By Ali Salehabadi
Ali Salehabadi is the Managing Editor of Setareh Sobh, a reformist daily newspaper in Iran. He is known for his sharp commentary on foreign affairs, national security, and economic issues.
In 2024, he openly criticized the Iranian government’s military strategy toward Israel, stating that it lacked a proper assessment of its impact on citizens’ lives and the national economy.He has consistently argued that diplomatic solutions—not military displays—are essential, and that policies must reflect the lived realities of the people. Recognized for his pragmatic and cost-benefit-oriented analysis, Salehabadi is regarded as one of Iran’s leading critical voices.
The AsiaN is pleased to present his article to its readers.
TEHRAN: The nature of war is destruction, which is why it is considered an ugly and dangerous phenomenon for humanity. National and people-oriented governments avoid war and seek peace so that people’s lives are not harmed or disrupted. A study of wars throughout history shows that each one ends with destruction and death, producing winners and losers, and eventually concluding through diplomacy. However, what is concerning is that the scars and consequences of war last for generations, and history ultimately serves as its judge.
Most wars have been fought over land and water, but communists, socialists, ideologues, and nationalists—after killing millions and sending them to labor camps—collapsed because their assumptions were flawed. Examples include the Soviet Union, Hitler, Nasser, and others. The Islamic Revolution, from the beginning, has been a religious revolution, and based on the mandate in its constitution, it clashed with hegemonic powers like the USSR, the United States, and Israel. The revolutionaries’ assumption was—and remains—that the system of global domination must be dismantled and Israel must be destroyed. Based on this belief, Iran supported resistance groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hashd al-Shaabi. This strategy was chosen and invested in to eliminate Israel—failing to fully account for Israel’s powerful backers: the U.S., Europe, Russia, some Arab states, and others.
The cost-benefit principle is the most well-known rule in politics and economics. According to this principle, if an action is beneficial, it is good; if it is harmful, it is bad. Modern, pragmatic, and technocratic governments follow this rule.
People evaluate the consequences of policies and the 12-day war in their own lives—was it to their benefit or to their detriment?
Idealists and ideologues, however, consider any action—whether beneficial or harmful—a victory, because they think in heavenly, not earthly, terms. When Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023 (15 Mehr 1402), they celebrated and distributed sweets. The same happened when Iran launched missiles at Israel—cheers, celebrations, and dancing in the streets followed. These groups seem either blind to or indifferent toward the deaths of 610 people, including women and children, and the damage to hundreds of homes in Tehran, Karaj, Tabriz, and other cities.
Iran and Israel exchanged blows in a 12-day war. If you strike, be prepared to be struck back. So we shouldn’t view the issue in black-and-white terms, belittle the enemy, or see ourselves as flawless. If we accurately assess both our own strength and that of the enemy, we can achieve victory.
During the 12 days of war, regardless of whether people supported the government’s stance, they stood united in defense of Iran and condemned the aggression. Even some from inside prison and others abroad joined the defense of the homeland. This event showed that Iranians stood together around the axis of Iran. It is expected that, using a realist approach, the material and moral damages be truthfully communicated to the rightful owners of the country—the people—so they can understand whether the 12-day war benefited or harmed them.
The 12-day war showed that while Iranian missiles and drones penetrated Israel’s Iron Dome and hit their targets, about 30 military commanders were assassinated in return, and according to the foreign minister, nuclear facilities that had cost billions of dollars suffered serious damage.
Experience has shown that Israel does not abide by ceasefires. This has been repeatedly proven in Gaza and Lebanon. Just yesterday, Israel warned residents near military centers to evacuate. Though it may be psychological warfare, the possibility of another Israeli attack on Iran remains. The one who once applied the brakes on Netanyahu was Donald Trump—who, while claiming to pursue peace, also issued orders to attack Iran’s nuclear sites. If Iran wants to avoid future Israeli attacks, it must reach an agreement with the U.S. and declare a cessation of hostilities with both the U.S. and Israel. This does not mean recognizing Israel—it simply means ending the state of war.
In these difficult times, we must defend Iran and its territorial integrity with all our strength. Fortunately, one achievement of this war was that it united the people around the cause of Iran and in condemnation of the aggression.
