Rezaei: Any Action Against Iran Comes at a Price, We Are Ready for the Next Phase of the War

By Al-Ahed News

Iran has reaffirmed its readiness to confront further military escalation, warning that any action against the country would carry significant consequences. At the same time, Tehran has left the door open to diplomacy, making clear that a negotiated path remains preferable if it can secure recognition of the costs of continued confrontation.

Major General Mohsen Rezaei, secretary-general of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council [SNSC], stressed that Iran possesses the means to sustain its response for as long as hostilities continue.

“Everyone must understand that any action against Iran comes at a price,” Rezaei said. “If diplomacy can establish this understanding, we prefer diplomacy. But if the war continues, Iran has the tools necessary to keep responding.”

His remarks underscore Tehran’s position that diplomacy and military readiness are not mutually exclusive, but rather complementary elements of its strategy. While expressing a preference for a diplomatic solution, Rezaei made clear that Iran remains prepared to confront the next phase of the conflict.

He also emphasized that the country has yet to draw on the full extent of its military capabilities, revealing that additional capabilities have been introduced as the intensity of the war has increased.

“In the previous stages, we did not use all our capabilities,” he said. “We have introduced additional capabilities into our operations in proportion to the intensity of the war, and we are ready for the next phase as well.”

Alongside its military readiness, Tehran has set out new conditions for any return to negotiations, placing the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz at the center of its demands. Rezaei said Iran had conveyed seven new conditions through mediators and would not reopen the strategic waterway or return to the negotiating table until those conditions were implemented.

“We have put forward seven new conditions through mediators. Unless these conditions are fulfilled, Iran will not open the Strait of Hormuz or return to negotiations,” Rezaei said.

He stressed that the central difference in Iran’s current approach lies in the inclusion of guarantees within the framework of any eventual agreement, rather than relying on political assurances that could later go unfulfilled.

“The difference this time is that Iran will incorporate guarantees into the very structure of the agreement,” he said.

Rezaei also outlined the sequence Tehran expects to follow: first, the implementation of commitments; then, an Iranian decision on reopening the Strait of Hormuz; and finally, the resumption of maritime traffic under arrangements agreed upon with Oman.

“First, the commitments must be implemented. Iran will then decide whether to open the strait, after which navigation can resume in accordance with the arrangements agreed upon with the Sultanate of Oman,” he said.

The emphasis on guarantees reflects Tehran’s insistence that any future agreement must be backed by concrete commitments and a clear implementation mechanism. Rezaei said Iran was no longer interested in an agreement whose only safeguard was the other side’s political goodwill.

“Iran is no longer interested in an agreement whose only guarantee is the political goodwill of the other side,” he said.

He further argued that Tehran would not surrender the strategic leverage that had brought its adversaries to the negotiating table only to wait and see whether their promises would be honored.

“Iran will not give up the leverage that brought the other side to the negotiating table, only to wait and see whether its promises are implemented,” Rezaei said.

Beyond the immediate diplomatic confrontation, Rezaei warned that a continuation of the current situation would carry far-reaching consequences for the global economy, particularly the energy sector. He said prolonged instability could prevent energy markets from returning to calm for years, highlighting the wider strategic stakes of the conflict.

“If the current situation continues, it will have strategic consequences, including that energy markets will not return to calm over the next three years,” Rezaei said.

The warning places energy security at the center of the conflict’s broader implications. Persistent instability in the region could reverberate through international markets, reinforcing the significance of the Gulf’s strategic position and the consequences of a prolonged confrontation.

Rezaei also pointed to a shift in regional dynamics in Iran’s favor, arguing that the continuation of the war has prompted Gulf states to reconsider their relationships with Tehran.

“The continuation of this war has changed the dynamics of relations in Iran’s favor, with Gulf states moving rapidly to redefine their relations with Iran,” he said.

His remarks highlight Tehran’s view that the conflict is reshaping regional calculations beyond the immediate military arena. As Gulf countries reassess their security priorities, Iran sees an opportunity for a new regional equation in which its political and strategic position carries greater weight.

Rezaei linked this shift to growing questions over the effectiveness of the US military presence in the region, particularly its ability to protect its own installations and provide security for its partners.

“These countries have come to the conclusion that the US military is unable even to defend its own bases, whereas they had expected the United States to defend their countries,” he said.

The statement challenges the foundations of Washington’s longstanding security role in the Gulf and underscores Tehran’s argument that regional countries must reconsider their strategic assumptions. For Iran, the evolving situation presents an opportunity to strengthen regional ties and advance a security framework shaped more directly by the countries of the region.

Taken together, Rezaei’s remarks convey a clear message: Iran remains prepared for a prolonged confrontation, retains military capabilities that it says have yet to be fully deployed, and is setting firm conditions for any diplomatic settlement. By linking negotiations to the implementation of commitments, guarantees within the agreement itself, and a defined process for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran is signaling that a return to diplomacy will not mean relinquishing its strategic leverage.

Iran, in Rezaei’s formulation, remains open to diplomacy—but on terms designed to ensure that any agreement delivers enforceable commitments rather than promises alone.