PNN – While describing the resistance and steadfastness of the Iranian regime and people in the current imposed war, the Turkish expert emphasized that the people’s presence on the ground and the introduction of the third leader were Iran’s strong slap in the face to imperialism and Zionism.
“You will be helpless”; this is the famous sentence of the martyred leader of Islam, Ayatollah Imam Khamenei, addressed to America and the Zionist regime. America and the Zionist regime, who entered the war campaign with the dream of the collapse of the Iranian regime, have not yet achieved any of their declared goals after 11 days of this conflict.
It is noteworthy that after the martyrdom of the Leader of the Revolution, the enemies thought that Iran would lose its ability to defend itself mentally and physically, but yesterday, in an important development, the martyred leader’s heir, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, was elected as the third leader of Iran.
Following this important political event, the people of Iran took to the streets to pledge allegiance to Ayatollah Khamenei, both to show their support for the new leadership and to celebrate this political transformation and the helplessness of the enemies.
In this regard, Mehr reporter conducted an interview with Hasan Akaras, a Turkish expert in the field of resistance, the details of which are given below.
Trump started the war against Iran with the dream of achieving a quick victory, but ten days into the war, he has yet to achieve anything. How do you assess the intentions of Israel and the United States in attacking Iran? What was the purpose of this attack and do you think they were able to achieve their goals?
First of all, I offer my deepest condolences to the noble people of Iran who believe in the blessings of martyrdom and have internalized resistance as a way of life. Although the physical loss of the martyred leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is a severe test for all Muslims in the world, I consider the election of Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei as the new standard-bearer of this blessed path to be the greatest slap in the face of global imperialism and Zionism, and I congratulate him. At this critical juncture, our hearts are with the Guardianship of the Jurisprudence, the Iranian people, and the axis of resistance, who are the defenders of justice and truth. The fact that the flag of the Guardianship is in the hands of trustworthy people is a source of confidence and stability for all of us.
On the morning of February 28, 2026, the world woke up to the joint Israeli-American attacks on Iran. In addition to attacks targeting religious, military, and political leaders, an attack on a primary school in Minab was also carried out with the aim of creating an atmosphere of fear and pressure. These actions were recorded as an attempt to force Iran to accept an imposed agreement of complete surrender, regime change, and the formation of a new Iranian aligned with the US-Israeli axis. On the very first day of the attack, both US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clearly stated that the strategic goal of this operation was to bring about regime change in Iran.
These attacks were designed based on the classic American doctrine of “shock and awe.” Decision-makers in Tel Aviv and Washington believed that by relying on advanced air power and cyber-attacks, they could break Iran’s defenses within 48 hours and create a kind of political paralysis in the country within a few days. But the reality on the field on the tenth day of the war showed that this idea was an example of strategic blindness to the realities on the ground. Iran’s underground missile cities, asymmetric command structure, and the extensive retaliatory operations carried out over the past ten days seriously challenged the narrative of American military superiority. What was supposed to paralyze Iran turned into a strategic stalemate against the defense doctrine that Iran had been preparing for decades.
For Israel, too, the attack was an attempt to consolidate regional hegemony. They saw Iran as the biggest and perhaps only obstacle to their goals; hence, they considered entering this war before the end of Trump’s presidency inevitable. However, what was achieved in practice was nothing more than a breach in the security umbrella over Tel Aviv and Haifa and the confrontation with coordinated retaliatory attacks from various fronts. Not only did they not achieve their goals, but by endangering their existence, they caused the existing system in Iran to gain greater ability to rebuild and modernize and strengthen the bond between the government and the people.
On the first day of the war, we witnessed the martyrdom of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution. Many in the world thought that in the absence of the Leader, the system in Iran would collapse; but now we see that a third Leader has been elected. How do you evaluate this development?
This event was one of the biggest lessons for those circles that described the Islamic system in Iran as a “one-man rule.” Western analysts always presented the leadership structure of the Islamic Revolution as dependent on a charismatic personality and, as a result, a fragile structure. However, the scenario of chaos and collapse of the system that they expected after the martyrdom of the leader failed in the face of the maturity of the legal system and the constitution of the Islamic Republic.
The reason for the rapid collapse of the “chaos after the leader” scenarios in the Western media was that the position of the Velayat-e-Faqih was not formed as an individual, but as a rationality and an institution. The enemy imagined the Islamic Revolution as a building that would collapse if a bomb were dropped on its roof; but it became clear that this system is like a plane tree with its roots deep in the ground.
The Islamic Revolution has repeated the same maturity it demonstrated in the first major transfer of power in 1989, today in a war situation, at a much more advanced level. This has shown that the legitimacy of the system is based on institutional and constitutional continuity, rather than relying on a “charismatic leader” culture. The assessment and selection made by the Assembly of Experts in these difficult circumstances have shown that the Islamic system is not a one-man government, but a system that operates with a single will.
The greatest expectation of the imperialist powers was that the possible vacuum in the leadership position would lead to internal instability. But the Assembly of Experts, by quickly finalizing this choice, took this important psychological warfare card from the enemy. This process also showed that the Constitution of the Islamic Republic remains effective and does not become blocked even in the most difficult crises. This choice proved to what extent the roots of the system are linked to the will of the people, society, and the insight of the scholars.
How do you assess the continued presence of people in the city squares despite the enemy’s heavy attacks? How do you interpret this situation?
The biggest mistake of the enemies was that they thought they could separate the Iranian people from the government, from the Velayat-e-Faqih, and from the system. But the millions of people who filled the streets and squares on the tenth day of the war showed that the legitimacy of the Islamic system originates from the people and has strong social support.
If we look at the situation in Israel, we see a society that has been living in shelters for days due to Iranian missile attacks and is facing a fragile psychological and social structure. In contrast, the filling of Iranian squares with slogans of “Labaik” showed how deep the social base of the resistance axis is. These scenes also proved that the enemy’s psychological warfare has failed to affect the will of the people.
The enemy can destroy buildings with its missiles, martyr leaders, and kill thousands of civilians. In terms of military technology, there is no serious obstacle to such actions. From a human and legal perspective, we have already seen in Gaza and Lebanon that these regimes do not recognize boundaries for their actions, and now the same attacks may be directed at Iran.