Iran's military posture has undergone a significant transformation over the past 30 months, shifting from delayed retaliation to an immediate and unannounced response.
The latest directive from the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei, suggests that the next move will have no regard for geographical limitations.
In April 2024, Iran made its military capabilities visible to the world through Operation True Promise 1, announcing its response before the first drones took flight.
Two and a half years later, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution is calling on the country’s top-notch military commanders to “respond to any threat immediately, at all levels, and without geographical limitations.”
On Saturday, Ayatollah Khamenei met with the three most senior commanders and instructed them to respond promptly and decisively to every threat, regardless of its level or geographical scope, in pursuit of “maximum deterrence” against any act of aggression or threat.
He also ordered an update to the target bank, ensuring that both the material and non-material assets of adversaries could be placed within reach of Iranian forces.
Other instructions included strengthening military intelligence capabilities, deepening domestic defense theory and doctrine, and making greater use of advanced technological systems.
The top-ranking commanders, in turn, briefed him on the country's state of military readiness along the Persian Gulf coast, around the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman, and along Iran's northwestern and southeastern borders.
Taken on its own, the directive is a powerful assertion of intent. Viewed against the events of the past 30 months, however, it marks the culmination of a broader shift.
Each time Iran has come under attack, its response has become faster, more forceful, and more expansive than the last. This posture did not emerge overnight. It was forged through successive confrontations, with each episode of conflict reshaping the doctrine that followed.
From patience to proof
For roughly a decade, Western capitals interpreted Iranian restraint as weakness. They called it “strategic patience,” a posture that, in the eyes of its advocates, could be sustained indefinitely.
Tehran absorbed assassinations, sabotage, and crippling sanctions, responding in part through regional allies and other means that allowed a degree of plausible deniability.
The major exception came in January 2020, when Iran retaliated for the assassination of top anti-terror commander General Qassem Soleimani with a missile strike on the Ain al-Asad airbase in Iraq. Washington, however, treated the response as an isolated incident.
Then came April 1, 2024. Several Iranian officers, including Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, who headed Iran's military advisory mission in Damascus, were killed in an Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consular annex in the Syrian capital.
Diplomatic premises are inviolable under international law. The attack appeared designed to test whether Tehran would absorb yet another blow without responding directly. It did not.
True Promise 1 - Breaking the taboo, telegraphing the blow
On the night of April 13, 2024, Iran launched Operation True Promise 1, firing more than 300 missiles and drones toward the occupied territories. For the first time, Iran had carried out a direct, large-scale attack on the Zionist entity from its own territory.
The operation was designed to make a statement as much as to inflict damage on the regime’s assets. Tehran publicly signaled its intentions and also notified countries across the region.
Slower-moving drones were launched first to allow them to be coordinated with faster ballistic and cruise missiles. This was calibrated retaliation, marking a demonstration of capability and resolve, showing what Iran could do rather than simply what it had to do.
The Western attempts to defend the Tel Aviv regime, involving primarily American, British, French, and Jordanian assets, were widely publicized. Yet, despite this assistance, Iranian missiles penetrated the air-defense network of the Israeli regime and its allies.
What received far less attention was the operation's strategic significance: a long-standing taboo had been broken and the defense doctrine was no longer the same.
Iran's UN mission warned that any further Israeli aggression would provoke a much harsher response, while declaring the matter closed. Tehran had also made its new position explicit: any attack on Iranian interests would be answered from Iranian territory.
True Promise 2: A shorter fuse and harder missiles
While True Promise 1 was a declaration, True Promise 2 answered a more pointed question: What happens when the enemy begins targeting and assassinating leaders?
In the summer of 2024, Israel assassinated Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, where he was attending an official ceremony as a guest of the Iranian government.
In Beirut, it also assassinated Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. Iran's response came on October 1, four days after Nasrallah's assassination.
The operation also marked a shift in Iran's military approach. Rather than a prolonged, staggered launch involving waves of drones and missiles, Iran fired approximately 180 missiles in a concentrated salvo within minutes.
The compressed launch window left defenders with minutes, rather than hours, to respond. Air bases and an intelligence facility were among the stated targets, while images circulated after the attack appeared to show damage at Nevatim Airbase.
Warning times were reduced, the missile mix shifted toward systems considered more difficult to intercept, and the target list was explicitly linked to the enemy's assassinations.
A second principle was taking shape in Iran's doctrine. Retaliation was no longer limited to restoring deterrence after an attack on Iranian territory. It now also encompassed the assassination of Iran's allies and official guests, quietly broadening the circumstances Tehran considered grounds for a direct response.
The 12-day war: No more waiting
On June 13, 2025, Israel launched a large-scale, unprovoked and illegal war against Iran, targeting military bases, nuclear facilities, and senior military commanders and nuclear scientists, several of whom were assassinated in the opening strikes.
This time, there was no waiting period and no gradual escalation. Iranian missiles and drones were launched within hours. The chain of command continued to function under fire, with replacements appointed within minutes of commanders being assassinated.
On June 22, the United States joined the aggression, carrying out airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran retaliated the following day by striking Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the largest US military installation in the region. A ceasefire took effect on June 24.
Two lessons stand out. The first is speed. The interval between provocation and retaliation had narrowed dramatically: from more than a week in the case of True Promise 1, to a similarly extended interval for True Promise 2, and finally to just a few hours in True Promise 3.
The second concerns the changing role of the United States in Iran's calculus. American military bases were no longer merely hypothetical targets held in reserve for a possible future confrontation. Within a day of Washington's direct intervention, Iran had responded with a direct and crushing strike on a US military installation in the Persian Gulf region.
The 40-day war: The map gets redrawn
The real test came on February 28, 2026, when the United States, alongside the Israeli regime, launched a far larger and unprovoked war of aggression against Iran.
The martyrdom of Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei in the opening phase was intended, in the enemy's calculation, to decapitate the Iranian system.
That assumption proved profoundly misguided.
Operation True Promise 4 became a 40-day battle, with the IRGC striking military facilities, energy complexes and pipelines linked to the aggressors, as well as American and Israeli military assets across the region. According to the IRGC, the operation involved 100 waves of attacks.
Shortly before the war was launched, the martyred Leader had warned that any such aggression would not remain confined to Iranian territory, given the presence of American troops at military bases across West Asia.
Washington appears to have dismissed that warning as rhetoric. It was, in fact, an operational plan. Iran did not intend to make the first move, but it had made clear what the consequences of an attack would be.
The region was battered by missiles and drones, while US military assets came under pressure. Governments that had presented themselves as neutral, while allowing American forces to operate from their territory, were forced to confront the consequences of hosting those forces.
The second front was the Strait of Hormuz. On the first day of the war, Iran announced that the waterway would be closed to hostile shipping. Days later, the IRGC confirmed the closure, sending global energy markets into alarm.
For the first time, the cost of attacking Iran was being laid directly before those who had never authorized a war but would now have to reckon with its consequences.
A ceasefire was reached on April 8 through Pakistani mediation at the US request.
By then, the calculus established by True Promise 1 had been turned on its head. In 2024, Iran sent a message and waited. In 2026, it began presenting the aggressors with a bill – and did not stop until the aggressors beseeched.
What does the new directive add?
Against that backdrop, the Leader’s order is more than a restatement. It does four things at once. They are the first: the removal of the ceiling. The regionalisation of a war is the highest step on Iran's escalation ladder after the 40-day war. No reference is made to geography, either, and the directive states that even that is dispensed with as the outer boundary.
Immediacy is the second. The language works on the premise of a prompt and decisive reaction to any and all threats – thereby silencing the old style of reduced shots taken and quiet getting away. In American culture, we tend to escalate in a calibrated manner, that is, throw something at someone, and say “forget it”. Tehran has "ordered its commanders not to.
The third one is the bank you are trying to transfer funds to. An upcoming revision that targets not just battlefield strategic locations, but also the enemy's 'material and non-material assets', indicates a much broader notion of targets. The statement does not intend to mention countries or categories; this does not have to be the case here.
The fourth is the long game. The not so sexy portion of the directive is the military intelligence, indigenous doctrine and tactics and the new technologies. The commanders told the Leader that the manufacture of ammunition and weapons has increased several-fold, according to reports about the meeting. There is a saying in the business world, “the credibility of the doctrine is the same as the credibility of the industry behind it” and that is the idea of the exercise.
The logic of uncertainty
So why leave the statement open-ended? Because setting a fixed limit gives the other side an advantage. If an adversary believes that any attack will remain within a defined boundary, it can plan its aggression around that boundary and calculate the risks accordingly. For two decades, American strategists had heard Iran's warnings.
The 40-day war imposed on the Iranian nation revealed the weight behind them.
For Tehran, refusing to specify countries, ranges, or targets removes a key planning parameter from the adversary's calculations. The enemy can no longer draw a circle around the battlefield, because no such circle has been defined.
Deterrence in this context rests on two elements: political resolve and the capacity to respond. The first has been demonstrated on four occasions; the second has been put to the test in two wars and, according to the commanders' briefing, is now being further strengthened.
The pattern also offers clues to how Iran interprets the other side's record. A military power that repeatedly declares a war over, only to return to it, cannot be treated as a reliable partner in a lasting ceasefire. The directive appears to reflect that experience.
What comes next?
The consequences extend beyond Washington and Tel Aviv. Host countries across the region now face a more difficult dilemma than they did before the February war: how much of their territory and resources are they willing to put at risk in someone else's war?
Even before the 40-day imposed war, shipping companies and insurers had learned that the Strait of Hormuz was no theoretical choke point. Energy traders, too, will have to factor the new language into their calculations well before the next shot is fired.
For the United States, the strategic dilemma is clear. Could the very reach that underpins American military power also be a source of vulnerability?
Every base, carrier group, and regional partner involved in an attack on Iran adds another variable – one that Washington may not be able to control.
Iran's doctrine began this period as a warning of intent. It evolved into a standing order. What remains uncertain is whether, and how, Iran will respond to the next act of military aggression against it. What form will that response take, and where will it end?
This makes it easy to access the Press TV website