Top Iranian general: Another war with Israel or US may be coming
israelnationalnews.com -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 9:21:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Uncategorized

A senior military adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader warned Sunday that another war with Israel or the United States remains likely, dismissing the current ceasefire as merely a temporary pause in a broader ongoing conflict.
"We are not in a ceasefire, we are in a stage of war. No protocol, regulation, or agreement has been written between us and the US or Israel," said senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander Yahya Rahim Safavi, as quoted by Iran International.
"I think another war may happen, and after that, there may be no more wars," he added.
Safavi's comments come amid heightened rhetoric from both sides following a deadly exchange of hostilities in June. Israel's Chief of Staff has publicly affirmed the IDF's readiness for further military operations, while Iran's General Staff has threatened "a far stronger response" to any future attacks.
In his remarks, Safavi stressed Iran's need to expand its influence regionally and globally. "The Americans and the Zionists say they create peace through power; therefore Iran must also become strong, because in the system of nature the weak are trampled," he said.
Outlining what he described as Iran's deterrence strategy, Safavi stated, "We must strengthen our diplomatic, media, missile, drone and cyber offensive strategy... we, the military, do scenario-planning, we see the worst case, and we prepare a plan for it."
His statements come two months after Israel launched a surprise offensive on June 13, striking military and nuclear facilities across Iran.
On June 22, the US conducted airstrikes targeting Iran's nuclear infrastructure in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. A US-brokered ceasefire was announced two days later, bringing an end to the 12-day aerial conflict.
In the aftermath of the conflict, President Donald Trump suggested that the United States would engage in discussions with Iran.
"We have scheduled Iran talks, and they want to talk," Trump asserted. He further added, "They've requested a meeting and I'm going to go to a meeting, and if we can put something down on paper, that would be fine."
The spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry later refuted those claims and stated that Tehran has not requested any meeting with the United States.
Washington has demanded that Iran completely halt uranium enrichment as part of any nuclear deal, a demand Tehran has firmly rejected.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent comments by Yahya Rahim Safavi, a senior military adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader, illuminate the precarious state of geopolitical relations in the Middle East, particularly between Iran and the United States and Israel. Safavi’s assertion that we are not merely in a ceasefire but rather entrenched in a stage of war reflects a reality that transcends the immediate military engagements. His rhetoric, which emphasizes Iran’s need to bolster its military and technological capabilities to fend off perceived aggressions, speaks volumes about a historical context rooted in colonialism, imperialism, and the continuous struggle for sovereignty in the region. This perspective is critical in comprehending the current tensions, which are not just military confrontations but also linked to a long history of foreign intervention and the quest for national dignity.
The backdrop of these hostilities is deeply intertwined with the legacy of Western interventions in the Middle East. The United States, alongside its allies, has a history of supporting regimes and engaging in military actions that often disregard the sovereignty and self-determination of nations. The 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, orchestrated by the CIA and British intelligence, serves as a pivotal reminder of how foreign powers have manipulated regional politics for their strategic interests. This historical episode is not merely a relic of the past; it reverberates through contemporary relations, contributing to the deep-seated distrust that informs Iran's military posturing today. This context is pivotal for understanding why Iran feels compelled to fortify its military capabilities, as it perceives itself as a target of a continuous campaign aimed at undermining its sovereignty.
Furthermore, the ongoing conflict must be seen through the lens of broader social struggles within the region. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an enduring point of contention, is a reflection of imperial legacies that have marginalized certain populations while privileging others. The rhetoric of strength and deterrence articulated by Safavi resonates with a history of resistance against occupation and oppression. The call for Iran to “expand its influence regionally and globally” can be interpreted as a response to the systemic inequities faced by nations that have historically been the subjects of foreign aggression. In a world where power dynamics are often dictated by military might, the need for nations like Iran to project strength is not only a matter of national security; it is also a response to a historical narrative of being victimized by dominant powers.
The military exchanges between Iran and Israel, particularly the recent strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, further complicate the situation. These developments underscore the precarious balance of power in the region, where actions taken by one state can provoke retaliatory measures from another, leading to a cycle of violence that has devastating implications for civilian populations. The mention of “a far stronger response” by Iran’s General Staff highlights the potential for escalation that can spiral out of control, leading to broader regional conflict. It is crucial to recognize that while military strategies are being discussed at high levels of command, the real consequences of these actions affect the lives of everyday people who are often caught in the crossfire of geopolitical gamesmanship.
In this context, the discourse surrounding negotiations, such as the proposed talks mentioned by former President Trump, raises critical questions about the sincerity of diplomatic efforts in the face of ongoing military aggression. Washington’s insistence on halting uranium enrichment as a precondition for dialogue ignores the broader needs for mutual respect and recognition of sovereignty. Rather than approaching these negotiations with a mindset of coercion, there must be a shift towards understanding the historical grievances and security concerns of all parties involved. It is essential to advocate for a foreign policy that prioritizes diplomacy over military solutions, a move that could pave the way for more stable and equitable relations in a region that has suffered too long from the consequences of conflict.
The situation in the Middle East serves as a stark reminder of the interconnectedness of historical injustices, current geopolitical strategies, and the profound human cost of war. By understanding these dynamics, one can better engage in discussions about foreign policy and advocate for a more just and equitable approach to international relations. This conversation is particularly vital in a time when the narratives of strength and power are often used to justify military actions that have dire consequences for civilian populations. As individuals who seek to address these issues, it is imperative to challenge dominant narratives and push for a world where dialogue, respect for sovereignty, and the prioritization of human rights take precedence over the machinations of war.
The recent remarks from Yahya Rahim Safavi, a senior military adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader, underscore the precarious nature of geopolitical relations in the Middle East, particularly between Iran, Israel, and the United States. Safavi’s assertion that we are not in a ceasefire but rather in a continuous state of war speaks volumes about the simmering tensions that have characterized this region for decades. These tensions are not merely the result of recent hostilities but are deeply rooted in a complex history of colonialism, imperialism, and international rivalries. As we reflect on the current situation, it becomes clear that the road to peace demands not only an understanding of the historical context but also a proactive approach from the American populace to advocate for peace and diplomacy over militarism.
To comprehend the current dynamics, one must consider the historical backdrop of U.S.-Iran relations, which have been fraught with conflict since the 1953 coup orchestrated by the CIA that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. This intervention paved the way for decades of authoritarian rule under the Shah, leading to widespread resentment and ultimately the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The subsequent hostilities, punctuated by the Iran-Iraq War and the establishment of sanctions, have only deepened mutual distrust. The current rhetoric from Iranian officials reflects a defensive posture rooted in this historical context, where strength is synonymous with survival. The insistence on military preparedness as articulated by Safavi highlights a broader narrative: countries that feel threatened may inevitably turn to militarization, exacerbating the cycle of violence.
So, what can Americans do in response to this escalating tension? First and foremost, it is crucial to advocate for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict rather than one based on military might. Citizens can engage in grassroots advocacy, pushing their representatives to prioritize dialogue over aggression. This includes supporting diplomatic initiatives, such as re-entering negotiations for a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran that considers the security needs of all parties involved. It is essential to underscore that diplomacy does not equate to weakness; rather, it demonstrates a commitment to a sustainable peace that benefits not only the U.S. but also the broader international community.
Furthermore, public discourse around foreign policy must evolve from a binary understanding of “us versus them.” By educating ourselves and others about the complexities of Iranian society, culture, and the historical grievances that fuel its foreign policy, Americans can foster a more nuanced perspective. This entails organizing community discussions, sharing literature on U.S.-Iran relations, and amplifying voices that advocate for peace and coexistence. The urgency of this educational effort is underscored by the fact that military actions often lead to unintended consequences, including loss of civilian lives and long-term destabilization of the region, which can ultimately create more enemies than allies.
Finally, there lies an ethical imperative to hold our government accountable for its foreign policy decisions. Public pressure can serve as a powerful tool in shaping policy, especially when it comes to military interventions that have historically resulted in catastrophic outcomes. By advocating for the reduction of military spending and an increase in humanitarian aid, Americans can push for policies that prioritize human welfare over geopolitical posturing. This shift would not only enhance America’s global standing but also contribute to a more peaceful resolution of conflicts, allowing for a future where nations engage with one another through mutual respect rather than through the barrel of a gun.
In conclusion, the statements from Iranian leadership serve as a sobering reminder of the fragile state of international relations and the potential for conflict. By understanding the historical context, advocating for diplomatic solutions, engaging in educational efforts, and holding our government accountable, Americans can contribute to a more peaceful world. The path to lasting peace may be fraught with challenges, but it is undoubtedly a path worth pursuing for the sake of humanity and global stability. We must reject the rhetoric of war and embrace the power of dialogue—a choice that can lead to a brighter future for all involved.
The situation described in the article regarding tensions between Iran, Israel, and the United States is alarming and highlights the ever-present danger of escalating military conflicts. As individuals concerned about global peace and stability, we can take a range of actions to advocate for diplomacy and peace, rather than further conflict. Here’s a detailed list of ideas and actions we can take:
### 1. Educate Yourself and Others - **Action**: Research the historical context of U.S.-Iran relations and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Understanding the complexities can help in discussions. - **Examples**: Read books such as "A Peace to End All Peace" by David Fromkin or "The Iran Crisis: A History" by John Ghazvinian.
### 2. Advocate for Peaceful Solutions - **Action**: Write letters to lawmakers urging them to prioritize diplomacy over military intervention. - **Who to Write**: - **U.S. Senators**: Find your state senators via [senate.gov](https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm). - Example: Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) - Email: schumer.senate.gov/contact/email-chuck - Mailing Address: 757 Third Avenue, Suite 17-02, New York, NY 10017 - **U.S. Representatives**: Locate your representative via [house.gov](https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative). - Example: Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) - Email: ocasiocortez.house.gov/contact - Mailing Address: 3144 Congressional Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515
### 3. Support Organizations Focused on Peace - **Action**: Donate to or volunteer with organizations that promote peace and diplomacy in the Middle East. - **Examples**: - **American Friends Service Committee**: Focuses on peace-building efforts. - Website: [afsc.org](https://www.afsc.org) - **The Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC)**: Works on issues affecting Iranian Americans and promotes diplomatic relations. - Website: [iapac.org](http://iapac.org)
### 4. Sign and Share Petitions - **Action**: Join or create petitions that call for an end to military aggression and promote diplomatic talks with Iran. - **Examples**: - **Change.org Petitions**: Look for petitions such as "Support Diplomacy with Iran" or create your own. - Website: [change.org](https://www.change.org) - **Care2 Petitions**: Similar platform for activism and petitions. - Website: [care2.com](https://www.care2.com)
### 5. Use Social Media for Advocacy - **Action**: Use platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram to raise awareness and pressure leaders to pursue peaceful solutions. - **What to Post**: Share articles, infographics, and personal messages urging followers to support diplomacy. Use hashtags like #PeaceWithIran, #DiplomacyNotWar.
### 6. Attend Town Halls and Community Meetings - **Action**: Participate in local town hall meetings to voice your concerns about military actions and the importance of diplomacy. - **How to Find Them**: Check local government websites or community boards for scheduling.
### 7. Contact the State Department - **Action**: Write to the U.S. State Department to express concerns about military escalation and advocate for diplomatic engagement. - **Contact Information**: - **Email**: Use the contact form at [state.gov](https://www.state.gov/contact-us/) - **Mailing Address**: U.S. Department of State, 2201 C St NW, Washington, DC 20520
### 8. Support and Participate in Peaceful Protests - **Action**: Join or organize peaceful protests that emphasize the need for diplomacy and peaceful resolutions to conflicts. - **Where to Find Information**: Check local activist groups on platforms like Facebook or Meetup.
### 9. Engage with Media - **Action**: Write opinion pieces or letters to the editor for local newspapers discussing the importance of diplomacy over military action. - **Example**: Reach out to your local newspaper with a brief overview of your stance and request publication.
### 10. Stay Informed and Vigilant - **Action**: Keep up with news and developments in U.S.-Iran relations and advocate for ongoing discussions about peaceful resolutions. - **Resources**: Follow reputable news sources and listen to podcasts focused on international relations.
By taking these actions, we can collectively advocate for a more peaceful approach to international conflicts, emphasizing dialogue and understanding rather than escalation and warfare.