objectives and ultimately agreed to a ceasefire under Iran’s conditions.

 

Ceasefire Under Battlefield Pressure

In a live television interview, Akrami-Nia described the temporary ceasefire as a “meaningful victory,” stating that it was achieved after delivering effective blows to the enemy and forcing it to accept Iran’s terms. According to him, the opposing side’s acceptance of Iran’s 10-point framework signals a shift in both the military and political balance.

 

Failure to Achieve Strategic and Covert Goals

Referring to the start of the war on February 28, he assessed the enemy’s objectives at both strategic and operational levels, noting that the overall battlefield and strategic outcome shows it failed to accomplish any of its goals. He stressed that ambitions such as regime change and territorial fragmentation, alongside tactical plans, did not materialize.

 

Public Role in Power Dynamics

Akrami-Nia identified the strengthening of “soft power” and social cohesion as one of the war’s key outcomes, stating that widespread public participation elevated the role of the population in national power calculations.

 

Defensive Superiority and Operational Experience

He added that Iran’s armed forces, relying on an integrated air defense network, successfully intercepted and destroyed advanced enemy targets, including fighter jets and more than 170 drones. He also highlighted the operational use of the Arash-2 drone, describing it as a successful real-world combat experience.

 

Lack of Exit Strategy: A Critical Weakness

The army spokesperson pointed to the absence of an “exit strategy” as one of the enemy’s major challenges, stating that entering a war without a clear withdrawal plan constitutes a serious strategic mistake. According to him, this issue ultimately pushed the opposing side toward accepting Iran’s proposed framework.

 

 

Setbacks in Field Operations

He also referred to an operation in southern Isfahan, describing it as a complete failure and an indication of weaknesses in the design and execution of combined operations.

 

Regional and International Implications

Highlighting regional developments, Akrami-Nia noted increased coordination among resistance forces as a significant outcome of the war, adding that joint operations at this level were conducted for the first time. He also pointed to a perceived decline in the United States’ role in the region, stating that its inability to defend its allies has reduced regional trust.

 

Legal and Political Challenges for the U.S.

He further warned that attacks on civilian infrastructure, including medical and educational facilities, could lead to serious legal and political consequences for the United States at the international level.

 

Divisions in the Western Camp

Referring to the positions of Donald Trump, he said the shift from “unconditional surrender” rhetoric to accepting negotiations reflects political instability in the U.S. He also described Europe’s and NATO’s lack of alignment as a sign of deepening divisions within the Western bloc.

 

Strait of Hormuz: A Strategic Lever

In conclusion, Akrami-Nia described control over the Strait of Hormuz as one of the war’s key potential achievements, noting that it could carry significant economic and strategic implications.

 

Overall, he stated that the 40-day conflict not only shifted the balance on the battlefield but also produced political, regional, and international consequences that may shape future dynamics.