On the 46th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei reaffirmed Iran’s resilience against conventional security threats, asserting that military and hard power challenges no longer pose an existential risk to the Islamic Republic. However, he emphasized that "soft warfare" remains a critical and unresolved threat. While Khamenei has frequently invoked the concept of soft war (jang-e narm) in recent years, this was the first time he explicitly framed it as a challenge Iran has yet to fully counter.

Initially introduced by Khamenei in 2006, the soft war narrative has since evolved from an abstract security concern into a foundational ideological framework, shaping how the Iranian state perceives external threats. Over time, the narrative has expanded dynamically, incorporating a broad spectrum of perceived threats and adversarial tactics, making it a highly flexible and encompassing narrative. Taken as a whole, soft warfare is framed as a coordinated effort to undermine Iran’s state and society, orchestrated primarily by its adversaries, particularly the United States and Israel.

Trends in Khamenei’s Emphasis on Soft War Across Speeches and Statements by Year

Today, Iran’s soft war narrative is structured into a multi-layered framework comprising five interrelated sub-components:

• Psychological warfare (jang-e ravani): Efforts by foreign adversaries to undermine Iran’s state structure, erode state-society relations, and weaken national resistance.
• Political warfare (jang-e politik): Strategies aimed at discrediting Iranian leadership and disrupting Tehran’s foreign policy agenda, primarily through diplomatic isolation, propaganda, and sanctions.
• Intellectual warfare (jang-e fikri): The dissemination of philosophical and ideological currents that contradict the principles of the Islamic Revolution, particularly within academic and intellectual circles.
• Cultural warfare (jang-e farhangi): The promotion of social practices and lifestyles—especially among Iranian youth—that diverge from revolutionary values.
• Cognitive warfare (jang-e shenahti): The deployment of disinformation and psychological operations designed to manipulate public perception and erode trust in the state.

As a cornerstone of Iran’s security and defense strategy, the soft war narrative functions not only as a security framework, but also as a strategic instrument for shaping domestic and foreign policy, as well as internal security measures. By constructing a broad and fluid definition of soft war, the Iranian state has securitized a wide range of social and political phenomena, encompassing cultural and academic activities, political dissent, and civil society movements. This expansive application enables the regime to frame internal challenges as externally driven conspiracies, reinforcing a continuous state of vigilance and control.

The soft war narrative also plays a critical role in shaping Iran’s response to domestic unrest and foreign policy setbacks. Within this framework, popular uprisings are rarely interpreted as organic expressions of socio-political grievances but rather as externally orchestrated plots designed to destabilize the regime. Accordingly, social movements are framed as subversive threats, particularly when youth are portrayed as being manipulated by cognitive, cultural, and intellectual warfare tactics.

Beyond the domestic sphere, the soft war framework is also instrumental in legitimizing Iran’s foreign policy and defense strategies while deflecting accountability for strategic failures. Within this framework, domestic uprisings are rarely seen as organic expressions of popular discontent but rather as externally orchestrated conspiracies designed to destabilize the state. It is frequently argued that Iran’s setbacks on the regional stage do not reflect reality, but are instead the product of a hostile narrative engineered to undermine its geopolitical influence.

While the soft war narrative serves as a strategic mechanism to reinforce regime stability and justify policy actions, its institutionalization as a central policy tool carries far-reaching structural consequences. By suppressing political opposition, silencing alternative viewpoints, and foreclosing critical engagement with foreign policy decisions, the narrative reinforces Iran’s systemic vulnerabilities.

This securitized framework not only shrinks the political space, but also fuels recurrent cycles of socio-political unrest by failing to address underlying grievances. Moreover, it entrenches strategic miscalculations in foreign policy, as Iran remains trapped in a defensive posture, unwilling or unable to reassess its regional strategy. Ultimately, rather than mitigating internal and external challenges, the soft war narrative perpetuates them, exacerbating domestic instability and diplomatic isolation.