IRGC Spokesman Warns of Possible U.S. Military Attack and Iran’s Advanced Weapons

While Iranian citizens continue to grapple with the consequences of war, economic pressures, and an uncertain future, the spokesman for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has once again raised the prospect of a possible U.S. military attack on Iran and claimed that the Islamic Republic has acquired more advanced weapons. Simultaneously, reports indicate discussions between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu about the possibility of resuming military operations. Amid Tehran’s military threats and the political calculations of Washington and Tel Aviv, it is the Iranian people who may once again find their security, lives, and livelihoods at risk.

Hossein Mohseni, spokesman for the IRGC, on Wednesday, October 14, stated in an interview with Islamic Republic Radio and Television that he does not rule out the possibility of another American attack on Iran. He said that launching a new war would be illogical for Washington; however, he claimed that the Trump administration might need to achieve a success before the U.S. midterm elections.

Mohseni also claimed that the Islamic Republic largely used outdated weapons during the 40-day war and has since acquired far more advanced weapons. However, he provided no details about the type of weapons, when they were acquired, or any verifiable evidence to support his claim.

These remarks come as Donald Trump announced on October 8 that America will not attack Iran before the November 3 midterm elections. Nevertheless, an Axios report from October 13, citing American and Israeli sources, suggests that Trump and Netanyahu have discussed the possibility of resuming military operations against Iran. According to the same report, Trump initially showed interest in this option but later became more cautious. Therefore, Trump’s public statements and reports of behind-the-scenes negotiations present a picture of an uncertain and volatile situation—offering no definitive guarantee for peace nor confirmation of a final decision to attack.

The IRGC spokesman speaks of acquiring more advanced weapons but does not explain what these weapons precisely are, when they were obtained, and what independent evidence exists to verify his claims. In a situation where the prospect of renewed conflict is being raised, such statements—lacking measurable information—add to confusion and concerns rather than clarifying the situation.

If the Islamic Republic’s military capabilities have truly increased, important questions arise about the nature of this capability, the cost of its development, and its potential consequences. If the purpose of these statements is deterrence and a display of power, we must still ask: does repeating military threats and promises, without providing clear information, increase the security of the people, or does it raise the risk of miscalculation and escalation of tensions?

The Iranian people deserve access to accurate information about decisions that could turn their lives upside down, rather than being informed only through military speeches and unproven claims about their future.

When politicians calculate elections, people face the risk of war. According to Axios, the possibility of renewed military operations against Iran was discussed in talks between Trump and Netanyahu. The report also mentions Netanyahu’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear capability reconstruction. Meanwhile, Trump has publicly stated that no attack will occur before the U.S. midterm elections.

This apparent contradiction between public positions and reported behind-the-scenes negotiations shows that statements by any political official should not be taken as a guarantee of the future by themselves. Military decisions may be influenced by security calculations, nuclear negotiations, and domestic considerations of countries, but their consequences extend far beyond decision-making rooms.

For the Iranian people, war is not an abstract discussion about power and deterrence. Any potential attack could compromise infrastructure, electrical grids, transportation, communications, medical centers, and economic activity. Even without a new attack, continued tensions could intensify economic uncertainty and make life harder for families already under pressure.

Mohsen Rezaei previously threatened that if the U.S. attacked again, Islamic Republic forces would target cables, data centers, and artificial intelligence facilities in the Middle East. Such threats extend the scope of danger beyond military fields and heighten concerns about infrastructure on which millions of people depend for daily services, communications, and economic activity.

Any attack on civilian infrastructure could have consequences far beyond military calculations. Iranian civilians and people in other countries in the region should not bear the cost of military competition and decisions by losing security, essential services, and economic opportunities.

The Iranian government must clarify the purpose of such threats and what mechanisms it has in place to prevent harm to civilians and vital infrastructure. Mutual threats alone are not a strategy for protecting people, especially if they lead to the likelihood of broader conflict.

One of the fundamental questions often overlooked amid military threats is the human and economic cost of war. Ordinary citizens are neither present in confidential negotiations between Washington and Tel Aviv nor do they directly participate in Tehran’s military decision-making; however, if conflict expands, they may be the first ones whose lives are harmed.

People facing difficulty obtaining food, medicine, rent, and daily necessities have the right to know what plan the government has to protect its citizens’ lives, ensure the continuity of essential services, and prevent further economic collapse in case of war. Is there a clear plan to protect civilians? Have people been informed about the possible costs of a new conflict and ways to reduce them? And is diplomacy and ways to reduce tension being pursued with the same seriousness as military power is being discussed?

These are not marginal questions; they are part of every government’s responsibility to the people whose security and lives depend on its decisions.

The security of the people must take precedence over displays of power and political calculations. Claims of acquiring advanced weapons alone do not guarantee security, nor can a foreign president’s promise to refrain from attack provide certainty about the future on its own. What matters is reducing the risk of war, transparency about sensitive decisions, and accountability for their consequences.

The Islamic Republic must, instead of merely resorting to threats and displays of power, provide explanations about military costs, strategic objectives, and plans to protect citizens. At the same time, the United States and Israel must take seriously the human and regional consequences of any potential military action. Sustainable security is not achieved through endless escalation of threats but requires decisions that prevent the expansion of war and keep the path of diplomacy open.

The Iranian people should not become powerless spectators to decisions that could endanger their homes, futures, and lives. The real question is not which side makes louder threats; the question is who takes responsibility for preventing war, protecting civilians, and accounting for the costs of this crisis?