Why Israel’s Strike Backfired: The Attack That United Iran

According to Saed News, Israel’s recent attack on Iranian soil, intended to weaken and destabilize the Islamic Republic, has instead produced the opposite effect: a sharp consolidation of political and social cohesion across Iran. In a nation plagued by economic hardship, mounting inflation, and political discontent, many foreign observers expected turmoil. What they witnessed instead was defiance.

Even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s direct appeal to the Iranian people—calling on them to rise up against their government—failed to spark protest. Instead, Iranians across the ideological spectrum coalesced in defense of what they perceive as a sacred national right: sovereignty.

Iran’s reaction is shaped by its long, painful history of resisting foreign domination. From anti-colonial battles in Bushehr and Gilan to the anti-imperialist fervor of the 1979 Revolution, the national psyche is imbued with a deep-seated reflex to defend independence at all costs. This sentiment explains the public’s widespread support for the country's military deterrents, including its missile program and uranium enrichment efforts—seen not as provocations, but as insurance against foreign coercion.

The timing of Israel’s strike, just two days before resumed nuclear talks, was seen by many Iranians as validation of their suspicions: diplomacy, they believe, is a cover for subjugation. Referencing past disasters in Libya, Iraq, and Syria, Iranian analysts argue that surrendering strategic defenses has consistently invited foreign intervention.

Unless future negotiations acknowledge Iran’s right to self-defense under international law, public sentiment will remain resolutely against compromise. Any agreement perceived as diminishing Iran’s sovereignty could be politically explosive. For Western powers, especially the U.S., the message from Tehran is clear: meaningful diplomacy must begin with respect—not threats.