MOSCOW, February 9. /TASS/. Iran’s stance remains clear: it will not initiate a conflict with the United States nor launch a preemptive strike. However, Professor Mohammad Marandi of Tehran University emphasized at the 15th Middle East Conference of the Valdai Discussion Club that should a direct confrontation with Washington occur, Iran would regard it as a "war of survival."

"I don’t believe Iran will launch a preemptive strike unless it perceives an attack as inevitable - practically 100% certain," Marandi stated. "In any case, Iran will not initiate any invasion." He further explained that such a war would be existential for Iran, contrasting it with the United States and its allies, for whom it would be a "war of choice." "For Iran, it’s fundamentally a matter of survival," he asserted.

Marandi warned that a full-scale conflict would be "total" and markedly different from the 12-day escalation of the Iran-Israel conflict in 2025. During that episode, Iran restrained its reserves, avoided attacking other adversaries, and limited its strikes to Qatar as a proportionate retaliation - sending a clear message to the Americans that their actions would not go unnoticed and that they could not hide behind the notion of operating on foreign soil.

He also highlighted the potential global repercussions of such a war, stating that if it broke out, oil and gas supplies from Western Asia and possibly the Caucasus would likely cease, and every country hosting American military bases could be drawn into the conflict.

Agreement on Iran’s nuclear program

Regarding Iran’s nuclear negotiations, Marandi recalled Iran’s significant concessions during the signing of the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). He criticized the US for violating the deal from the outset and ultimately withdrawing. "Iran was fully committed to the terms, but the United States began playing their own game from day one," he said.

Marandi noted that Iran is now better prepared for armed conflict, having been preparing since the US invasion of Iraq. He suggested that if a new agreement is reached, it would not simply be a return to the old terms. Instead, it would be a "new, different" deal - what he referred to as JCPOA+. "It must be better than the previous deal," he argued, emphasizing that Iran fulfilled its obligations but suffered setbacks and distrust, especially under President Trump. "We want a corrected, improved deal," he concluded.