The Missile’s Mirage

How Rhetoric Forges Identity in the Shadow of Illusion

We delve into the unsettling chasm between Iran’s escalating missile threats and the logistical realities behind them. This piece uncovers how the perception of power, rather than military might alone, shapes national identity and drives a dangerous psychological warfare across the Middle East.

The Big Question: What Lies Beneath the Missile Threats?

The headlines scream, and the fear resonates: Iran’s audacious claim of possessing the capability to launch 2,000 missiles simultaneously at Israel to “deshabilitar a Israel” is a declaration designed to seize global attention. It’s a statement of intent, a flex of presumed military muscle that sends shivers down geopolitical spines. But what if the declared power is largely a mirage? What if the true battleground is not the sky above, but the minds below? This is the unsettling question at the heart of this volatile situation: how do such dramatic threats, whether rooted in capability or mere bluster, profoundly shape not just military strategies, but the very identities and psychological landscapes of nations?

For us, observing this from a distance, it is crucial to look beyond the immediate shock of the numbers and delve into the deeper layers of meaning. We must ask how propaganda and the performance of power impact the collective psyche, forging narratives of defiance and resilience in one society, while simultaneously inciting fear and a call to arms in another. This is not merely a military analysis; it is an examination of the intricate dance between rhetoric, reality, and the forging of national souls.

The Study Simplified: Reality Versus The Roar of Propaganda

Let’s strip away the dramatic pronouncements and examine the reported facts. Euronews, on November 16, 2025, relayed the Iranian claim, further contextualized by Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group in a New York Times interview from November 9. This figure of 2,000 missiles represents a sharp escalation from the estimated 70 missiles used during the so-called “war of the 12 days” in June 2025. Iranian authorities also assert their missile factories operate 24/7, suggesting an endless supply and an unyielding commitment to their arsenal.

However, the expert analysis offers a sobering counterpoint. Mardo Soqom from the Middle East Forum, in a November 15 article, largely dismisses these claims as psychological warfare. He highlights critical vulnerabilities in Iran’s missile capabilities. Most notably, their liquid-fuel missiles demand lengthy preparation times on the launchpad. This inherent delay creates a significant window for Israeli preemptive strikes, effectively negating the element of surprise that would be crucial for a simultaneous, overwhelming assault. During the previous 12-day conflict, Israel demonstrated this capability by targeting 12 Iranian launch sites early on, severely limiting Iran’s retaliatory capacity. While Iran has invested heavily in underground tunnels, these facilities, crucially, do not accommodate silo launches, further constraining their operational flexibility. Reports also indicate no major new defense contracts with Russia or China that would significantly enhance Iran’s advanced missile technology or launch infrastructure.

While it is true that such attacks, even if limited, could deplete Israeli and U.S. interceptor reserves—a genuine concern for strategic planners—the fundamental strategic advantage remains with Israel due to its overwhelming air superiority. This dichotomy between Iran’s declared potential and its practical limitations forms the core of its “illusory power.”

Why It Matters: Illusory Power and the Forging of Collective Selves

The chasm between Iran’s dramatic missile rhetoric and its logistical realities is not a mere technicality; it is the very essence of modern psychological warfare. This “illusory power” aims to project strength, sow fear, and, crucially, to forge a particular identity both at home and abroad. For Persian society, these pronouncements become woven into a broader cultural narrative of resistance against perceived adversaries, a defiant stance in the face of immense external pressure. It taps into historical grievances and fuels a sense of collective purpose, even if built on an exaggerated foundation.

Conversely, in Israeli society, these threats cultivate a profound sense of urgency, driving an already resilient populace to further solidify its resolve and unity. Fear, when harnessed, can become a powerful catalyst for collective action and national solidarity. Both sides, in a strange, co-dependent dance, contribute to the other’s narrative. The grandiosity of the threat justifies the necessity of defense, and the act of defense validates the perception of the threat.

The very purpose of propaganda is to make one set of people forget that the other set of people is human.

– Aldous Huxley

This dynamic is vividly reflected in cultural artifacts. Consider Iranian cinema, particularly films reflecting on the Iran-Iraq War; they often depict themes of steadfast resistance and sacrifice against overwhelming odds. These narratives, whether explicitly political or subtly infused, contribute to the myth-making that underpins national identity, reinforcing the idea of a perpetually besieged yet unyielding nation. We are witnessing how the strategic deployment of information—or misinformation—can shape a people’s understanding of themselves and their place in the world. Understanding this interplay between rhetoric and identity is crucial for discerning the true stakes of geopolitical conflicts.

How to Apply It: Navigating the Narratives of Conflict and Truth

In a world saturated with information, or often, carefully constructed narratives, the case of Iran’s missile rhetoric offers a potent lesson in critical literacy. It compels us to develop a more nuanced understanding of international relations, moving beyond simplistic interpretations of state pronouncements. We, as citizens, must actively question the sources and motivations behind official statements, especially those designed to provoke strong emotional responses.

The dangers are manifold: a populace that uncritically accepts grandiose claims is more susceptible to manipulation, potentially leading to misjudged policies or an erosion of trust in verifiable information. The media, too, bears a heavy responsibility in how it amplifies or contextualizes such threats. Are we presenting raw claims, or are we providing the necessary expert analysis to temper hyperbole with reality? Our capacity for self-governance, both individually and collectively, hinges on our ability to distinguish between genuine strategic threats and the performative acts of psychological warfare.

One word of truth outweighs the whole world.

– Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Ultimately, this situation urges us to cultivate a steadfast commitment to truth, even when it is inconvenient or contradicts a preferred narrative. It reminds us that freedom often begins with the intellectual courage to look beyond the dazzling spectacle and insist on a sober assessment of reality. Only then can we hope to navigate the dangerous currents of global conflict with clarity and purpose, rather than being swept away by the mirage of power.