Mohammad Sarfi is the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper Tehran Times. This means that, at this moment, Sarfi finds himself on the front line of his country’s defense. He defends it by continuously presenting Iran’s positions and publishing news through his newspaper and, especially, through online platforms. This is an opportunity to hear directly from Iran itself and gain first-hand insight into Iranian perspectives regarding the current conflict—or, as they describe it, the aggression of the United States and Israel against Iran—and, in particular, how Tehran envisions the future of the Middle East.
In Serbia, public perception of the war waged by the United States and Israel against Iran intensified after the U.S. attack on a school that resulted in the deaths of more than 160 children, most of them girls. Serbian society, moreover, still vividly remembers the children killed by the NATO alliance, led by the United States, during the 1999 aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, that is, Serbia. How did this undeniable war crime affect Iranian society?
I believe Iranian society has changed considerably compared to the period before this war. During the 1980s, Iran was involved in an eight-year imposed war with Iraq under Saddam Hussein, so war was not an unfamiliar experience for Iranians. However, nearly four decades have passed since that conflict ended, and the majority of Iranian society today consists of young people who have never experienced war firsthand. Although West Asia has long been plagued by wars and instability, Iran itself had been spared direct warfare for around forty years, and therefore Iranian society lacked recent firsthand experience of war.
Perhaps the first impact of the conflict was that people came to understand just how important security is. For years, Western media promoted the idea that Iran should be questioned for spending resources on defense and for developing missiles and drones. This powerful and continuous propaganda inevitably influenced the thinking of some people. Today, however, everyone deeply understands that investing in security is entirely rational and that in a world increasingly resembling a jungle, weakness invites danger.
In general, I can say that this war has made the Iranian people’s view of the world more realistic. It has also made them more aware of the importance of national unity and internal cohesion.
The world has been surprised by the strength of Iran’s defense, as well as by the losses Iran has inflicted on the United States in neighboring countries and on Israel itself. From a Balkan perspective, Iran appears to be successfully resisting its opponents and, in some aspects of the conflict, even demonstrating superiority. The impression is that Iran is fighting largely alone, though it may have secured a certain level of logistical support. Russia and China are often mentioned as countries that could be assisting Tehran, primarily through intelligence and satellite data. Where does the strength of Iran’s defense come from?
Yes, I have also heard various claims regarding Russian and Chinese assistance to Iran. Of course, these are not official reports, and we do not know the precise details. I think it is natural for such assumptions to exist.
However, the truth is that Iran’s defensive capabilities do not depend on such assistance. Our experience during the war with Iraq taught us many lessons. We realized that if we wanted to defend ourselves, we could neither rely on nor wait for anyone else’s help. Let me give you an interesting example from that period. Iran once purchased barbed wire from one country and intended to import it, but another country through which the shipment had to transit refused permission, and the shipment never reached Iran.
From that experience, we learned that we must rely on our own capabilities. As a result, we began developing our domestic defense industry across multiple sectors, the most prominent of which today are the missile and drone industries. One of the key factors behind Iran’s defensive strength is therefore its self-sufficiency in military production. In essence, Iran is fighting with weapons it has produced itself.
The second factor is morale. On paper, Iranian military technology cannot truly be compared to that of the United States and Israel. Let me also note that NATO participated in this war as well, although efforts have been made to conceal the scale of that involvement and avoid drawing too much attention to it. Given such disparities in equipment and technology, logic would suggest that Iran should simply surrender. What played a decisive role in shaping this historic resistance was the morale of Iran’s armed forces. They do not fear death; on the contrary, they regard dying in such a war as a matter of honor and pride. When morale reaches that level, people become impossible to defeat.
Many other factors could be mentioned, but I believe these two are the fundamental pillars of Iran’s defensive strength.
We can also say that the world has been surprised by the way Iran has managed to counter Western, particularly American, wartime propaganda. It appears that Iran is not losing this war in the media sphere, nor on social media and other online platforms. The Iranian side has devised numerous creative approaches and methods to communicate its view of the conflict and present facts that might otherwise remain unavailable to the broader global public. How do you assess the role of Iranian media in the defense of Iran, and how did you manage to prepare so effectively?
Well, in my opinion, the Iranian people, including those working in the media, felt that this was an existential war. That is why they spared no effort and entered the arena with all their strength. The United States dominates the world’s major media corporations. It controls the algorithms of social media platforms. It manipulates voices. It even silences them. Yet this war was so transparent and so clear that, despite all of that, the Americans were unable to impose their own narrative. The whole world saw with its own eyes that a country was attacked simply because it refused to kneel, and that more than one hundred schoolchildren were killed on the very first day.
In fact, the enemy’s crimes, combined with its own mistakes, played a role in this situation and helped Iran succeed in the battle of narratives. Of course, I believe we are still far from an ideal situation and from where we should be, and there remains a long road ahead. In this war we are confronting an empire of falsehood that reverses the roles of aggressor and victim and, through countless media tricks and psychological operations, seeks to prevent the realities of this conflict from reaching the ears of the world. In my view, wars may end on the battlefield, but the struggle over the narrative of events continues, and it is of decisive importance.
Again, from a Balkan perspective, prior to the American and Israeli attack on Iran there appeared to be an attempted coup d’état and an effort to overthrow the government from within. Street unrest was organized, and clashes occurred. What exactly happened, how did the Iranian authorities respond, to what extent was there foreign involvement, and how many casualties were there really?
Allow me to answer briefly and frankly. After the United States failed to achieve its objectives during the twelve-day war of June 2025, it entered into a more complex conspiracy. The trigger for that conspiracy was economic warfare. By intensifying economic pressure, the United States fueled social discontent within Iran. People in several cities took to the streets to protest economic conditions and organized demonstrations. These protests were not particularly violent and were unfolding in a natural manner until the United States and sections of the Iranian opposition in exile, riding that wave, redirected the situation from economic protest toward an attempted street coup.
President Trump openly and publicly called on people to attack government institutions and seize them, promising support. On January 8 and 9, public institutions, as well as police and military facilities, were attacked in Tehran and several other cities, and numerous crimes were committed. Some police officers were reportedly burned alive.
The street clashes lasted for two to three days. Many of the victims were ordinary citizens who were killed indiscriminately in order to fuel chaos. Later, the very same media outlets and individuals who had organized these bitter and criminal events began mourning the victims while publishing extraordinary casualty figures ranging from 12,000 to as many as 50,000 or 60,000 deaths.
To counter what it described as large-scale disinformation, Iran published a complete list of those killed, including their national identification numbers, on an official website. The list included police and security personnel, ordinary citizens, demonstrators, and rioters. According to Iranian authorities, the total number of fatalities was approximately 3,100, a figure dramatically lower than the estimates circulated by opposition groups and Western media. Those claiming significantly higher numbers, according to the Iranian position, never succeeded in substantiating their claims with evidence.
In any case, even a single death was painful and too many for us. These disturbances and the failed coup, in one way or another, helped create the conditions for a new American and Israeli attack on Iran.
What do you believe is the real objective behind the American and Israeli attacks on your country?
The United States and Israel have put forward various objectives and, in reality, various pretexts for launching this war, changing them repeatedly. For example, they claimed that Iran was on the verge of producing a nuclear bomb and that the purpose of the war was to prevent this. Yet after the twelve-day war of 2025, President Trump declared that Iran’s nuclear facilities had been destroyed. They also claimed that they were attacking in order to support the Iranian people. The attack on an elementary school in Minab and the killing of more than one hundred students on the first day of the war revealed how sincere that claim was. They also spoke of strikes against infrastructure and even threatened to destroy Iranian civilization.
I believe they simply cannot tolerate an independent Iran. For decades, Iran has been subjected to the harshest sanctions, while facing various forms of sabotage—from the assassination of military commanders and nuclear scientists to serious cyberattacks, the encouragement of internal unrest, and severe economic warfare. Yet Iran not only refused to capitulate, it continued to develop and to resist their plans in the strategically important region of West Asia.
For that reason, it is not surprising that their attitude toward Iran is marked by anger. As Western sources later revealed, the January unrest further encouraged them, leading them to believe that with a sufficiently strong campaign they could achieve a major victory within a matter of days and force Iran to surrender. Naturally, the “Venetian theater” and the abduction of Maduro also contributed to that sense of greed and illusion.
It is clear that the United States is interested in carrying out a regime change in your country, taking control of the government in Tehran, the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran’s oil fields. Israel’s position toward Iran is also well known, as is the American position toward Israel. I would say there are few major unknowns in that regard. But why are ancient religious motifs being used to explain this aggression? At one point, the war was interpreted in the United States and Israel in biblical terms, as a kind of inevitable Armageddon. Why have the United States, and with it Israel, resorted to this way of explaining aggression against your country?
The first question people ask about any war is: why? Wars require legitimacy, or at least some form of justification. The war waged by the United States and Israel against Iran has neither a logical nor a convincing justification. The highest-ranking intelligence officials within the Trump administration themselves acknowledged that Iran was not on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons and did not pose an immediate threat to the security of the United States.
When logic and rational explanations are absent, what remains is the use of apocalyptic and Armageddon-style narratives. Justifying this war through a form of religious language is shameful. What religion in the world permits the killing of ordinary people, especially children? Certainly, Jesus Christ would despise such crimes and those who commit them.
How was this religious and biblical narrative surrounding the attack on Iran received within Iran itself? What is Iran’s response to claims about Armageddon, the “end times,” and the coming of the “messiah”?
I can say that it had absolutely no impact and that nobody paid much attention to it. In fact, it had no audience then and has none today. Perhaps the Americans can sell such a narrative to certain audiences around the world, but the Iranian people have a far deeper understanding of American policies and objectives than to be influenced by such nonsense. From the Iranian perspective, the United States uses every possible trick to justify this war and its actions, and apocalyptic narratives are simply one of those tools.
How did you view Donald Trump’s visit to China? It seemed as though the Donald Trump who traveled to China was not the same Donald Trump who boasts about power, threatens tariffs, and imposes punitive measures. What do you in Tehran expect following Trump’s visit to China?
During his visit to China, Trump expected to pressure Beijing into exerting influence on Iran in order to force Tehran into making concessions. However, a weakened and defeated America is certainly more advantageous to China, and the Chinese are far too intelligent to help their principal rival.
In any case, Trump returned from China empty-handed when it came to the Iranian issue. The war against Iran has produced many international consequences, and the weakening of America’s position in its strategic competition with China is one of them.
How do you assess the role of Russia, China, and the other BRICS countries? Did Iran expect a more active role from the organization, especially since many are now criticizing BRICS for its passivity regarding the aggression against Iran?
In this regard, we are dealing with several different levels. One level is the military and intelligence cooperation between China, Russia, and Iran, which is naturally confidential. Another level consists of diplomatic activities and publicly stated positions, while a third level involves activities and positions behind the scenes.
I do not think that Tehran is dissatisfied with the positions taken by China and Russia on this issue. However, one important point must be kept in mind. Whatever China and Russia do in this case, they are ultimately acting first and foremost in accordance with their own interests. A new world order is taking shape, and states are defining their place within it through their positions and actions. China and Russia are major powers, and other countries observe their behavior regarding the war against Iran and adjust their own relations with them accordingly, based on their assessment of the scale and consequences of this conflict.
The positions of BRICS can also be analyzed from that perspective. Of course, the United Arab Emirates is a member of BRICS, yet it was one of the parties involved in the conflict against Iran and played a significant role in the war. It was precisely the UAE that prevented the recent meeting of BRICS foreign ministers in India from issuing a joint final communiqué.
How does Iran view the emerging multipolar world, and what place do you see for Iran within it?
As implied in your question, the Iranian people do not regard America as the master of the world and believe that the era of American global hegemony has come to an end. The Iranian people stood up to the United States when it was supposedly at the height of its power. Even then, the Iranians were not intimidated. Today, the situation is much clearer.
As for Iran’s place in the new world order, I believe the current war says a great deal about it. The Iranian people have paid a high price, and they certainly do not intend to retreat from that path.
How should the Middle East look in the future, after this conflict? In a commentary published in China, someone described the desirable future of the Middle East as fundamentally transformed. In that vision, the Middle East would become a region of cooperation rather than conflict. Increasing investments would be directed toward sustainable energy sources, such as solar power. Is a Middle East based on cooperation even possible?
Yes, I believe that it is entirely possible and achievable. All that is required is for outside powers to stop interfering and allow the peoples of the region to determine their own future. The countries of the southern Persian Gulf believed that hosting American military bases would guarantee their security. But what was the result? Those bases not only failed to provide security to their hosts, they also became launching points for aggression against Iran, to which Tehran inevitably responded by striking and destroying those bases.
In order to create an atmosphere of cooperation and prosperity in the region, several steps must be taken. The first and most important is the absence of military presence and interference by powers from outside the region. They arrived under the pretext of guaranteeing security, but in reality they have become the principal obstacle to achieving it. That is the key issue.
How do people in Iran view the multipolar world, and how do you see Iran’s place within it?
As you noted in your question, the Iranian people do not regard America as the master of the world and believe that the era of American global hegemony has come to an end. The Iranian people stood up to the United States at a time when it was supposedly at the height of its power. Yet the Iranians were not afraid. Today, the situation is much clearer.
As for Iran’s place in the emerging world order, I believe that the current war says more than enough about it. The Iranian people have paid a high price, and they certainly will not retreat from that path.
How should the Middle East look in the future after this conflict? In a commentary published in China, a desirable future for the region was described as one of profound transformation. According to that vision, the Middle East would become a space of cooperation rather than conflict. Investments would increasingly be directed toward sustainable sources of energy, such as solar power. Is such a cooperative Middle East truly possible?
Yes, I believe it is entirely possible and achievable. All that is necessary is for foreign powers to stop interfering in the affairs of this region and allow its peoples to decide their own destinies. The states of the southern Persian Gulf believed that they could guarantee their security by hosting American military bases. But what was the outcome? Those bases not only failed to provide security for their hosts, they also became the starting point for aggression against Iran, to which Tehran inevitably responded by striking and destroying those bases.
To create an atmosphere of cooperation and prosperity in the region, several steps are necessary. The first and most important is the absence of military presence and interference by powers that do not belong to this region. They arrived under the pretext of providing security, but in reality they constitute the main obstacle to the establishment of lasting stability and security. That is the essence of the entire issue.
