Targeted strikes will continue until the enemy’s total surrender

TEHRAN – Iranian officials have accused the United States of systematically violating the Pakistan-brokered ceasefire framework that ended weeks of hostilities earlier this year, warning that Washington's actions have created a new phase of confrontation stretching from the Strait of Hormuz to Iraq while further eroding prospects for regional stability.

The accusations came as senior Iranian military commanders vowed to intensify retaliatory operations, international analysts questioned Washington's handling of the conflict, and reports emerged of fresh security incidents across West Asia.

Tehran declares new rules of engagement

Iran's military leadership signaled 'a fundamental shift' in its operational doctrine following continued US military actions.

Major General Ali Abdollahi, commander of the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, announced 'a new battlefield equation' governing Iran's response to future attacks.

He warned that every Iranian civilian killed in US strikes would be matched by the death of an American service member, describing the policy as a permanent operational doctrine rather than a temporary wartime measure.

The statement came as Iranian officials accused the United States of continuing aerial attacks against civilian targets despite the ceasefire reached after more than a month of fighting.

Echoing that position, Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said Iranian retaliatory strikes would continue until the enemy's "complete surrender."

According to Zolqadr, every plume of smoke rising across the region represented strikes against American military, security or financial assets, while framing Iran's military campaign as retaliation for attacks that killed civilians, including children, in southern Iranian cities such as Minab and Lamerd.

Questions emerge over US commitment to ceasefire

Iranian accusations received unexpected support from outside the country after former Israeli negotiator Daniel Levy argued that Washington, rather than Tehran, was responsible for undermining the preliminary understanding reached earlier this year.

Speaking in an interview, Levy said the United States failed to fulfill several key commitments contained in the framework agreement negotiated largely by US Vice President JD Vance.

Among the violations, he cited Washington's failure to release frozen Iranian assets and unilateral demands regarding commercial shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz that were not included in the original agreement.

Levy also revealed that Israel encouraged Washington to resume military pressure by providing intelligence assessments that later proved inaccurate, including allegations concerning Iranian nuclear activities and threats against President Donald Trump.

According to Levy, the breakdown of the agreement reflected a mistaken belief within Washington that renewed military pressure could force Tehran into additional concessions despite the changing military balance following the conflict.

European voices question outcome of conflict

Similar assessments have emerged in Europe.

Former European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell described the military campaign against Iran as unsuccessful for its initiators, arguing that the preliminary diplomatic framework ultimately strengthened Tehran's negotiating position.

Borrell criticized 'Israel's reliance on military power' to reshape the regional balance while also faulting European governments for failing to exert meaningful diplomatic pressure despite mounting regional instability.

He warned that fragile ceasefires and stalled diplomatic efforts continue to threaten prospects for lasting peace.

Analysts cite major advances in Iran's missile capability

Meanwhile, military analysts quoted by The Guardian said the recent conflict demonstrated a significant evolution in Iran's missile capabilities.

According to the report, Iran's retaliatory strikes against American military facilities reflected substantial improvements in precision guidance, intelligence integration, terminal maneuverability and coordinated missile operations.

Andreas Krieg, Associate Professor at King's College London's School of Security Studies, described the changes as a "real transformation" resulting from several years of technological development.

The report noted that maneuverable re-entry vehicles, combined with optical and thermal terminal guidance systems that are largely immune to electronic jamming, have significantly increased the effectiveness of Iran's ballistic missile force.

It also cited assessments suggesting that despite extensive US and Israeli strikes, roughly 70 percent of Iran's missile arsenal remained operational.

Analysts further argued that dwindling interceptor inventories, including Patriot and THAAD systems, have complicated the task of defending American military installations and critical infrastructure throughout the region.

**Multidimensional insecurities in West Asia  **

Against this backdrop of heightened tensions, local media in Iraq's Kurdistan Region reported explosions near Erbil on Saturday.

Initial reports suggested that a drone approached the vicinity of the airport, where US military facilities are located.

A regional security source later said air defenses intercepted and destroyed the aircraft before it reached its target.

No organization immediately claimed responsibility, and officials released no confirmed information regarding casualties or damage.

The incident nevertheless underscored the continuing volatility surrounding US military deployments across the region as confrontation between Washington and Tehran increasingly extends beyond direct exchanges into multiple operational theaters.

Diplomatic uncertainty persists

The latest developments illustrate the widening gap between the diplomatic framework established after the ceasefire and the realities on the ground.

While Tehran argues that Washington's repeated violations have rendered the agreement increasingly ineffective, Western political figures and independent analysts are also questioning whether renewed military pressure can achieve its stated objectives.

At the same time, continued military exchanges, growing concerns over regional security and repeated incidents involving US interests suggest that the confrontation has entered a more unpredictable phase—one in which diplomacy remains formally alive but increasingly overshadowed by an expanding cycle of military escalation.

By Mamoud M. Ravii-Nejad