MARGINALIA: When Identity Becomes a Target

MAKATI CITY (MindaNews / 15 June) “What is more dangerous—nuclear weapons in the hands of a theocracy, or the silence of the world when a rogue state flaunts its impunity?”

That message from a former student on the morning of June 13 lingered longer than I expected. Because what happened at dawn that day was not just another headline. It was not just about missiles. It was a brutal, calculated assault on a nation’s identity, a stark reminder that in the arena of global politics, what you symbolize often matters more than what you do.

Through the lens of social constructivism, we understand that global behavior isn’t solely driven by power or interests, but by norms, identities, and collective meanings. And that lens makes the June 13 Israeli strikes on Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure all the more significant—and dangerous.

Iran’s nuclear program is not just uranium, centrifuges, or reactors. It is a national project of dignity, deeply embedded in the Iranian psyche—regardless of religious adherence or political affiliation.

It is telling that shortly after the strikes, a video went viral across social platforms: a young non-hijabi Iranian woman, visibly secular, passionately shouting for the production of an atomic bomb in response to Israel’s attack. Her voice, defiant and furious, was not necessarily a call for war—it was a cry for sovereignty, dignity, and recognition. It was a stark manifestation of national pride transcending ideological boundaries.

And it’s not without basis. Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and a country whose Supreme Leader issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons—a religious and political stance rarely acknowledged by the West.

The IAEA has regularly affirmed the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear activity. What many forget is that during the reign of the Pahlavi monarchy, Iran’s nuclear ambitions were actively encouraged by the United States, under its obligation as an NPT nuclear power to assist fellow signatories in civilian nuclear development.

So, what changed?

Not Iran’s commitments. Not its treaties. But its identity.

With the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran transformed from a pro-Western monarchy to a theocratic republic grounded in resistance against imperialism and Zionism. And that identity—far more than its enrichment activities—is what provokes global anxiety.

Under constructivist theory, this shift is critical. Iran became “the other,” while Israel, a non-signatory to the NPT with a hidden but well-documented nuclear arsenal, continued to enjoy immunity from scrutiny. Thanks to the revelations of whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu, the world has long known about Israel’s nuclear weapons—but has remained conveniently silent.

The Israeli attack on June 13 wasn’t limited to sites or structures. It also killed top Iranian military officials and nuclear scientists, striking not just a policy program, but the heartbeat of Iran’s scientific elite.

In doing so, it activated a national memory, reinforced a shared construct, and reignited a deeply rooted collective narrative: we are under siege because of who we are, not what we do.

As one academic in the University of Tehran once told me:

“We may disagree on many things. But when they bomb our scientists, it’s like bombing our entire future.”

What makes the timing more precarious is that the attack came just as Donald Trump, now back in the international arena, was negotiating a new nuclear deal with Tehran.

In a world ruled by rational choice theory, this would be illogical. But in a constructivist world, where symbols matter more than signals, this was a strategic assertion of defiance—an identity war dressed as a military operation.

As of this writing, Iranian missiles are striking Tel Aviv and other Israeli locations. Tensions are rising. And yet, the most dangerous fallout may not be radioactive—it may be ideational.

Because when a nation is repeatedly punished not for breaking the rules but for simply existing differently, the rules themselves lose meaning.

When Iran builds, it’s a threat.

When Israel bombs, it’s silence.

When Iran signs treaties, it’s suspect.

When Israel refuses, it’s exempt.

And we wonder why faith in international law is crumbling.

To the so-called stewards of world order:

If you continue to treat agreements like the NPT not as universal commitments, but as selective instruments of containment, don’t be surprised when those outside your favor begin crafting their own truths—justified, emboldened, and resilient.

Because for Iran, the nuclear program is no longer just about technology. It is now a symbol of resistance, a narrative of sovereignty, and above all, an identity under siege.

And that, dear reader, is not just geopolitics.

That is social constructivism.

[MindaViews is the opinion section of MindaNews. Mansoor L. Limba, PhD in International Relations and Shari‘ah Counselor-at-Law (SCL), is a publisher-writer, university professor, vlogger, chess trainer, and translator (from Persian into English and Filipino) with tens of written and translation works to his credit on such subjects as international politics, history, political philosophy, intra-faith and interfaith relations, cultural heritage, Islamic finance, jurisprudence (fiqh), theology (‘ilm al-kalam), Qur’anic sciences and exegesis (tafsir), hadith, ethics, and mysticism. He can be reached at mlimba@diplomats.com and www.youtube.com/@WayfaringWithMansoor, and his books can be purchased at www.elzistyle.com and www.amazon.com/author/mansoorlimba.]