Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi, supreme adviser to the IRGC commander-in-chief, said Tehran could pursue a war of attrition until the next US presidential term. Trump’s current term is due to end on January 20, 2029.
Naqdi said the objective would be to create sufficient deterrence to discourage any future attack on Iran. He argued that extending the fighting could demonstrate that military action against the country carries a sustained price.
“One way is to prolong this war until we get to the next term of the presidency and cause attrition,” Naqdi said in an interview in Tehran. He added that any state contemplating another attack should understand “there is a cost”.
His comments offer one of the clearest public indications from a senior IRGC figure that Tehran is considering time itself as a strategic weapon. They come as attempts to revive an interim peace arrangement between Washington and Tehran remain stalled and the conflict enters its sixth month.
Naqdi, a veteran Guards officer who previously commanded the Basij paramilitary force, is now a senior adviser within the IRGC leadership. His remarks carry added significance following a reshuffle of Iran’s military and security establishment under Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei.
Ahmad Vahidi was appointed commander-in-chief of the IRGC this week, succeeding Mohammad Pakpour, who was killed during the US-Israeli attacks that began on February 28. Mohsen Rezaei, another veteran Guards commander, has taken over as secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and was appointed Khamenei’s representative on the body.
Naqdi said Iran believed it had gained the upper hand because Washington had failed to achieve what he described as its initial objectives of removing the leadership and fragmenting the country. He acknowledged, however, that Tehran had not yet reached what he called its final objective.
He said prolonged warfare was giving Iranian forces greater experience fighting the United States. Naqdi also claimed Iran’s missile production was exceeding the number of missiles being launched and said the country could sustain missile attacks even if the war continued for years. Those assertions cannot be independently verified.
The remarks contrast sharply with repeated statements from Trump that Washington occupies the stronger military position and controls access through the Strait of Hormuz. Trump has alternated between threats of further strikes and predictions that an agreement with Tehran remains possible.
Diplomatic efforts have struggled since an interim agreement reached in June began to unravel. The arrangement declared an immediate termination of military operations and provided a 60-day period for negotiations on a broader settlement covering Iran’s nuclear programme, US sanctions and other disputed issues.
Trump declared the arrangement over on July 7. Tehran formally suspended its participation about a week later. Both sides have accused the other of violating commitments made under the deal.
Iran says Washington failed to lift its blockade of Iranian ports and release frozen assets. The United States says Tehran failed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the key passage linking Gulf energy exporters with global markets.
The strait remains at the centre of the confrontation. Before the war, roughly one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas flows passed through the waterway between Iran and Oman. Iran says it will keep the route restricted until its conditions are met.
Military activity around major shipping lanes has intensified alongside the diplomatic impasse. A US Navy helicopter this week fired Hellfire missiles at a Panama-flagged cargo vessel after Washington said the ship ignored warnings connected with its blockade of Iranian ports. Separately, a suspected Houthi attack on an Egyptian-owned cargo vessel in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait killed four crew members.
The conflict has killed thousands of people, mainly in Iran and Lebanon, since the United States and Israel launched large-scale attacks on Iran on February 28. Tehran has retaliated against US interests and infrastructure across several countries in the region.
Naqdi also defended Iran’s restrictions on shipping through areas it controls, arguing that vessels crossing a war zone could be carrying supplies for adversaries. He rejected suggestions that Iran was preparing to pursue nuclear weapons and said Tehran did not need an atomic bomb for deterrence.
(IPA Service)
