Tehran: Over the past two years, President Masoud Pezeshkian's administration, despite various crises and challenges, has strived to bring the government and society closer together and transcend political binaries, thereby paving the way for the formation and strengthening of national cohesion. The results of this strategy become evident during pivotal moments, when, regardless of their divergent perspectives, people have rallied together in defense of national interests and the safeguarding of Iran.
According to Islamic Republic News Agency, in the eyes of the Pezeshkian administration, this national solidarity is not merely a societal milestone, it is a powerful asset that enables the nation to overcome any challenge. The 14th administration began its work at a time when Iranian society was grappling with a host of accumulated issues. Under such circumstances, national cohesion was not merely a political concept for the Pezeshkian administration; it gradually became one of the essential requirements for steering the country through crisis.
The significance of this issue grew even more when the country faced security crises and war. The 12-day war and the subsequent 40-day war placed Iranian society in a position where many disagreements and differences were set aside in the face of a greater concern, preserving Iran and overcoming an external threat. Pezeshkian later described the 12-day war as a symbol of Iranian national unity and stated that the people of Iran, regardless of their personal preferences and views, acted as one when defending their country.
He further stressed that the nation's lasting strength resides in the unity of its people, the potential of its young generation, and optimism for what lies ahead.
It is important to note that national unity does not require everyone to think alike. A society of millions, with its broad spectrum of political, cultural, social, and economic perspectives, will inevitably hold differing views. However, the crucial point is that at decisive junctures, these divergences do not obstruct the emergence of common interests.
In the recent security crises, this reality proved to be among the most significant. While citizens may have held grievances regarding various domestic matters, policies, and official conduct, a challenge to the nation's territorial sovereignty was an entirely distinct and overriding concern. This is exactly what distinguishes authentic national cohesion from empty political rhetoric. True unity emerges when people, even in the absence of full consensus on every issue, recognize a common fate in matters of existential importance.
Pezeshkian, in his own account of the war, has similarly emphasized the role of the people. After the 40-day war ended, he described the conscious presence of the people as a factor in neutralizing destabilizing scenarios and strengthening national cohesion, adding that this popular presence is an asset that must be utilized in the country's reconstruction and progress. This perspective carries an important message: the people are not merely recipients of government policies; in times of crisis, they themselves are part of the solution.
While the war served as the ultimate test of national unity, the notion of cohesion extends far beyond the battlefield. A society genuinely coheres when it is capable of navigating not only external threats but also economic strain, resource shortages, service interruptions, and the ordinary anxieties of daily life. From this perspective, ensuring the continuity of everyday existence during crises is an essential component of sustaining social solidarity.
"Ensuring the availability of essential commodities, the continuity of healthcare services, the supply of fuel, the stability of water and power infrastructure, and the functionality of administrative systems transcends mere economic or logistical considerations. Large-scale failures in any of these domains can exacerbate public unease and undermine confidence in the authorities' capacity to manage emergencies."
During the 12-day war, the healthcare sector was a case in point. The First Vice President at the time described the performance of the health sector and medical staff as one of the factors contributing to national cohesion and solidarity during wartime.
One of the most important features of Iranian society in recent crises has been its ability to maintain normal life under abnormal conditions. War can bring fear, uncertainty, and disruption. But if society can preserve its daily life alongside defense and resistance, its resilience increases.
This issue holds particular importance for the Pezeshkian administration. Cohesion takes shape when people feel they share a common destiny and that costs and responsibilities are not borne by only one segment of society. For this reason, the government's approach to economic and livelihood problems is also part of its national cohesion strategy. This is why, even as the country faced numerous difficulties, the Pezeshkian administration moved forward with eliminating subsidized foreign currency and instead paying direct cash subsidies to the people.
In this context, the internet is one of the most important issues that cannot be omitted from the narrative of the 14th administration's national cohesion. For a large segment of society, the internet is not just entertainment; it is a conduit for business, education, communication, media activity, and even family connections. Therefore, any widespread restrictions in this area affect the public's relationship with the state and their outlook on the future.
Pezeshkian, both during the election campaign and afterward, repeatedly stressed the need to improve the internet situation. The government's promises in this area formed part of the expectations that society had of the 14th administration, expectations that became even more significant after the security crises and the war. In critical situations, reliable communication among people and access to trustworthy information become doubly important.
Moreover, rebuilding trust is difficult without direct and transparent communication with the public. For this reason, the internet issue should be seen as more than a matter of filtering or technology; it has become part of the relationship between government and society. The Pezeshkian administration's experience in this field can demonstrate how a decision in the realm of communications connects with social capital and national cohesion.
The crucial point, however, begins after the crisis ends. War can, for a short time, overshadow many differences. An external threat pushes people toward a shared concern, but maintaining that solidarity after the threat subsides is far more difficult. If people feel that after the crisis they have reverted to the same old divisions, the social capital that was built can quickly erode. Thus, the Pezeshkian administration faces an important opportunity: to transform the solidarity forged in difficult days into social cooperation in ordinary times.
This means leveraging the people's capacity to solve economic problems, reform energy consumption patterns, manage water resources, address imbalances, develop infrastructure, and even carry out social reforms. Because national cohesion acquires strategic value only when society comes together not just in the face of external threats but also feels it has a stake in solving domestic issues and shaping the country's future.
From this perspective, the government's role differs from building cohesion. Its duty is to create conditions that preserve this capital. This requires several elements: transparent decision-making, direct communication with the public, openness to criticism, narrowing the gap between policymakers and society, attention to livelihood issues, and above all avoiding the transformation of political disagreements into social rifts.
From the outset, Pezeshkian emphasized cooperation and reducing political discord, because the core issue is the relationship between society and the governing structure. Going forward, the 14th administration faces no simple decisions. The economy, energy, water, subsidy reform, consumption management, the internet, and many other issues all carry potential social costs. This is where national cohesion reveals its true importance.
No government can solve all problems without societal participation. Economic and social reforms become more feasible when people feel that decisions are made for them and with their circumstances in mind. For this reason, the most important achievement of national cohesion may not be that society stood together on wartime days, but rather that this experience can become a resource for future difficult days.
The same people who did not abandon their country during a security crisis can also be part of the solution in energy, water, economic, and reconstruction crises, provided there is trust between the public and policymakers. The Pezeshkian administration now possesses a capital that was largely demonstrated by the people themselves during hard times: the capacity for solidarity, resilience, and steadfastness.
Pezeshkian, in his account of the war, has identified this very social capital as the most important foundation for the country's future, emphasizing popular solidarity, the talent of youth, and hope for the future. But preserving this capital requires action, not just speeches.
The people who stood by their country in times of crisis expect to be seen, heard, and given a real stake in decisions about their future during ordinary times as well. From this standpoint, national cohesion is neither a publicity project nor a temporary political agreement. It is a strategic asset that reveals itself at critical junctures and must be preserved and strengthened in ordinary times.
The Pezeshkian administration, in one of the most tense periods in recent decades, has encountered a society that has shown it can set aside many differences in moments of danger and stand on common ground called Iran. Now, national cohesion can transform from a reaction to crisis into a lasting capacity for resolving crises, an asset that not only sees the country through war but can also serve as a foundation for overcoming future economic, social, and developmental challenges.
Ultimately, perhaps the most important lesson of the 14th administration is this: in the hardest of days, Iranian society proved that differences of opinion do not mean divergence of destiny. People can be critical, demanding, and even disagree with many policies-but when Iran itself is at stake, they find their common ground. This is the asset at the disposal of the Pezeshkian administration; an asset built by the people, which the government must now use to navigate the crises ahead.