Iran’s Post–Twelve-Day War Regional Strategy: Velayati’s Vision and Larijani’s Emerging Role

Executive Summary

In an exclusive interview (August 8) with the IRGC-affiliated Tasnim News Agency, Ali Akbar Velayati, senior advisor to the Supreme Leader on international affairs, reaffirmed Iran’s uncompromising regional posture following the Twelve-Day War with Israel and the United States. Despite severe setbacks to its regional strategy, including Israel’s heavy damage to Hezballah’s military and political infrastructure, the fall of President Assad in Syria, Israel’s intensified campaign to dismantle Hamas and other Palestinian groups, and significant blows to Iran’s nuclear program, Tehran remains committed to its overarching Middle East strategy. Velayati’s remarks demonstrate Iran’s continued intent to strengthen its armed proxies, resist Western and regional adversaries, and block geopolitical projects perceived as threats to its influence and expand the Axis of Resistance, counter perceived Western geopolitical encroachment, and preserve influence across Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.

This interview coincides with the current visit of Ali Larijani to Lebanon and Iraq after his August 5 appointment as Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC). Larijani’s visit to Iraq and Lebanon, his first major regional mission since his appointment, indicates a more hands-on, proactive implementation of Iranian foreign policy. In Lebanon, his priority will be to stem the erosion of Hezballah’s power and block domestic and foreign-backed calls for its disarmament. In Iraq, Larijani aims to reinforce Tehran’s alignment with political and militia leaders to resist U.S. and Israeli-backed initiatives to dismantle the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). These moves underscore Iran’s determination to preserve its network of armed proxies and maintain strategic depth, even at the cost of escalating tensions with Israel, the United States, and certain Arab states.

*******

In an exclusive interview with IRGC-affiliated Tasnim News Agency, Ali Akbar Velayati, Senior Advisor to the Supreme Leader on International Affairs, outlined Iran’s firm positions on three major regional fronts — the South Caucasus, Lebanon, and Iraq — framing them within the broader struggle against U.S. and Israeli strategic designs.

Lebanon: Absolute Rejection of Hezbollah’s Disarmament

Velayati categorically rejected the idea of disarming Hezballah, describing it as an American- and Israeli-driven project that is doomed to fail.

“This is not the first time that some in Lebanon have raised such discussions [about disarming Hezballah]; but just as in the past these anti-Lebanese schemes failed, this time too they will not succeed, and the Resistance will stand against these conspiracies. At a time when the Resistance had less capability and fewer resources, it thwarted such plans; now, with a much stronger popular backing and far greater means, by God’s permission, these discussions will certainly lead to no result.”

He stressed that today, Hezballah enjoys the support of all Lebanese communities — Shia, Sunni, Christian, and others — and that:

“The Resistance is the dignity, life, and security of Lebanon, and Lebanon’s survival depends on the Resistance.”

He reminded that the Lebanese people have not forgotten that in 1982, when the Resistance did not yet exist, Israeli forces advanced to southern Beirut and the Dahiyeh district. It was Hezballah’s emergence that forced Israel’s eventual withdrawal.

Velayati claimed that current moves to promote disarmament are motivated in part by the assassination of prominent Hezballah figures, such as Hassan Nasrallah, but he insisted Hezbollah’s operational strength remains intact:

“One reason these political discussions are emerging is that the Zionists, with American help, assassinated major figures like the martyred Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, and they imagine that Hezballah has weakened. In reality, Hezballah’s body remains firmly in place and much stronger than in the years 1982–1983.”

He warned that without Hezballah, Israel would inflict on Lebanon the same fate it has inflicted on Palestine. Thus, Hezbollah, having defended Lebanon, will also defend itself against these American plans.

Velayati questioned whether the Lebanese government has any genuine concern for defending its nation if it entertains such proposals:

“If Hezballah lays down its arms, who will defend the lives, property, and honor of the Lebanese people? Have the experiences of the past not been a lesson to some of the country’s politicians?”

He asserted that the push to disarm Hezballah is solely the will of the United States and Israel, likening it to an attempt to install a Lebanese version of Abu Mohammad al-Julani, the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in Syria:

“America and Israel think they can bring another Julani to power in Lebanon, but this dream will never come true. Lebanon will, as always, stand firm.”

Velayati stated unequivocally that the Islamic Republic of Iran opposes any disarmament of Hezballah, given Iran’s ongoing political and material support to the Lebanese Resistance.

He called on “the wise men of Lebanon” to counter those leading the disarmament push:

“If they do not, the Resistance will stop it, and we will support the Resistance.”

Finally, he contrasted Lebanon with Syria, insisting that Lebanon’s majority understands that the security they enjoy today is the result of Hezballah’s presence:

“Most of the Lebanese people know that the guardian of their security, lives, property, and honor, against terrorists like Daesh, al-Julani, and the terrorist Israel, is Hezballah.”

Velayati’s remarks show Iran’s uncompromising commitment to maintaining Hezballah as both a deterrent and an offensive capability against Israel. Hezballah is framed as indispensable to Lebanese sovereignty, with its disarmament equated to surrendering Lebanon to Israel.

Ali Larijani’s current visit to Lebanon, coming just days after his August 5 appointment as Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, is aimed at reinforcing Hezballah’s standing and preventing the erosion of its political and military power in the wake of recent Israeli operations. His agenda reportedly includes consolidating coordination between Hezbollah and other Lebanese political allies, assuring continued Iranian material and political support, and countering domestic and international efforts to push the Lebanese government toward Hezbollah’s disarmament. Larijani is also expected to discuss strategies for maintaining Hezbollah’s deterrence against Israel during the fragile post-war ceasefire period, ensuring that Hezbollah remains a central pillar in Iran’s forward-defense strategy on Israel’s northern border.

Iraq: Shielding the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF)

Velayati directly linked American efforts to disarm Hezballah in Lebanon with parallel initiatives targeting the PMF in Iraq, framing both as integral parts of a single U.S.–Israeli strategy to dismantle the “Axis of Resistance.”

“Just as they seek to disarm Hezballah, the Americans and Israelis intend next to go after Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces. This is something we will not accept.”

He recounted a recent phone conversation with former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whom he described as “a courageous man” and the leader who oversaw the execution of Saddam Hussein and expelled the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq) from Iraq.

“In our call, Mr. Maliki and I agreed completely: Iran and Iraq will both oppose disarmament, whether it is Hezballah in Lebanon or the PMF in Iraq, and we will stand against it.”

Velayati stressed that without the PMF, Iraq would be overrun by American influence and destabilization, just as Lebanon would collapse without Hezballah:

“If the PMF did not exist, the Americans would swallow Iraq. The PMF plays the same role in Iraq that Hezballah plays in Lebanon — it is the shield that protects the country.”

Velayati presents the PMF as the linchpin of Iraq’s sovereignty and security, drawing a direct parallel to Hezballah. For Iran, the PMF not only counterbalances U.S. influence in Iraq but also extends Tehran’s strategic reach into the Levant. Larijani’s planned meetings in Baghdad are expected to consolidate ties with political and militia leaders, ensuring the PMF remains armed, politically entrenched, and aligned with Iranian objectives.

Zangezur Corridor: Blocking Western Geopolitical Access

Zangezur Corridor is a planned transport and energy route connecting Azerbaijan’s mainland to its Nakhchivan exclave via Armenia’s Syunik province. Supported by Turkey and the U.S., the corridor would bypass Iranian territory, alter regional borders, and potentially enable a NATO presence in the South Caucasus.

The US-brokered Armenia–Azerbaijan peace agreement signed in August 2025, granting Washington exclusive development rights to the Zangezur Corridor, has raised alarms in Tehran. Iran’s position closely aligns with Russia, which views the corridor as a Western strategic intrusion that diminishes both countries' influence. Iran has signaled that it will act independently if needed to prevent construction, reinforcing this alignment through diplomatic and military posturing. Velayati maintained that :

“Iran has always opposed the creation of what is called the Zangezur Corridor. This corridor changes the region’s geopolitical map, shifts borders, and is designed to partition Armenia. We have declared that, with or without Russia, Iran will act to prevent this threat to the security of the South Caucasus.”

“Allowing NATO into this corridor is like placing a venomous snake between Iran and Russia. We will not allow NATO to approach our northern borders. Preventing this is better than curing it later.”

Iran sees the Zangezur Corridor as a direct geopolitical threat for several reasons. First, it would bypass Iranian transit routes, diminishing Tehran’s leverage over regional connectivity and trade. Second, it would sever Armenia’s direct land link with Iran, narrowing Tehran’s access to the Caucasus and increasing its dependence on Turkey for northern connections. Third, and most significantly, Iran views the corridor as a strategic Trojan horse for NATO, enabling Western military access to the sensitive South Caucasus—an area Tehran considers part of its near-abroad.

This position aligns closely with Russia’s strategic concerns. Moscow sees the South Caucasus as part of its sphere of influence and a buffer against NATO expansion. A NATO-accessible corridor would undermine Russian military dominance in the region, erode its influence over Armenia, and potentially facilitate Western energy transit routes that circumvent both Russian and Iranian territory. Both Moscow and Tehran, therefore, share an interest in preventing the corridor’s construction, preserving Armenia’s territorial integrity, and ensuring that regional infrastructure projects remain outside Western and NATO control.

By emphasizing that Iran will act “with or without Russia,” Velayati underscores Tehran’s independent determination while also signaling to Moscow that their interests converge on this issue. The alignment offers both states opportunities for coordinated military exercises, diplomatic pressure, and economic measures to block the corridor’s development, further solidifying the Iran–Russia strategic partnership in the Caucasus.

Overarching Regional Vision

Velayati’s statements reinforce Iran’s strategic doctrine of preserving and expanding the Axis of Resistance across multiple theaters-Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen-while obstructing any geopolitical or infrastructural projects perceived to benefit Western or Israeli interests. This doctrine prioritizes the maintenance of armed non-state proxies, the control of key maritime chokepoints, and the prevention of NATO’s advance into Iran’s near-abroad.

Velayati: expanding the Axis of Resistance

Even after the Twelve-Day War with Israel and the United States, Iran remains forceful and uncompromising. It refuses to retreat from its Middle Eastern strategy despite enduring severe setbacks, including Israel’s crippling of its key proxy Hezbollah’s military and political capabilities, the downfall of Bashar al-Assad, Israel’s offensive against Hamas and other Palestinian factions, and significant blows to its nuclear infrastructure.

The ideological imperative to preserve Hezballah’s and its other proxies' capabilities as a central component of the struggle against Israel and the United States remains paramount for Tehran. Over the years, Iran has invested billions of dollars in Syria and Lebanon to build and sustain these proxy forces, investments which, from its perspective, must be protected from going to waste. This commitment endures despite Iran’s severe domestic crises, including a collapsing economy and an acute water crisis recently acknowledged by President Pezeshkian in media interviews.

Nonetheless, Tehran continues to pour vast sums of money abroad to preserve its network of proxies, doing so at the direct expense of the Iranian people. This persistence not only increases the likelihood of renewed confrontation with Israel and the United States but also risks exacerbating tensions with Arab states in the short-medium term.

Larijani’s diplomatic engagements in Iraq and Lebanon, beginning immediately after he was appointed SNSC Secretary, indicate a more proactive, field-driven execution of Iran’s export of the revolution. His mission reflects Tehran’s intent to directly manage the survival and strengthening of its allied proxy militias and to counter all efforts, whether political, military, or diplomatic, to diminish Iran’s influence in the region.

This approach continues the uncompromising line in Iranian policy outlined above, demonstrating that even in the wake of severe military and political setbacks, Tehran remains committed to advancing its revolutionary agenda across the Middle East and beyond.