The remarkable and historic public turnout at the farewell and funeral ceremonies for the Martyred Leader and members of his family in Tehran, Qom, and now at Iraq's holy shrines has become one of Iran's most significant sources of social capital during this sensitive period. By the admission of both friends and adversaries, the events reflected the people's unity around national and revolutionary ideals. Millions of Iranians from diverse backgrounds, political views, and social perspectives stood together, setting aside political differences to demonstrate once again that whenever Iran's security, dignity, and territorial integrity are at stake, Iranian society retains a profound capacity for national solidarity. These scenes conveyed a clear message not only to the domestic public but also to Iran's adversaries, who in recent months have repeatedly spoken of intensifying pressure, threats, and even military aggression against Iran: at critical historical moments, Iran is capable of restoring its internal unity.
Yet amid this powerful display of unity, the conduct and remarks of a small number of political activists and individuals cast a shadow over the occasion. Verbal, and in some instances physical, confrontations directed at senior state officials, including the President, the Foreign Minister, and the Speaker of Parliament, bore no relation to the spirit of the ceremonies and, in practice, detracted from their national character. Although these incidents involved only a limited group, extensive media coverage projected a misleading image of the country's public atmosphere, one that Iran's adversaries are more likely than anyone else to exploit.
Iran's foremost concern today is not internal disagreements among officials who are each carrying out their legal responsibilities in administering the country. At a time when the US President has once again resorted to the language of threats, pressure, and even renewed aggression against Iran while seeking to impose instability across the region, the most natural expectation is that the country's political and social capacities will unite in defense of national interests and the strengthening of domestic cohesion. Under such circumstances, attacking officials on the front lines of governing the country, regardless of the justification offered, serves only to weaken the home front.
More importantly, such conduct is inconsistent with the intellectual and political foundations of the Islamic Revolution. On various occasions, the Martyred Leader warned against the phenomenon of "super-revolutionaries", those who believe revolutionary commitment means disregarding the law, ignoring the nation's interests, or attacking individuals within the system. He repeatedly emphasized that emotion is no substitute for rationality and that revolutionary passion, however sincere, if exercised outside the framework of law, ethics, and the public interest, does not strengthen the Revolution but instead imposes costs on the country.
For this reason, the Martyred Leader consistently opposed unauthorized actions and urged political activists and revolutionary forces to observe legal norms, political ethics, and national unity. The experience of the past four decades has shown that whenever groups have attempted to place themselves above the law or present themselves as the exclusive representatives of the Revolution, the result has been nothing but deeper internal divisions and greater opportunities for Iran's adversaries to exploit them.
Funeral ceremonies for the martyrs belong to all Iranians, not to a party, a political faction, or any particular movement. These ceremonies are moments when the nation's shared memory is expressed and social solidarity is renewed. Turning such occasions into platforms for factional score-settling amounts to appropriating a national asset for narrow political interests. No political current has the right to exploit the people's sincere emotions as a tool for demonstrating street power or exerting pressure on the country's official institutions.
It should not be forgotten that Iran's adversaries are seeking precisely to erode this social capital. They understand that external pressure is most effective when accompanied by internal division. For that reason, any image, slogan, or behavior that highlights domestic discord is quickly amplified by hostile media outlets. Under such circumstances, the responsibility of political actors becomes even greater. They must take care not to play, even unintentionally, on a field designed by their opponents.
This does not mean denying the right to criticize public officials. In the Islamic Republic, criticism of the performance of the government, Parliament, or the diplomatic establishment is not only legitimate but necessary for improving governance. However, there is a profound difference between responsible criticism and character assassination, between accountability and disrespect, and between lawful protest and disrupting national occasions. A society that loses sight of these distinctions gradually loses its capacity for dialogue and mutual trust.
Another noteworthy point is that the Leader of the Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei, has used conciliatory language when referring to senior officials responsible for the negotiations that brought the war to an end, emphasizing their goodwill, sincerity, and dedication even where differences of opinion over certain policies or performance exist. This reflects an important principle of governance: preserving the credibility of the country's official institutions is part of safeguarding national authority. Continual attacks on senior officials before public opinion ultimately weaken not individuals but the credibility of the governing system itself, with the entire country bearing the cost.
Today, more than ever, Iran needs rationality, restraint, and political maturity. The unity that the people demonstrated during the martyrs' funeral ceremonies must not be undermined by emotional or exclusionary behavior. If the massive public turnout carried a message, it was one of solidarity, mutual understanding, and placing Iran above political rivalries.
Today, the responsibility of every political current, regardless of ideological orientation, is to safeguard this shared national asset. Those who, in the name of revolutionary commitment, transform national unity into a partisan rally are, knowingly or unknowingly, undermining one of the Iranian nation's greatest achievements in recent days. More than anything, the Islamic Revolution requires rationality, the rule of law, ethics, and unity, not a radicalism that obscures the distinction between friend and foe at the most sensitive moments in the nation's history.