February 11 is not merely a historical commemoration; it is the continuing display of the political will of a society that has preserved its revolution at considerable cost. In the run-up to the ceremony, a combination of external threats, the highlighting of a US military option, suggestions of negotiations from a position of weakness, and the magnification of economic problems were amplified in the media space in an effort to dampen public motivation to attend.

Nevertheless, the broad participation of different segments of society demonstrated that the Iranian public is capable of distinguishing between “domestic demands” and “external pressure”. This presence can be understood as a form of social deterrence — one rooted in the symbolic capital of the Revolution and the bond between the nation and the political structure — which raises the calculated costs of any external pressure.

National Cohesion in the Face of Engineered Polarization

In the days leading up to the ceremony, efforts intensified to portray society as fractured by deep divisions and trapped in a pervasive deadlock. The selective republication of past incidents, the highlighting of unsubstantiated statistics and the use of emotive language aimed at suggesting structural brutality were part of a media operation seeking to turn the occasion into a scene of tension.

However, the emergence of a unified message in support of stability and national security neutralized the project of transferring media-driven divisions into the social sphere. This convergence does not imply the denial of existing problems; rather, it reflects society’s prioritization of cohesion in the face of external threats. Within this framework, February 11 became a platform for consolidating social capital and strengthening national solidarity.

Failure of Narrative-Building Through Censorship

At another stage, the approach of downplaying or providing minimal coverage of the ceremony by certain Western media outlets became evident. Selective focus on limited segments of the event and the avoidance of broad coverage of public participation signaled a shift in tactics — from active narrative-building to a policy of omission.

With the expansion of coverage by independent media and the dissemination of images showing widespread public presence, this approach also lost its effectiveness. In today’s pluralistic media environment, ignoring a major event not only fails to diminish its importance but can also raise questions about media bias. As a result, attempts to minimize and downplay the march effectively reinforced its significance.

A Message of Authority Against Claims of Isolation

Simultaneously with the ceremony, similar programs were held in other countries and congratulatory messages were sent by foreign officials, presenting a different picture from claims of Iran’s isolation. These signs suggest that in a global order in transition, multiple actors are unwilling to align with a unilateral Western narrative.

The message of the march was grounded in the assertion that any external engagement, should it occur, would take place from a position of authority. That authority derives from the linkage between diplomacy, field capability and popular backing. Such a linkage provides a framework for confronting pressure and negotiation simultaneously and demonstrates that threats lead not to retreat, but to greater cohesion.