Yet what perhaps surpassed the attack itself in significance was the complexity of the enemy’s psychological operation and its attempt to project operational and intelligence superiority—an effort that sparked deep public concern.
The striking similarity between this assault and previous Israeli operations in Gaza, Lebanon, and against Hamas led many to believe that the enemy’s chances of success were high. However, Israel’s decision to take the unprecedented risk of a direct strike on Iran amid ongoing indirect negotiations was not grounded in operational confidence, but rather in a flawed reading of Iran’s psychological and social conditions.
Israel believed that Iranian society—perceived as estranged from its government—would collapse under the pressure of a direct war. In their view, the grievances, protests, anger, and frustrations of the Iranian people were assets to be weaponized. The dominant assumption in enemy think tanks was that war would implode Iran from within, not through external force.
Yet one week after the operation began, the unfolding realities have starkly diverged from Israel’s initial calculations. Despite suffering losses and damage, Iranian armed forces did not hesitate in their response—they acted swiftly and decisively. This steadfastness not only sparked hope among the public but also shook enemy morale. In recent days, Israel has been attempting to exaggerate Iran’s retaliatory measures to draw in Western powers like the U.S. and the U.K. into direct involvement.
Perhaps the greatest blow to the enemy’s psychological operation, however, has been the extraordinary unity among Iranians—ranging from staunch supporters of the system to its fiercest critics, and even those who view themselves as victims of governance. This unprecedented national solidarity in condemning the aggression and defending the country’s sovereignty caught the enemy off guard and dismantled one of the key pillars of their psychological campaign: the imagined rift between the people and the state.
The civil and composed behavior of the people amid such a sudden crisis, along with the spirit of national resolve seen across cities—including migrant-heavy regions—demonstrates a level of social maturity and national trust that Israeli strategists had clearly failed to anticipate.
Now, having moved past the initial shock, Iran’s military, government, and logistical bodies have managed to overcome many operational challenges. In particular, they have shown relative success in meeting the essential needs of the population—such as fuel and basic supplies—in affected or high-risk areas. This is a clear indication of the Iranian state’s managerial capacity.
If conditions continue to improve and the public, even with limitations like remote work, can gradually return to daily life and economic activity, it will deal a severe blow to the enemy. More importantly, it will mark a significant victory for the Iranian people and serve as a model of civilian resilience in the face of aggression and psychological warfare.
In the end, the most profound achievement for Iran over recent days may not be found on the military front, but in the realm of national unity, social cohesion, and the conscious resistance of its people—a response that has defeated the enemy not only in combat but also in its most critical front: the psychological battlefield.
The Zionist enemy believed it could build a bridge to victory from perceived divisions within Iran, aiming to dismantle its political and social structure even before destroying physical infrastructure. Clearly, this did not happen. And the betrayal-driven flailing of certain dreamers of treason has now become a permanent stain of disgrace.
