Alireza Zadbar, Contemporary History researcher
On July 16, 2025, in a meeting with top Judiciary officials, Imam Khamenei stated that, “The Iranian nation accomplished a great feat in the recent Imposed War. This great accomplishment wasn’t military in nature. It was a matter of determination. It was a matter of determination and self-confidence. There was a time before the Revolution when the mere mention of America's name would frighten people, let alone confronting it or opposing it. The nation has reached a point where it stands directly face to face against this power.” In this interview with Khamenei.ir, Dr. Alireza Zadbar, Contemporary History researcher, state that the great achievement of the Iranian nation was preventing the establishment of a colonialist trend. He elaborated on the role of the Islamic Revolution in forming a powerful anti-colonial system and explained why the Iranian people have confidence in this struggle.
Question: What was the great achievement of the Iranian people? At first glance, what occurred seems like a so-called 12-day war between Iran and the Zionist regime. But on a deeper level, some believe this was not an ordinary confrontation. In your view, in what ways was this confrontation unique?
Alireza Zadbar: If I may, I would like to begin from this point: This was not a war between Iran and Israel. If we want to recount this war that was imposed and the defense that the Iranians put up, one of the pitfalls in narrating it is reducing it to a war between Iran and Israel. Israel, for various reasons, is fundamentally incapable of confronting a nation-state on its own—especially if you compare it to Iran in terms of geography, population, infrastructure, and sheer size. Iran has nearly 10 times the population of the Zionist regime, and it is roughly 85 to 90 times larger in area. Iran has historical, cultural, and civilizational depth. Since its establishment, Israel’s military strategy—which was designed by the founders of the Zionist regime—has consisted of multiple layers, and it has always been that Israel must enter wars with surprise. The wars Israel wages must have the following characteristics: they must be surprise attacks, lightning-fast, and end within a short timeframe. If you look at the history of this regime’s wars since 1948, even in cases where it fought Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser, or with Jordan or Syria, it always sought to make the wars swift and catch the adversary off-guard, landing a serious blow on the very first day or two. For instance, in the war with Egypt, in the initial hours, it nearly wiped out Egypt’s powerful air force. This regime, throughout its cursed existence, has engaged in short-term wars—ranging from 6 days to 22 days, to 33 days, and over 40 days. It fundamentally lacks the capacity for a long-term war, for several reasons I’ve mentioned: geopolitics, lack of social resilience, and the fact that it is a fabricated nation-building project.
The Zionist regime’s attack on Iran was the outcome of years of Western groundwork
So if it wants to confront a powerful nation-state like Iran and still stick to its military strategy of a quick, lightning war, it is in need of substantial assistance. Now, did the Zionists, the Israeli regime, enter this war on their own? No. According to reports and documents that have been released, the United States—at least as far back as 8 months prior to the war, when Biden was still in office and Trump had not yet taken over, and before the elections in the US—was involved in designing and even practicing for this operation. So what should we recount here?
Was the Iranian people’s great achievement merely standing up to a small, fake, fabricated regime? No. The United States was clearly involved in all stages before the war and provided support. Even during True Promise I and True Promise II, when Iran responded to the Zionist regime, it was the Americans who, by their own admission, helped intercept the [Iranian] missiles and drones—along with several European countries and other Western allies. For instance, the German Chancellor explicitly said on the fifth or sixth day of the war that the dirty work being committed by Israel are being done on their behalf.
The first point is this: If we are to speak about the greatness and magnitude of what the Iranian people and state achieved, we must recognize that this was not just a case of a small regime, which has been entangled in Gaza for nearly 22 months, attacking the Iranian nation. No. A massive project—both in design and in aims—was in motion. What the Israelis and Americans tried to portray to the global public over the course of 20 years to justify a war on Iran was that they intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities so that Iran would not obtain a nuclear bomb and the region could remain peaceful—because if Iran were to acquire a nuclear bomb, then other countries would be compelled to do the same, and the world would no longer be a safe place. You know that the Americans—and the West in general—whenever they want to carry out a military operation or an invasion, they work on shaping global public opinion. They did the same before attacking Afghanistan and Iraq. So in this 12-day war against Iran, did the West—the Western-Hebrew axis, not just Israel—only target Iran’s nuclear facilities? Absolutely not. Civilian areas were targeted. Nearly a thousand martyrs, a number of whom were military personnel. Police station, welfare center, Red Crescent center, major city squares—not just Fordow, which they claimed was the target. Fordow was bombed in the final days of the war. We have martyrs ranging from infants, two-month-olds, teenagers, to military commanders. Yet the pretext was supposedly to prevent Iran from going nuclear.
If the attack on Iran had succeeded, the model would have been repeated elsewhere
But that is not the issue. The behavior that the Zionist regime and the Americans displayed during these 12 days of war against the Iranian people and government was not merely about destroying nuclear facilities. If their goal had been to destroy nuclear installations, there would have been no need to threaten to assassinate—and attempt an unsuccessful assassination of—political figures such as the president, the speaker of parliament, and the Leader of Iran. Reports revealed that a few days after the attack began—and after assassinating military commanders in an attempt to create a major shock—the Zionist regime sought to eliminate political leaders such as the president, the speaker of parliament, and the head of the Judiciary. They made an attempt, but failed. It is important to pay attention here: first, the war must not be reduced to a narrative that Israel attacked Iran. Second, it must not be reduced to a nuclear issue alone. The behavior the Israelis demonstrated was not consistent with that interpretation. The next point is that the global audience and free-thinking public opinion around the world must understand that the behavior of the Americans—the US government—toward Iran is not the result of one or two days or simply Trump. This notion some have, that this conduct is unprecedented, is incorrect. In the history of Iran-US relations, over the past 47 years, the US government has repeatedly acted—both directly and indirectly—against the interests of the Iranian people.
It once shot down our passenger airliner over the Persian Gulf without any justification or evidence. During the eight-year war that was imposed on us by Iraq, the US supported Iraq. Over an extended period, it imposed the most severe sanctions on Iran. We must be aware that this 12-day war came after all the other acts that had already been carried out against the Iranian people and state. So the great achievement of the Iranian people and the Islamic Republic is that they were standing up to a massive, extensive project and a meticulous design. I must point out here that the Westerners’ plan was a new, multi-layered, complex design—and this constitutes a threat for other nations, governments, and independent states as well. In this operation, they targeted the leadership of the country—both military and political—with complex cyber operations, sophisticated psychological warfare, drones, micro-drones, electronic warfare, violations of Iranian airspace, and a model rarely seen before—perhaps even unprecedented in the history of modern warfare.
If this model had succeeded—if Israel and the West had succeeded in overthrowing the Iranian government, creating insecurity inside Iran, and pushing that insecurity toward the fragmentation of Iran—then this model, like the chaos they brought about in Libya, Syria, and other parts of Asia and Africa, would have become a successful template for these colonialist governments to apply to others in the same way. In fact, the Iranian nation stood up to a malignant colonialist will—and by doing so, they also defended the independence of other nations. That is a monumental act. It is not merely an act of resistance for Iranians alone.
Question: Imam Khamenei considered the Iranian nation’s resolve and will to be a crucial factor in the confrontation and victory against Israel and the United States. In your view, why is the element of the Iranian Muslim individual’s will and resolve so meaningful in this era and this confrontation? From which aspects should it be examined?
Alireza Zadbar: War, in its academic and classical definition, is the imposition of one’s will on another through force. War is famously as old as human history itself. That is, if you want to study the history of warfare in human life, it was born alongside human existence. In war, one uses tools of coercion—in the past, they were simple tools: swords, spears. Now, they are advanced weapons. What are you seeking in war? You aim to achieve your objective—but by using force to impose your will on the other. So even for defense, you need tools. War requires tools, offense requires tools, and defense requires tools. But the essence of war is not merely the existence of tools—it is will. In war, it is not only the tools that clash with one another; it is the wills of nations that collide. In the recent war, the will of the Iranian nation confronted the will of a fake, malignant nation with a short history—since 1948—the Zionist regime.
The Iranian nation’s historical conduct in the recent imposed war is the result of two identity pillars
Now, what was the assessment of the enemy of the Iranian nation? Their assessment was that: We will launch an attack, eliminate the country’s leadership, call the people to rise up, draw them into street protests, and implement models that have been carried out in other countries—this time successfully in Iran. The evidence for this is that both Netanyahu and Trump, after the war began, openly called on the Iranian people to support regime change—both on Twitter and in interviews. Netanyahu explicitly stated it, and in the second half of the war, Trump used that key phrase: Make Iran great again. So, what was the intent here? What did the enemy calculate? What was the premise of the Americans and Westerners? They assumed that the Iranian people had distanced themselves from their political system, from their government. Their premise was that if they weakened the government and eliminated its leadership, then, based on that premise, the people would come out in support of them, take to the streets, and the government would come under internal pressure. That was their premise—and they even planned for it. From the armed wing of the opposition—the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization, the Munafiqeen (Hypocrites)—to Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last Shah of Iran. He, too, called for assault, protests, and people to come to the streets. Now here, it is no longer the weaponry that fights. It is not the missiles, drones, or air defenses that fight. It is about the will of a nation, the resolve of a people, and what I would call the Iranian people’s national consciousness. The Iranians demonstrated national consciousness.
We saw, over the past two decades, in some other countries in the same West Asian region—such as Libya, Syria, and several others—that when a foreign enemy arrived and imposed a no-fly zone—particularly in Libya—some opposition elements and segments of the population took up arms, went into the streets, and fought against their own governments for years. Today, we see the results: insecure countries, fragmentation, no unified sovereignty. But when this same kind of behavior was attempted with the Iranian people, they responded with national consciousness. Where does this will and resolve come from? First, it comes from their historical experience. The Iranian nation is a historical nation. It is not a newly created nation. It possesses a deep historical, cultural, ancient, and civilizational background. It is not a nation that came into being after World War II. It is not an artificial creation. It is not a nation where first a tower was built in the center of the capital, and then a country was formed around it. This is not the first war that the Iranian nation has experienced in its history. If we study the history of Iran—ancient history, pre-Islamic, post-Islamic, medieval, and modern history—Iranians have experienced many wars in various eras. They have won some and lost some. But they are not a war-inexperienced nation.
They are not a people without a historical record of defending their country. Yes, due to the treachery of certain statesmen and governments, or in some cases the lack of resources, technology, and tools, there have been defeats. But the historical legacy of this nation has shown that it comes together in times of crisis. We have seen in some recent wars that people immediately fled their borders. But Iranians did not flee Iran. Iran has 15 neighbors, with numerous land and sea borders. Its airspace was closed, but it was still possible to exit the country by land. The Iranian people did not leave the country. In this war, Iranians did not exhibit fear, panic, or looting—there were no looting of stores, no panic buying of food—while the Zionists did behave this way. The Iranians did not project an image of weakness. This comes from being a nation—with history and identity. The second pillar of the Iranian people’s strength, which reinforces their resolve and will, is that the Iranian nation is essentially a religious and monotheistic people—both in the past and in the present. That is, the element of religion, of Shi’a Islam—a concept our audience must understand—generates power and produces courage. It introduces concepts such as martyrdom, and the attainment of salvation through jihad—not in the negative sense the Americans have tried to portray over the past three or four decades through Takfiri and Salafi groups—but through the concept of resistance. These are rooted in the faith and religious tradition that Iranians have embraced for centuries. It is their life, their existence.
So, the will and resolve in Iran have two foundations: one is Iranian national identity—being Iranian and possessing a civilizational history. The second is religious orientation. Now, in the present era, these two elements have become unified under the political system of the Islamic Republic, whose axis is the Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist). Some might say: Well, in the past, Iranians were also a nation and had religion, yet they were defeated in modern wars—defeated by Tsarist Russia, by the British in World War I, and in World War II the country was occupied. Yes, even then we had the traits of nationhood, history, civilization, and religion. But why were we defeated? Because the national will was not cohesive. Because the Qajar and Pahlavi regimes did not have the capacity to align political will with the will of the people and produce power.
With the victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the Islamic Republic eliminated the state-nation contrast that had been continually reinforced in Iran and instead generated power.
Why, during those 12 days, were they seeking the collapse of the Iranian government? Because that element of power would have been lost. For decades, they had focused on reinforcing a dichotomy in Iran — the government versus the nation, religion versus nationalism. But at that critical juncture, in the midst of crisis, Iranians moved past these dichotomies. The thing that could be a source of power produced defense — civil defense — more significant than any other kind. That’s why the enemy, in its pre-war premises, hoped that the people would take to the streets and act against the Islamic Republic, as had happened in Libya or Syria. But the Iranian nation, drawing on its historical and religious background and the trust it had in the political structure centered on the leadership of Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, did not act in that way.
Question: In human history, the process of colonizing and exploiting nations has always, in one sense, rendered them sterile through humiliation, intimidation, and demoralization — placing them in the most vulnerable position in confrontations. As is often noted in international relations discourse, the mere movement of a warship from a colonial power like the United States could lead to regime change in one or two countries in the region. But this did not happen in Iran. Despite the highest levels of military and economic threats and intimidation, the Iranian nation stood firm and continued its resistance. And as the Leader of the Revolution has pointed out, “When a nation, a country, and a military force within that country possess the self-confidence and resolve to face down the power of America and its chained dog in the region — the Zionist regime — that very willpower, that very self-confidence is an extremely valuable asset.” How do you explain this unique quality of the Iranian people?
Alireza Zadbar: Since its inception and throughout its development, Western civilization — in its various phases, say, the 15th, 16th, or 17th centuries — has always had one or two dominant powers acting as global police or colonial powers. It’s been Portugal, Holland, Spain during certain periods, France, and Britain. In the 19th century, Britain — or as they call it, “Great Britain” — had so many colonies that the sun never set on its empire, stretching from east to west across the globe. Britain colonized so many countries that it even had a Ministry of Colonies in its cabinet. It took over India. The French and the Belgians had portions of their states in Africa. For centuries, the international order was organized around one or two central Western powers. Why? Because the very nature of Western civilization is monopolistic. The most important area where it demands monopoly exclusively for itself is in the realm of production. Most of the world consists of consumers, while a select few — the Western powers — are producers. Who holds power? The one who can produce.
By “production,” I don’t just mean manufacturing goods or tools. It includes producing ideas, lifestyles, and culture. In order to manage the world, you don’t just need to produce goods — although that’s very important — you also need to produce culture, lifestyle, and thought. In this colonial discourse, the world is divided into producers (a small minority) and consumers. Into core (metropolitan) Western states and peripheral ones. Into powerful developed countries and weak developing countries. Into the First World and the Third World. Into the Global North and the Global South. These concepts, these binaries, all serve the goal of concentrating power within Western civilization. This is where colonialism arises.
To maintain this monopoly, they resort to colonization. What is the way of colonizing? In the past, colonialism meant occupying countries militarily — sending in troops and establishing a physical presence. In today’s colonial literature, this is referred to as “old colonialism” or first-generation colonialism. They did this for decades, across many countries — not just in Iran.
In the first generation of colonialism, they brought in military forces. But this was costly for the West — their soldiers were killed, they suffered losses, and they had to make significant investments. The new generation of colonialism that we’ve been facing for decades now has taken on a different form. One of its manifestations is that instead of launching military invasions, they install puppet rulers and freeze their political will. Nations and governments must be stripped of political autonomy when facing the West. They must lack the ability to make independent decisions. They have done this with many countries. We saw during various crises — especially in the field of energy — which countries came to the aid of the West. Of course, before the Islamic Revolution, Iran was no exception, and I’ll explain that in more detail shortly. That is, during the Pahlavi era, Iran acted in line with Western interests in many cases — at one time aligned with the British, at another with the Americans. So modern colonialism doesn’t just involve military invasions. It means installing puppet rulers who, in order to stay in power, lack independence and political will and act in ways that serve Western interests.
So, a different kind of colonialism—one that Westerners have invested in more heavily—is intellectual colonialism. That means they colonize the minds of elites, intellectuals, and prominent figures in other countries. They bring them within the sphere of their own interests, educate them using different terminologies, various methods, and multiple theories, and by occupying academic spaces, they mentally and intellectually colonize nations.
Today, free nations are facing this reality. It takes different forms: they use media, theories, academic paradigms to take control of minds. This is where soft power seeks to capture hearts and minds—it manages the brain and the heart. You can see Westerners have been working on this for decades. Iran, historically, has had a long-standing confrontation with colonialism—be it the Tsarist Empire, the British Empire, many treaties such Golestan, Turkmenchay, the 1919 Agreement, the Treaty of Paris, World War I and II—many ups and downs. Yet, the national and religious movement has always resisted. In our history, we have the Tobacco Movement, led by a fatwa from a religious authority. Or the Reuter Concession, which was imposed on Iran and opposed by a religious scholar named Molla Ali Kani. For the past 200 years, the axis of Iranian resistance against colonialism and the rallying cries for independence have centered on religious figures. Even when Iranians launched a major movement for the nationalization of oil, it had two main leaders: one political—Dr. Mossadegh—and one religious—Ayatollah Kashani. The very foundation of Imam Khomeini’s uprising began with protests in his early speeches against America and Israel. In his famous 1963 speech, for which he was arrested, he objected to Israel several times—even though Israel was only a few years old at that time. So, Iranians have a long history of fighting for independence, with many prominent figures throughout modern history in the north, south, east, west, and center of the country who struggled, led movements, were killed, and martyred in the name of independence.
Thus, the fact that the Iranian nation stood against colonialism and that the central slogan of the Islamic Revolution was “independence” comes from historical experience. It wasn’t as if Iranians suddenly, overnight, started chanting for independence. They had fought colonialism for years, endured many ups and downs, and ultimately achieved victory.
During this period, Westerners used every tool—wars, humiliation, colonization, widespread degradation, and instilling hopelessness—yet in return, they saw a force within Iran, within the Iranian people and their sources of power, that resisted them.
Question: Before the Islamic Revolution, Iran was mostly subordinate and intimidated in its relationship with colonial and hegemonic powers. But after the Revolution, it seems a fundamental shift occurred. What is your view on this?
Alireza Zadbar: Here, we need to distinguish between pre- and post-Islamic Revolution Iran. At least since the 12-year war with Tsarist Russia, which ended with the Treaties of Golestan and Turkmenchay—and later the Treaty of Paris that saw the separation of Herat (with the British playing a key role)—Iran has been involved in a series of confrontations. Even during World War I, the British had a role. Then there were developments under the well-known Qajar king Naser al-Din Shah, known for granting numerous concessions to Europeans—contracts like Reuter, Tobacco, Lottery, and many others, mostly with the British and Tsarist Russia. Contracts involving fisheries, the 1919 agreement which gave away the country’s destiny—its mines, forests, railways, etc. But the important question is: was the Iranian nation just a passive observer during that time? No. During that period too, Iranian elites, scholars, and patriots voiced their objections. Movements arose, such as the Tobacco Movement, or the Jungle Movement in northern Iran led by Mirza Kuchak Khan. In southern Iran, figures like Delvari emerged—many such figures existed. And as I mentioned before, there were religious fatwas for independence and against colonial rule issued by rulers and religious figures—religious authorities. But what is the point? The key difference came in 1979. The movement that Imam Khomeini had started about 15 years earlier succeeded. See, Iranians were not passive in the face of colonialism—they resisted. But Imam Khomeini managed to bring the independence movement to victory.
Others tried, with varying results and short-term successes, but Khomeini’s work had two main distinctions: first, he succeeded in achieving final victory; and second, he built on past experiences. What set him apart was that he succeeded in establishing a political system—a system centered around Islam. Imam Khomeini believed that Islam inherently stands against colonialism. In Islamic rulings, in Shi’a jurisprudence, resisting foreign domination and aggression is a jurisprudential principle. So unlike previous movements, Imam Khomeini’s idea was not merely protest.
Imam Khomeini’s idea was that an Islamic political system must be established to ensure permanent independence and generate power. It wasn’t that every time the West imposed a treaty or action on Iran, we should just issue a protest or fatwa to cancel that contract, only to repeat the same scenario next time. No, the difference was that the Islamic Revolution created a people-based political system.
In Iranian history, the people—as a nation—had no role in founding governments. Traditional Iranian governments were tribal and clan-based. The Qajars were one such clan. In fact, the Qajars had once served the Safavids. The Safavids only succeeded when they united some tribes and defeated others. Governments in Iran were never based on public participation or electoral legitimacy. And to be fair, the same applied to other countries in our region. This was the traditional model for formation of governments. But with the Islamic Revolution, Imam Khomeini included the people in both the revolution itself and in building and sustaining the political system. He immediately held elections. He even put the revolution itself to a referendum. The president, parliament, even the Leader were all chosen through popular vote. So yes, the fundamental shift brought by the Islamic Revolution was that Imam Khomeini did not stop at occasional protests. He didn’t go back to his mosque, his seminary, or his school. Rather, he came and founded an Islamic political system.
Question: Suppose we attempt to conceptualize a term like “anti-colonial audacity” within the framework of postcolonial studies. It seems that the Iranian nation has, to a large extent, embodied this concept in the years following the Revolution. Can it be said that this “anti-colonial audacity” poses a greater threat to the colonial-imperialist system than other manifestations of civilizational growth in anti-colonial nations? If so, why?
Alireza Zadbar: Before the Islamic Revolution, the regime in Iran had been in power for 53 years. This regime had two stages in its existence. First, its founding: the regime was established by the British through a coup carried out by Reza Khan on Esfand 3, 1299 (February 1921). Numerous documents, including by the British themselves, confirm this. General Ironside and Colonel Smyth were among the figures who designed this coup. Instead of resorting to the old colonial model of direct military invasion, the British installed a ruler in Iran who would act in accordance with British interests. So, the very foundation of this regime was colonial in nature. Its survival was also colonial. How? The regime was brought to power through a coup and then preserved through another coup in 1953, but this time by the Americans—against the government of Mosaddeq—to keep Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, son of Reza Shah, in power. Why?
Because Iran, for several reasons, could not be allowed to operate outside the West’s control. First, due to its geopolitical location. Its importance as a transit route—whether for goods or energy—was always significant. Even before the discovery of oil, Iran had geopolitical importance. Historically, we had the Silk Road, stretching from Nishapur to China, making Iran a key commercial and trade route. With the discovery and accumulation of oil and gas resources, its strategic importance only increased.
The unique feature of the Islamic Revolution and the Iranian nation’s courage
Another point is that before the Islamic Revolution, Iran was firmly within the American sphere of influence—especially under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi—and acted as the regional control center. According to the Nixon Doctrine, the US should no longer directly fight in the region or bear the costs. Instead, regional deputies or gendarmes should act on its behalf while protecting American interests. One of the key gendarmes in West Asia was the Pahlavi regime. It carried out numerous actions. For example, the capitulation law gave Americans in Iran legal immunity beyond what is normally granted to diplomats. Imam Khomeini protested this in 1964 and was subsequently exiled. When Arab states imposed an oil embargo on Israel, the only country supplying oil to Israel was Pahlavi-era Iran. During the Dhofar rebellion in Oman, when Sultan Qaboos’s regime was collapsing, it was Iran’s navy and air force that came to his aid.
In Vietnam, when the US president needed rapid delivery of equipment—especially fighter jets—Iran acted immediately. From 1953 onward, when the Americans gained dominance in Iran (after the British began to decline), the Iranian army became thoroughly Americanized in terms of equipment, training, and organization. Iran became one of America’s military bases in the region and its biggest arms purchaser before the Revolution. What some Arab countries like Saudi Arabia do today was done by the Pahlavi regime back then. Iran also joined pacts the US favored, like the Baghdad Pact, and took stances against the Soviet Union. So, we had a regime not only lacking anti-imperialist tendencies but one whose very survival depended on supporting imperialism and colonialism. We were caught between two blades: Western colonialism—specifically American—and the domestic tyranny of the Pahlavis. One compromised our independence, the other our freedom. For its survival, the Pahlavi tyranny had to make concessions to colonial powers, and in turn, colonialism had to support the tyranny to protect its interests. There was no government in power here that had the will or the courage to fight against colonialism.
So, although anti-colonial resistance existed in other nations too, there’s a key difference. Many nations around the world rose against colonial powers like Britain, France, or the US—in the Americas, Asia, and North Africa. But what sets Iran and some other nations apart? Many postcolonial governments and leaders initially moved toward independence, only to be reabsorbed into the US-led global order—within a year, two years, five years.
In contrast, Iranians not only had the courage to rise up and act against imperialism, but they sustained it. They created a model — a pattern. For over 47 years, this model has developed and spread in the region. One reason behind the war [today] is to disrupt this model — the model of resistance. Not resistance lasting a year, or five, or ten—but resistance as a fundamental principle and a way of life.
Over the years, many within Iran—particularly the pro-Western current—have tried to steer the country into the orbit of global colonial arrangements. But the Vali-e Faqih, whose duty is to protect the Islamic Revolution, has prevented that.
(The views expressed in this interview are interviewee’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Khamenei.ir.)
Comment