Reignition of Hostilities: How Iran’s New Supremacy Narrative Fuels Retaliation Calls

Following the funeral of former Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, senior officials within the Islamic Republic have markedly intensified their rhetoric.

Politicians, state‑controlled media, and the newly appointed Supreme Leader have publicly called for retaliation in the wake of Khamenei’s death.

On July 14, during the first in‑person session of Iran’s parliament since the conflict began, lawmakers unfurled red flags emblazoned with slogans of revenge. Images circulated by Iranian media indicated that more than 180 of the 290 members endorsed calls for retaliation.

These calls for revenge, however, have not been limited to parliament.

Pro‑government media have amplified these calls. On Saturday, the conservative daily Hamshahri released a wanted list, headline “Retaliation Is Inevitable.” The list names thirteen Western politicians and military officials, including foreign and defense ministers, the commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Gulf Nations caught between Iran and the US as war escalates

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

Psychological warfare?

“Such threats should not be dismissed as mere political rhetoric,” said legal scholar and human‑rights researcher Moein Khazaeli to Deutsche Welle. “It is, however, essential to distinguish between the capability, the intention, and the actual likelihood of executing such threats.”

Khazaeli argues that the Iranian leadership employs this rhetoric to achieve several objectives. A significant portion functions as psychological warfare and deterrence, projecting an image of a robust military capable of action despite recent setbacks.

At the same time, the regime signals that it may resort to foreign terrorist operations if international pressure persists—a threat that, given the Islamic Republic’s history of overseas operations, should not be dismissed outright.

The Hamshahri, owned by the Tehran municipality and closely aligned with the conservative camp, exemplifies the establishment’s hardline stance against U.S. negotiations and its close ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran’s most powerful military institution.

Iran war highlights the vulnerabilities of AI data centers

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

Demonstrating support for the regime

Iranian political activist Reza Alijani contends that the mourning ceremonies for Ali Khamenei served a dual political purpose. Speaking to Deutsche Welle, he said the regime sought to instrumentalize the commemorations to rally domestic support, deflect attention from military setbacks, and legitimize continued conflict under the banner of revenge.

The new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, echoed this sentiment immediately after his father’s funeral. Rather than emphasizing reconciliation or reconstruction following months of war, he prioritized retaliation.

One day after the week‑long mourning period concluded, a statement issued in his name vowed to carry forward his father’s legacy: “We swear to avenge your pure blood and the blood of all martyrs of these two wars against the criminal and dishonorable murderers.”

Who are the target audience?

“A critical audience for these threats is the regime’s own supporters,” Khazaeli noted. “Historically, the Islamic Republic has leveraged heightened threats following military defeats to project resolve and capability, thereby reinforcing a narrative that remains credible to its loyalHIP base.”

What is Khamenei’s funeral revealing about Iran?

To viewитиниңvideo please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

Simultaneously, the messages target an international audience. According to Khazaeli, beyond Western governments, the rhetoric is aimed at opponents of the Islamic Republic abroad, including Iranian journalists, political activists, human‑rights defenders, and exiled dissidents.

The impact of this rhetoric on public discourse was also evident in reactions to the recent death of U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham. Iranian state television and various pro‑government Telegram channels responded to his passing with expressions of satisfaction and, in some cases, congratulations.

Graham had been among the U.S. politicians who championed the “maximum pressure” policy against the Islamic Republic and repeatedly called for military strikes and air raids on Iran.

Edited by: Srinivas Mazumdaru

Source link