Iran's thousand-year-old historical identity is the real power of Iran.

The thousand-year-old historical identity of Iran has been the soft power of this great nation-state that has always played a pivotal role at the center of regional and global geostrategic changes or threats. Historical identity, in the form of “national memory” and belief in the identity and essence of our collective, emerges at the level of the “present” and acts as a productive capital. In the historical memory of the Iranian people, the aspiration for independence is linked to patriotism and especially territorial integrity. In fact, for Iranians, when foreign interference and aggression occurs (this “foreigner” or “foreigner” has been mentally constructed since the Safavid period and the confrontation with the Ottomans onwards), a penetrating meaning and pain emerges. This pain, with the intensity and sharpness of history and the depth and antecedence of the “idea of ​​Iran” that has always been associated with civilization, takes away peace and tranquility from its possessor. The Iranian, in the contemporary period, has experienced this pain to varying degrees: in the Second World War, in Saddam's war against Iran, and now, on the morning of Friday, June 13, 2025, he is once again subjected to a lightning attack.

Israel's recent war against Iran is an example of a "hybrid" and "cognitive" war that focuses not only on the military field, but also on the mentality and public opinion at home and abroad. The expectation was that the lightning and terrorist nature of the opening of this war would lead more to the construction of the "aggressor" as an irresistible superpower among the people, just as some Iranians previously believed in the impossibility of economic resistance against the dominant neoliberal order and the hegemony of the dollar. But this time there was an important difference: land and blood! The defensive and offensive capacity of the Islamic Republic of Iran, despite losses and surprise, was still preserved, and in less than 12 hours after the attack it rebuilt its ability to react. Although harassing attacks and drones guided from within the vast uncontrollable geography continued to sow terror, since the aggressor was foreign, the warmth and social cohesion increased. On the second day of the war, when authoritative polling centers asked the people about the need for confrontation, response and resistance against the dominant aggressor, more than 75% were in favor and the rest gave mostly abstentions; those in favor of passivity and acceptance of enemy aggression did not exceed 10%.

This while in the midst of the war between Iran and the Zionist regime, the public polling and data analysis center YouGov addressed American citizens by asking them: “Should (shouldn’t) the United States military intervene in the conflict between Israel and Iran?” According to the results, 60% of all American respondents were against America’s entry into the conflict between Israel and Iran. In addition, the classification of respondents according to political orientation (partisanship) shows that 65% of Democrats, 53% of Republicans and 53% of Trump voters in the 2024 election are against American interference in the war between Iran and Israel. Israel’s dependence on external military logistics, especially air refueling and limited production of advanced weaponry, was considered a strategic weakness for this regime that without American support did not have the capacity to continue operations. In this defense, Iran's strategy was not and is not based on blind revenge, but is based on creating strategic limitations and internal attrition through soft power and military deterrence. Regional geopolitical conditions, the participation of European and Persian Gulf countries, and developments on the ground can quickly transform the equations, but Iran had the necessary preparation and infrastructure to deal with any scenario. However, more than anything else, it was the collective uprising and national cohesion that revived the eroded social capital of the last ten years and increased mental resilience. The enemy failed to direct the dominant mentality towards the being or non-being of the Iranian political system; the social mentality and public opinion agenda focused on the honorable end or the endless continuation of it, and this is where, in my opinion, pushed the aggressor and his accomplice towards the ceasefire. Otherwise, when one side has military superiority and material power, why should it miss the opportunity? Of course, some still think of balkanizing or Lebanizing Iran to realize the Kingdom of Israel, but they do not realize that the soft power of nations, even in this era of dissolution of moral and legal orders and international regimes, has the final say. This power cannot be bought or painted; this power is hidden in the history, language and spirit of societies.

Sayyed Majid Emami