I believe the warmongers and those responsible for Israel’s attack on Iran made two miscalculations.

First, the collective consciousness of the people: Iranians are far more patriotic than they may appear, and for a vast number of them, their hatred of the government does not stop them from defending their country against foreign aggression.

Second, Iran’s relative success in responding to the attack: Until now, Israel had never lost a war. You might argue it hasn’t lost this one either—but one must consider that Iranian missiles penetrated Israel’s and its allies’ seven-layered defense systems and reached Israeli soil. The evidence lies in how Israel’s government imposed heavy censorship on news coverage of the destruction caused by the strikes.
Let me be clear: I do not condone any missile striking any target in any country. My aim is to explain why this incident sparked celebration among Israel’s opponents and some Arab countries.

Since Israel’s founding, Arab nations—including its neighbors and their allies—have fought five wars against it (counting the First Lebanon War). They were decisively defeated each time. Apart from actions taken by resistance groups, Israel had never suffered serious damage from any of its enemies.

But now, people in the region are filming Iranian missiles in the sky, watching them pierce the Iron Dome as if they’re watching a football match—some even celebrating. Beyond the official stances of their governments, the name “Iran” is gaining popularity among ordinary people in the region.

In my view, throughout history, Iranians have been unmatched in their capacity for endurance—and they pay a steep price for it. Now that, in the wake of a ceasefire, people are finally talking about the public’s emotions and their sense of homeland, it’s no longer enough to focus only on the regime’s actions leading up to the attack on Iran. It is no longer acceptable to suppress news coverage of the Iranian public’s stance, the civilian casualties, and their confrontation with such a crisis.

In such circumstances, there is only one clear target: the patriotic emotions of Iranians.
And what better tool than accusations of racism?
Discrediting nationalism by linking it to racism has worked effectively before—especially when it comes to Israel. Look at Germany: no German who wants to be seen as decent dares to express patriotic feelings. No moderate, reasonable German takes pride in their flag—because they know such behavior will quickly be labeled as racist. This is the legacy of their historic mistake: they once fused nationalism with racism.

Now, it seems that racism against Afghan migrants and refugees is expected to play the same role for Iranians. Iranian patriotism is to be branded with the stain of racism and consigned to history.

Racism always has an acceptable face: from terms like legal vs. illegal migrant, to slogans about security and resources.
The Iranian people—who have hosted their Persian-speaking neighbors for nearly fifty years—are not inherently racist. But if we fall into the trap of these justifications now, if we support racist behavior or fail to resist it, we risk losing the only thing we have left as a true national asset in this era: our Iranian identity.