TEHRAN - A professor of history says having efficient, intelligent, and predictable governance structures plays a decisive role in strengthening the concept of “a strong Iran”.

Gholamreza Zarifian discusses the multifaceted nature of the concept of "a strong Iran," explaining its various dimensions. 

“One of the most important components of a strong Iran is political stability and resilience. Having efficient, intelligent, and predictable governance structures plays a crucial role in reinforcing the concept of a strong Iran; as the governance system demonstrates greater resilience in facing crises, it will enhance public trust and increase social cohesion,” the history professor tells ISNA.

On the dimensions of the concept of a strong Iran, Zarifian mentions events from at least two wars have demonstrated essential capacities within Iranian society, some of which have become apparent while others remain unknown.

Israel and the U.S. have launched two unprovoked and illegal wars against Iran in less than nine months. The first one happened in June 2025, and the current one which was launched on Feb. 28.  A fragile two-week ceasefire has been in effect since April 8. However, the U.S. has openly violated the truce by introducing a naval blockade against Iran, and on April 19, it fired and seized an Iranian-flagged vessel in the Gulf of Oman.  

The Iranians have demonstrated exemplary resistance, both in terms of retaliation and public support, especially in the ongoing war.

“By examining the resilience of the people during these two wars, we can gain a deeper understanding of the elements to which Iranian society is attached and those it distances itself from. 

“The most significant historical factor of cohesion for this nation, which has persisted for hundreds and even thousands of years, is ‘Iran’ as an identity concept,” explains Zarifian, a professor emeritus from the University of Tehran. 

He adds, “Iran has always functioned as a stable historical entity, possessing a history spanning several millennia compared to many countries in the region and even worldwide that have shorter historical backgrounds. This historical continuity has been both a factor in societal stability and a foundation for the transmission of beliefs and values.”

In the course of the current war, U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to send Iran “back to the Stone Ages” and even threatened to destroy Iran’s “whole civilization” if it did not accept the U.S. conditions.  His reckless and ill-advised remarks drew sharp criticisms from top scholars who say Iran’s ancient civilization is rooted in history.  UN Secretary General António Guterres also said he was "deeply troubled" by such statements, and Pope Leo XIV called his remarks "unacceptable".

The professor says this characteristic has created “a profound, vibrant, and structured bond among Iranians, especially in times of crisis and difficulty.”

“Therefore,” he adds, “paying attention to Iran and its capacities and identities is considered one of the fundamental components in forming a ‘strong Iran’."

Iranians have experienced about 1,200 wars in the course of history 

According to the historian, based on research that has been conducted, Iranians have experienced about 1,200 wars throughout history. 

“What has contributed to the survival and continuity of this land has been the patience, attachment, and reliance of the people on their national identity, as well as their spiritual and religious identities,” he notes

The history professor also says there has been no serious confrontation between “national identity and religious identity” before and after Islam. 

“Throughout history, both before and after Islam, there has not been serious conflict between national identity and religious identity; rather, these two have consistently coexisted, fostering tolerance, acceptance of others, and cooperation under various circumstances.”

The professor says the “concept of Iran” has fostered unity among Iranians with different ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds.

“Strengthening the concept of Iran is significant not only from material aspects but also from identity and theoretical perspectives. If we divide issues into ‘software’ and ‘hardware,’ the software aspect, which connects Iranians despite their diversity and multiplicity, plays a crucial role,” the history professor notes.

Zarifian, a pro-reform political activist, adds it seems at certain points in time, there has been neglect of this great capacity known as "Iran" and its spiritual and material potentials. Therefore, he suggests, it is “essential that this issue receive more attention.”

By insisting on the importance of focusing on the concept of "Iran," he states that it is “necessary to pay attention to Iran as a theoretical concept as well as to the ideals and values that have historically connected Iranians despite ethnic and religious diversity.”

Such an approach, the history professor suggests, will lead to more cohesion and unity in society. 

“The more we distance ourselves from this concept, the more we witness an increase in emigration and a decrease in social cohesion; conversely, whenever attention to this concept has strengthened, social unity has significantly increased.”

For example, he says that during the current war, “contrary to the expectations of some experts and media, especially foreign media, that such a war would lead to a widespread wave of emigration, predictions turned out to be incorrect and yielded the opposite result. 

“It is reported that during the war, despite existing transportation issues and other restrictions, the number of Iranians who returned to the country exceeded those who left. This highlights the significance and function of this concept in strengthening national cohesion.”

A few days before the current war, as certain Western media outlets were quoting anonymous sources that the aggression on Iran was gaining momentum, Turkey reinforced border security to stop a possible flow of Iranians to the country.
Elsewhere in the interview, he noted that in today's world, no country can distance itself from international interactions. In this context, he argues, it is essential to distinguish between "positive dependence" and "negative dependence."

In his view, positive dependence refers to establishing deep connections and relationships with the outside world, while negative dependence refers to a situation where a country’s interests and decisions are shaped from abroad. 

“The modern world is highly interconnected, and countries are inevitably required to engage in interaction, dialogue, and cooperation with one another,” he opines.