The brief but key phrase "we too are a superpower," stated a few days ago by the Foreign Ministry spokesperson in response to a foreign correspondent’s question, remains worthy of analysis from various angles even days later. This concise answer might be considered one of the enduring keywords of the third imposed war, as it has the potential to become a compelling and effective symbol and metaphor. It would be imprudent to dismiss this statement as merely a political reaction by the spokesperson of Iran’s diplomatic apparatus. In fact, behind this short phrase lies a profound narrative of Iran’s shifting position in the contemporary global balance of power. It was neither a propaganda nor an emotional claim for media consumption; rather, it was a restatement of the new definition of power in the 21st century, a world where being a superpower is no longer limited to the number of aircraft carriers and nuclear warheads, but depends on "capacity to withstand," "ability to recover," "power to respond," and "level of resilience under the most intense pressure."
Ramadan War and Its Dimensions
The recent 40-day war was not merely a military battle; it was a test of a nation’s solidity across various dimensions, especially the military, political, and social spheres. In this war, Iran faced not a regional actor but a coalition of major global and regional powers—powers that believed they could drive Iran into a state of attrition and collapse through a combination of military pressure, psychological warfare, economic sanctions, commercial blockade, and media operations. But the final outcome was not what they wanted or had planned for.
Strategically, "defeat" does not necessarily mean territorial occupation or physical destruction. Sometimes a country suffers a strategic defeat without its land being occupied, its political will collapses, its social structure disintegrates, or it loses its ability to make independent decisions. Conversely, a country that can thwart the enemy’s main objectives, even at great cost, has not been strategically defeated. This is precisely what happened with Iran. The main goal of the war was not merely to strike some infrastructure or military sites; it was to break the main pillars of Iran’s power: disabling military responsiveness, disrupting the political governance structure, and collapsing social cohesion. But none of these objectives were achieved in a decisive manner.
Shortly before the 40-day war began, Rear Admiral Ali Shamkhani, then-secretary of the Defense Council, said something in a media interview that at the time might have been dismissed by some political and military figures as merely a political or propaganda stance. He said: "No power is capable of destroying Iran’s ability to respond." If the strategic depth of this statement was not clear to many of its listeners then, now, after 70 days of struggle and friction between global powers and Iran, one can understand the logic on which that statement was based. The issue is not merely the existence of missiles, drones, or military equipment; rather, it is a complex network of hard and soft capacities that have been built over decades and are not easily destroyed.
Three Pillars of a New Superpower
Iran’s military power in this war was not limited to launching missiles or conducting deterrent military operations. More importantly, it consisted of maintaining command capability, sustaining the ability to react, and preventing the paralysis of the defense structure. Many assumed that the first strikes would shatter Iran’s chain of command, but that did not happen. This very continuity of response capability revealed the true meaning of power.
On the political level, despite the strike at the apex of the political system and the martyrdom of the leader [Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei], the governance structure, contrary to foreign analysts’ predictions, did not suffer decisive collapse or instability. In many contemporary wars, external pressure yields results only when it links up with an internal legitimacy crisis. Here, however, the removal of the leader did not lead to any political crisis; rather, a remarkable form of national cohesion emerged that prevented the destabilization project from achieving the attackers’ desired outcome.
Perhaps the most important part of the story occurred on the social front. In recent years, Iranian society has faced numerous rifts, grievances, and crises. Iran’s enemies relied precisely on this assumption, thinking that military pressure could activate these rifts and bring society to a breaking point. But what happened was more complex than this simplistic analysis. The formation of human chains and the continuous holding of nightly gatherings in the squares and streets of the nation’s cities strengthened social bonds. Iranian society showed that it distinguishes between social protest and national collapse. This distinction was one of the most important sources of Iran’s power in this crisis.
With these explanations, the concept of "superpower" now requires redefinition. In today’s world, a superpower is not merely a country that possesses the most advanced military equipment, even nuclear weapons, and can launch a lightning or perhaps surprise attack. More profoundly, a superpower is a country that can endure under the heaviest pressures and still maintain its independent decision-making power. The reality of the present is observable in Iran’s case: a country that, despite years of sanctions, pressure, and threats, still has the ability to stand and respond in the military, political, social, and to some extent economic spheres, and whose power the superpowers have been unable to erode, such a country is certainly a superpower.
Of course, this clear reality should not be used as a pretext for delusions of self-sufficiency or sloganeering. Being a superpower is not merely a product of resistance; it also requires rationality, economic development, social capital, governance effectiveness, and the repair of internal rifts. If Iran wishes to consolidate this power, it must understand that its main capital is not only its missiles or military capability, but a society that, in times of danger, still feels a sense of shared destiny.
Perhaps the profound meaning of the phrase "we too are a superpower" is precisely this: a country that, contrary to predictions, did not collapse under military, economic, and political onslaught from superpowers; whose ability to respond was not destroyed; whose political structure remained intact; and whose society, despite all its differences, did not, at a historic moment, abandon the principle of survival. In today’s turbulent world, this characteristic is no less valuable than atomic power. Martyr Shamkhani, in that same media interview with absolute confidence, said something to the effect that "the Islamic Republic of Iran is not collapsible." The strong foundations of this new superpower, under pressure from foreign enemies, may be harmed and may shake, but they will not collapse.
NOURNEWS