Political Analysis 

* Thoughts of an Iranian analyst whom I have grown to respect, albeit not always in agreement with his commentary.  But this particular piece is excellent. In the truest sense, he is addressing one of my favorite issues for journalism, which is "emotional pulse".  

The news of the targeting of oil tankers linked to the UAE, regardless of its operational details, once again highlighted a more important issue: during times of war, the people are not merely spectators of the country's major decisions; public opinion can form part of the environment in which security and strategic decisions are shaped. In the days leading up to these events, in Iran's media space, the question was repeatedly raised as to why vessels linked to the UAE—one of Iran's most insidious enemies and Israel's main base in southern Iran—enjoy a safe haven and pass through the Persian Gulf under pressure from political actors and corrupt, Western-aligned oligarchs.

Afterward, every patriotic Iranian present in virtual spaces began to demand accountability, and this demand gradually expanded beyond a few limited analyses and writings to become a broader public discussion—until yesterday, when news broke of the targeting of several UAE-linked oil tankers and a specific company. This issue has weighed heavily on political currents inclined toward negotiations and quid-pro-quo policies.

Please note that in a country like Iran with its diverse ethnic groups, the influence of citizens—particularly the hard core—on governance decisions is of utmost importance; it goes so far as to guarantee the nation's national security. Please note that a country's power is not just the number of missiles, fighter jets, warships, or the size of its economy.

One of the fundamental elements of national power is the society's capacity to withstand pressure, maintain cohesion, and build a backbone from the hard core and part of the gray strata of society for difficult decisions—precisely what Western-aligned political currents and their allies try to undermine through media propaganda; because without it, they cannot trade away Iran's achievements and interests to secure a signed chit from America to prolong their political survival.

In the Ramadan War, especially when the people called for missile strikes and that demand was acted upon, it generated an exceptionally high level of feedback in society. Of course, please note that not everything the people demand must happen at that exact moment or alter military commanders' plans; rather, a military commander may have dozens of operational options on the table, but policy does not occur in a vacuum. Iran's Leader and the loyal military, political, and security leaders constantly assess what perception society has of an action, how much cost it will bear, what it will consider a retreat, and which decision can strengthen or weaken internal cohesion.

This is where "public demand" enters the fray. When a demand is limited to a few people, it carries little political weight. But when hundreds of thousands across the country—including media figures, analysts, and social media users—speak about a similar issue, something emerges that can be called a Social Signal. A social signal is not necessarily a command; but it provides important information to the power structure.

This signal shows what society has become sensitive to. It indicates which decision will create political costs for part of society. And most importantly, it clarifies how much social backing a decision-maker has for adopting a specific policy.

This is why even seemingly minor behaviors of the people are never insignificant. Since October 7, I have repeatedly stated that we are in a period of history where no Iranian citizen has ever had such influence on their country's fate. In the past, one had to be among the senior military commanders or part of the government or bureaucracy to impact the country's overall policies—a group that didn't even include one percent of society.

But today, it's entirely different; for example, on the surface, being present in the field for a few minutes with a placard or posting a piece in virtual spaces may not, on its own, change any decision, and a placard's text may not directly enter the operations room, nor may an analysis reach any commander. But the dynamic shifts when thousands of such behaviors align together.

Especially in wartime, this takes on added importance for that segment of society more sensitive to Iran's security, independence, and territorial integrity. In political science, such segments of society are sometimes referred to with concepts like "hard social base".

These groups, under normal conditions, might merely be one component of society; but in security crises, their role grows larger, since their tolerance for costs, social cohesion, and response to governance decisions can influence political calculations, particularly when a country has an ethnic character and this influence turns public demands into national unity. Please note that this point does not mean shutting down criticism of managers or offering unconditional support to the governance for every decision. On the contrary, from the perspective of national power, a society is stronger when it maintains cohesion against external threats while also remaining sensitive to decisions related to national interests. It is extremely important to emphasize that: social support has strategic value only when it is conscious, not passive. Please note that within any governance, there is no single viewpoint, particularly if parts of the system are caught up in Westernized currents or issues related to #کودتای_ترکیبی. In governance matters, based on the power gained by political currents (assuming no specific individuals or currents are traitors), one faction might favor a cautious response, another might propose more aggressive action, some might worry about economic repercussions, and networks might pursue personal or partisan interests—and depending on the power they hold, the overall decision might lean toward their viewpoint.

In such conditions, public opinion can shift the balance among these viewpoints. If society clearly demands something on an issue, those who represent that demand in the decision-making structure gain stronger political positioning. This dynamic exists even at the highest levels of power; for example, the society's leader, backed by popular support, can alter the country's general policies against the wishes of political figures at minimal cost. Conversely, when society is passive, more organized groups, economic networks, lobbies, or powerful bureaucracies gain greater weight. This is where the true importance of your demands as the people becomes clear. I emphasize again: society does not necessarily replace the government, commander, or security council; but it can shift the scope of possible decisions (don't expect miracles). However, the more consensus or clear demand forms in society around an issue, the freer the hands of those in governance (especially those shackled by media propaganda, mudslinging from currents, and corrupt political leaders) become to choose certain options, and the more restricted they are for others. The point is that media, public opinion, protests, support, demands, the space of social networks, and even shifts in societal rhetoric are all part of the information that ultimately reaches the power structure. If the people, especially the hard core, do not enter this media flow, then politicians' trolls and media currents they unleash can force the governance to accept things that lead to military attacks on the country; like the JCPOA or the insistence on negotiating with America, which the martyred Leader stated for 40 years has no achievements and is a wide-brimmed hat. One must not overlook the power of media here. For this reason, media is not just a tool for transmitting news. Media can create an issue; society can turn that issue into a demand; and public demand can enter the calculations of power.

For a country like Iran, facing a array of security, economic, and geopolitical pressures, this matter holds special importance. Iran's power is not just in its military bases or missile arsenal. Part of Iran's power lies in a society that is sensitive to the country's fate, follows politics, asks questions about national interests, and does not allow vital issues to be decided in silence; especially with an external enemy alongside internal Westernized, surrender-seeking currents with media mobilization power that align with hostile media under the command of enemy intelligence agencies.

For this reason, public demands today can be part of national deterrence. Please note that the enemy does not just assess a country's military capabilities; it also gauges social cohesion, society's readiness to endure pressure, and the gap between the people and the political structure. Because a fragmented, passive, and hopeless society can even diminish the power of a large army.

In contrast, an aware society that is sensitive about the country's independence and security itself becomes one of the components of national power. From this perspective, perhaps the most important message of recent events is this: No single citizen determines Iran's national policy on their own; but a collective of concerned or like-minded citizens, standing together, can create an environment in which national policy takes shape.