Nations rarely announce their lessons plainly. You have to observe them how they behave under pressure, how they define themselves, and how they deploy power when tested.
In Iran, one encounters a striking paradox. It is a country of deep civilizational confidence and strategic clarity, yet also one constrained at times by the rigidity of its own choices. For Nigeria, the task is not to admire or dismiss it is to learn with precision.
The first lesson is about identity.
Iran carries itself like a nation that knows who it is. Its sense of self did not begin in modern times; it is anchored in centuries of history, culture, and intellectual tradition. That continuity produces something powerful: a people who see themselves as part of an enduring story. This is not a small advantage. It shapes how citizens think, how leaders act, and how the state positions itself in the world.
Nigeria must build its own version of this confidence. Not by erasing its diversity, but by constructing a shared national idea strong enough to stand alongside ethnic and religious identities. Without that, patriotism remains conditional something invoked in moments, but not sustained in practice.
The second lesson is about the seriousness of the state.
Since the Iranian Revolution, Iran’s state has operated with a clear sense of purpose. Agree or disagree with its direction, there is little ambiguity about its intent. Its policies especially in security and foreign affairs are deliberate, coordinated, and sustained over time.
Nigeria, by contrast, often appears reactive. Policies shift, priorities drift, and long-term strategy is frequently sacrificed for short-term accommodation. Yet the truth is simple: a state that does not define its direction will be defined by events. Strategic clarity is not a luxury it is the foundation of national relevance.
Closely linked to this is the question of elite behavior.
In Iran, despite internal disagreements, there is a degree of alignment around core national interests. In Nigeria, elite competition is often unrestrained by a shared doctrine. Too frequently, the system is weakened by those who benefit from it. No country rises when its leadership class is fragmented in purpose and transactional in loyalty.
These are lessons worth learning.
But there are also clear warnings.
One of them is the danger of rigidity. Iran’s post-revolution identity has, at times, locked it into positions that limit flexibility especially in its external relations. Sustained confrontation has come with economic consequences, including reduced investment and constrained growth.
Nigeria cannot afford such a path. Its future depends on openness on trade, investment, and integration into the global economy. National confidence must not become isolation.
Another warning lies in the use of identity as an instrument of power.
Iran has, in different contexts, mobilized ideological and sectarian loyalties beyond its borders to extend influence. While this may yield short-term strategic gains, it also deepens instability and creates long-term complications.
For Nigeria a country already managing complex internal balances this is a path to avoid entirely. Unity must be strengthened, not strained. The state must be a unifying force, not a participant in division.
There is also the question of how power is projected.
Iran has shown how a country can use unconventional means to extend influence beyond its size. But such approaches, particularly those relying on proxies, come with risks unpredictability, reputational cost, and the possibility of outcomes that escape control.
Nigeria’s priority must be different. Before projecting power outward, it must consolidate strength within secure its territory, strengthen its institutions, and build legitimacy with its own citizens.
At its core, the lesson is this: Iran takes itself seriously.
It takes its history seriously.
It takes its sovereignty seriously.
It takes its strategic direction seriously.
Nigeria must learn to do the same but with balance.
Because seriousness without flexibility can become constraint. And ambition without discipline can become drift.
Nigeria stands at a point where it must decide what kind of nation it intends to be. One defined by constant internal negotiation, or one guided by clarity of purpose. One shaped by circumstance, or one that shapes its own trajectory.
From Iran, the message is not to imitate it is to understand.
To understand that nations rise when they are intentional.
And that they endure when they balance strength with wisdom.
That is the path Nigeria must choose.
Otunba Segun Showunmi
The Alternative.
