Iran’s president has delivered one of his starkest warnings yet, saying the country is already locked in a sweeping confrontation with Western rivals. In an interview published late Saturday, he described the struggle as broader and more intense than any Iran has faced in decades.
The remarks arrive as Tehran tries to project strength abroad while steadying nerves at home.
Pezeshkian paints a picture of siege
President Masoud Pezeshkian told Iranian state media that the Islamic Republic is facing what he called a “total war” with the United States, Israel, and Europe.
“They want to bring our country to its knees,” Pezeshkian said, arguing that pressure now comes from multiple directions at once.
He compared the current standoff to the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, a conflict that still looms large in Iran’s political memory. This time, he claimed, the challenge is harder to define.
“Back then, missiles were fired and we knew exactly where to respond,” he said. “Now we are being surrounded from every angle.”
That sense of encirclement has become a recurring theme in Tehran’s messaging.
Claims of a stronger military after June fighting
Despite the bleak framing, Pezeshkian struck a defiant tone when speaking about Iran’s armed forces. He insisted that the military emerged stronger after the June conflict with Israel, both in equipment and manpower.
“Our beloved military forces are doing their jobs with strength,” he said, adding that any future attack would be met with what he called a more decisive response.
The president offered no specifics to back up those claims.
Independent analysts remain cautious, noting that while Iran continues to invest heavily in missiles, drones, and regional allies, its forces also face limits from sanctions and aging hardware. Still, the leadership’s message was clear: deterrence, not restraint.
One sentence in the interview stood out for its confidence.
“If they want to attack,” Pezeshkian said, “they will face the consequences.”
Unity at home, or a message for it?
Pezeshkian also argued that the confrontation has tightened domestic cohesion rather than weakened it. According to him, public services continued without disruption during the June fighting, and internal divisions narrowed in the face of external pressure.
That claim is hard to verify.
Iran’s economy remains under strain, inflation is high, and frustration simmers among many households. Yet officials often stress unity during moments of crisis, framing hardship as a shared national test.
A Tehran-based economist, speaking anonymously, said such rhetoric serves a purpose. “It’s meant to reassure people that the state is still functioning,” he said. “Whether people feel that in daily life is another matter.”
The gap between official optimism and public sentiment remains wide.
A 20-point plan for an ailing economy
Alongside his security warnings, Pezeshkian outlined what he described as a 20-point economic plan aimed at stabilizing the country. Details were thin, but he said the focus would be on production, employment, and easing pressure on ordinary citizens.
Iran’s economy has been battered by years of sanctions, currency swings, and reduced oil revenues. Even as officials talk up resilience, many families struggle with rising costs.
The president suggested that confrontation abroad and reform at home must move in parallel.
“We cannot ignore the economy while defending the country,” he said.
That balance has eluded previous administrations.
Messaging beyond Iran’s borders
The interview was published as Iran continues to trade accusations with Western governments over sanctions, regional conflicts, and nuclear issues. Officials in Washington and European capitals have accused Tehran of destabilizing actions across the Middle East, a charge Iran rejects.
Israel, for its part, has warned repeatedly that it will not allow Iran to threaten its security.
Pezeshkian’s language suggests Tehran sees these disputes as interconnected rather than separate crises. By labeling them “total war,” he collapses diplomacy, economics, and security into a single struggle.
One regional analyst said the phrasing was deliberate. “It signals resolve,” he said, “but it also lowers the threshold for escalation in the public imagination.”
Words meant to shape expectations
Iranian leaders often speak in sweeping historical terms, especially when addressing domestic audiences. Comparing today’s tensions to the 1980s war taps into sacrifice and survival, themes deeply rooted in the national psyche.
At the same time, such language carries risks.
If leaders say the country is already at war, citizens may ask what victory looks like, or how long they are expected to endure hardship. Those questions rarely get clear answers.
For now, Pezeshkian appears focused on setting expectations: pressure will continue, resistance is necessary, and compromise is unlikely.
Whether that message calms or unsettles the public may become clearer in the months ahead.
