IRAN DECODED: 5 perspectives beyond the headlines

In the early hours of Friday morning, 13 June 2025, 200 Israeli fighter jets struck more than 100 targets across Iran, dropping over 330 various missiles.

General Hossein Salami, the commander-in-chief of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard, was killed in the attack. He was among the country’s most powerful figures. The attack also killed Major General Mohammad Bagheri, Iran’s highest-ranking military officer.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared afterwards that the operation against Iran will continue for a number of days. After striking what it says were “nuclear targets”, Israel declared a state of emergency, closing schools, prohibiting gatherings, and saying workplaces should close – as the country braces for retaliation.

The extensive consequences of these strikes and the escalating regional tensions cannot be overstated, especially given that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has warned that Israel will face “severe punishment” for its actions on Friday.

However, the attacks cannot be reduced to a simplistic view of two nations at war. We need a multi-dimensional lens that considers all the key players and the underlying cultural, religious, and social challenges—factors that are often absent from mainstream discussions.

1. FROM A HUMAN PERSPECTIVE

First and foremost, before addressing military engagement and proxy involvement, we have to address the human factor and the persistent and unfounded narrative—propagated by geopolitical tensions and media biases—that paints all Iranians with a single, negative brush, often branding them as terrorists. And let’s be honest, in one way or another we are all in the branding business when it comes to people and nations.

This oversimplified portrayal starkly contrasts with the rich cultural reality of Iran, where centuries-old traditions of hospitality, kindness, and community spirit define everyday life.  Experience have taught me that Iranians are some of the most friendly, hospitable and kind people on planet earth.

In Iranian culture, hospitality is more than just a courtesy—it’s woven into the social fabric. Guests are typically received with open arms, offered abundant food and tea, and encouraged to share stories and experiences. Whether in bustling urban centers or quiet rural hamlets, the emphasis on graciousness and generosity is unwavering. Far from the villainous stereotypes, most Iranians are warm, welcoming, and eager to forge genuine human connections.

The narrative of widespread terrorism, unfortunately, often originates from political agendas and misinterpretations of the actions of certain state or extremist elements, rather than the true nature of the people. It’s important to distinguish between the actions of particular governmental policies or militant groups and the everyday lives of civilians who, like many around the world, simply wish to live in peace and be treated with respect. The blanket generalization ignores the diversity and complexity of Iranian society, where a large majority are committed to their families, communities, and the rich cultural heritage that has celebrated art, literature, and enlightenment for millennia.

In essence, while the negative narrative may persist in some circles, countless personal testimonies and cultural exchanges remind us that Iranians are predominantly hospitable and friendly people—a vivid counterpoint to the reductive and harmful stereotypes that are sometimes circulated in public discourse.

2. FROM A WORLDVIEW PERSPECTIVE

This is perhaps one of the key aspects to understand in the whole conflict.

Roland Muller, in his book Honour and Shame: Unlocking the Door, gives an eye-opening explanation of how worldviews determine cultural behaviour and ultimately translate into our understanding of events, especially when it comes to conflicts and war.

Muller explains that all cultures are rooted in worldviews, and he suggests that there are “three basic planes on which worldviews function”, creating extremes and tensions.   These three core worldviews are: defined as:

• guilt and innocence
• shame and honour
• fear and power.

Today, the Middle East and Arab world operate largely according to a worldview of honour and shame. While individualism is accepted and admired in the West, conformity to the group is celebrated and pursued in Middle Eastern and Arab countries. Islam, by its definition, calls its followers to conform to the point of submission, and public prayers and universal fasting encourage this conformity. Every Arab desire to be honourable, and conforming to the group identity is a means of retaining one’s honour. This desire to avoid shame and maintain honour would dictate one’s values and behaviours in the Middle East and Arab world.

In honour–shame cultures, actions taken in conflict are rarely measured solely by their tactical outcomes—instead, they are saturated with symbolic weight that reflects on personal and collective dignity. In the Iranian context, which draws on millennia of Persian cultural heritage and contemporary socio-religious values, attacks (whether carried out by or against Iran) are often interpreted as challenges to the nation’s honour.

1. Collective Identity and Honor:
   Iranian society places a high value on its collective honour—shaped by historical narratives of resistance and pride. When an attack occurs, it is not just considered an isolated military event; it is seen as an affront to the integrity and dignity of the entire people. This perception motivates a response aimed at re-establishing honour and deterring future indignities.
2. The Role of Shame in Shaping Responses:
   In an honour–shame framework, the experience of shame is profound and can fuel aggressive reactions. If Iran perceives that an external force has inflicted humiliation—through a military strike or political manoeuvre—the resulting shame becomes a driving force behind retaliatory action. Restoring honour may require a response that is not only defensive but also demonstrably forceful, ensuring that the nation’s prestige is not undermined further.
3. Symbolism and the Cycle of Retribution:
   Every attack carries a symbolic charge. For Iranian leaders, framing a military response as a reclaiming of honour can be a potent political tool. It resonates with the public by linking everyday national pride with broader historical and cultural narratives. Consequently, even limited or targeted strikes might be perceived as part of a larger cycle of honour and shame—a cycle that compels both sides to continue their actions, each striving to avoid the stigma of submission or disgrace.
4. Beyond the Immediate Battlefield:
   This honour–shame dynamic also explains why negotiations or cease-fires might be delayed. A failure to respond forcefully could be interpreted as weakness, inviting further affronts and perpetuating the cycle. In such an environment, the stakes extend well beyond territory or strategic advantage; they are about safeguarding a nation’s self-image on the domestic and international stage.

In summary, by viewing attacks through an honour–shame perspective, we understand that Iran’s responses—whether defensive or retaliatory—are as much about protecting national dignity as they are about addressing tangible security concerns. This cultural framework, where honour is sacred and shame intolerable, helps explain why conflicts in the region can quickly escalate and why concessions are often extremely hard to come by.

3. FROM A MILITARY PERSPECTIVE

Iran’s military is a fascinating blend of conventional strength and asymmetric strategy—more David than Goliath, but with a slingshot that’s gotten increasingly sophisticated.

Regionally, Iran is a formidable force. It boasts one of the largest standing armies in the Middle East, with around 610,000 active personnel and 350,000 reservists, plus 220,000 paramilitary forces through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)). Its strength lies not just in numbers but in its missile arsenal, drone capabilities, and proxy networks across the region, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and militias in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.

Globally, however, Iran ranks lower in terms of conventional firepower. According to the Global Firepower Index, Iran is 16th out of 145 countries, while the U.S. ranks 1st. Iran’s air force and naval power are relatively outdated due to decades of sanctions, limiting access to modern equipment. For example, it has 551 aircraft compared to the U.S.’s 13,043, and only 13 attack helicopters versus America’s 1,002.

That said, Iran compensates with asymmetric warfare—cyber capabilities, ballistic missiles, and a doctrine focused on deterrence and regional influence. Its missile program is one of the most advanced in the region, and its cyber units have been linked to several high-profile operations.

Compared to Israel, the military capabilities are as follows: (Note that these figures can vary by source and time, but they offer a general sense)

Population and Manpower:

• Population:
  • Iran: Approximately 88–90 million
  • Israel: Around 9–10 million
• Active Personnel:
  • Iran: Roughly 600,000–610,000
  • Israel: About 170,000
• Reserve/Paramilitary Forces:
  • Iran: Approximately 350,000 reservists plus an additional 220,000 in paramilitary forces
  • Israel: Around 465,000 reservists

Land Forces:

• Tank Strength:
  • Iran: Approximately 1,700 tanks
  • Israel: Roughly 1,300 tanks
• Armored Vehicles:
  • Iran is generally estimated to have a larger number of armored fighting vehicles than Israel, though the precise figures vary with sources.

Air Power:

• Total Aircraft:
  • Iran: About 973 aircraft
  • Israel: Approximately 618 aircraft
• Fighter Aircraft:
  • Iran: Around 240 fighter jets
  • Israel: Approximately 188 fighter jets

Defense Budget:

• • Iran: Approximately US$15–16 billion
  • Israel: Roughly US$30–31 billion
    (It’s also important to note that Israel receives significant military aid and technological support from allies, particularly the United States.)

In summary, while Iran’s military is larger in terms of raw manpower and possesses considerable firepower in certain areas, Israel’s qualitative advantages—its cutting-edge technology, superior air power, and robust external support—typically tip the balance in conventional military comparisons. The asymmetry between the two forces means that in a direct engagement, Israel’s efficiency, training, and advanced capabilities often counterbalance the sheer numbers of Iranian forces.

4. FROM A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE

The conflict extends far beyond a simple bilateral confrontation between Israel and Iran. The intertwined relationships and historical rivalries in the Middle East mean that any escalation has far-reaching implications, the main being Iranian proxy dynamics

Iran employs a network of proxy groups across the Middle East to extend its influence and project power without resorting to full-scale direct confrontation. These proxies serve as instruments of Iran’s broader strategic objectives, often receiving arms, training, and financial support from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its specialized Quds Force. Here are some of the major Iranian proxies:

• Hezbollah (Lebanon):
  Often considered Iran’s most powerful proxy, Hezbollah not only wields significant military strength with an estimated fighting force of tens of thousands but also plays a crucial political role in Lebanon.
• Hamas (Palestinian Territories):
  Although primarily rooted in Palestinian nationalism and Islamist ideology, Hamas has received notable support from Iran over the years. This support has included financial aid and military supplies, reinforcing Hamas’s position in Gaza as part of what many refer to as the “Axis of Resistance” against Israel.
• Iraqi Militia Groups:
  In Iraq, Iran backs a range of Shia militias—often integrated within or associated with the Popular Mobilization Forces. These groups operate with a degree of autonomy yet align closely with Iranian strategic interests, helping to counterbalance Sunni influences and exert pressure on neighboring countries, including Israel.
• Syrian Militia Groups:
  In the context of the Syrian civil war, Iran has supported a variety of allied militias that bolster the Assad regime. These groups work collaboratively with Iranian advisors and, in some cases, with Hezbollah, to secure critical supply routes and strengthen their grip on contested territories.
• Houthis (Ansar Allah) in Yemen:
  The Houthis, an insurgent group in Yemen, have also drawn on Iranian support. While the extent and nature of this assistance are sometimes debated, Iran’s backing, through the provision of arms and strategic guidance, has helped the Houthis maintain their operational capacity against regional adversaries such as Saudi Arabia.

Collectively, these proxies not only complicate the regional power dynamics by creating multiple fronts of engagement but also allow Iran to advance its agenda discreetly. Rather than engaging in open warfare, Tehran leverages these groups to assert influence, counter rival powers like Israel, and disrupt the balance of power in the region.

Apart from America and other European nations, Israel also has a number of proxies in the region.  In any potential conflict with Iran, Israel is generally understood to complement its conventional military operations with covert alliances and support for groups that oppose the Iranian regime. While much of the precise details remain classified, several key proxy relationships and dissident networks are often cited by analysts:

• People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK):
  One of the most frequently mentioned groups is the MEK, an Iranian dissident organization with a long history of opposition to the Islamic Republic. Historically, the MEK has maintained clandestine ties with Israel, sharing a common interest in undermining Tehran’s authority.
• Kurdish Militants and Dissident Elements:
  Certain Kurdish groups, operating in areas adjacent to Iran, have also been viewed as potential allies against central Iranian power.
• Other Opposition Networks:
  Alongside the MEK and Kurdish factions, there are various smaller Iranian opposition groups comprised of dissidents and defectors in both exile and underground circles. These groups, though less prominent in public discourse, are believed to be part of a broader covert network that Israel might utilize for intelligence gathering and psychological operations aimed at destabilizing the Iranian regime.

Additionally, while not proxies in the traditional sense, Israel’s strategic cooperation with allied Gulf Arab states provides intelligence-sharing and logistical support, further complicating Iran’s regional standing.

It’s important to note that while Israel has a strong, direct military capability, these proxy relationships offer an asymmetric tool to gather intelligence, create internal pressure, and potentially disrupt the ruling regime’s operations without engaging in full-scale open warfare. The exact nature and depth of these alliances are closely held secrets, subject to constant evolution based on the shifting dynamics of regional security.

5. FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE

Recent reports suggest that there is, indeed, a form of Christian revival underway in Iran—even if much of it remains underground due to the country’s strict laws against proselytizing and the harsh penalties for converting from Islam.

Grassroots Conversion and Hope:
Several Christian news outlets have documented what some are calling a “Jesus Revolution.” These sources report that, driven by disillusionment with the current regime and economic hardships, thousands of Iranians are turning to Christianity through private house churches and online evangelism. For example, one report notes that since the onset of the pandemic, roughly 3,000 Iranians per month have embraced Jesus as an alternative to the oppressive status quo, describing the movement as a “pandemic of hope” that offers a fresh alternative to the prevalent societal discontent.

A Covert Movement:
Any revival of this nature in Iran is fraught with danger. Converters often face severe persecution, ranging from raids on private gatherings to arrests of church leaders—driving the church underground. Despite these challenges, the desire for hope and the appeal of a radically different spiritual message are reportedly powerful enough to ignite a revival that’s difficult to ignore. In some reports, the phenomenon is dramatic enough that authorities have responded by closing thousands of mosques or raiding Bible study sessions, suggesting that the movement is seen as a significant threat to the established order.

Numbers and Verification Challenges:
Claims vary, with some sources even discussing numbers that reach into the hundreds of thousands or more over a prolonged period. While the exact figures are hard to verify due to the clandestine nature of the movement and the risks involved in gathering accurate data, the consistent narrative across multiple reports is that there is substantial growth in underground Christian communities in Iran. This growth stands in stark contrast to the state’s efforts to suppress any deviation from the official religious doctrine.

In summary, while the Christian revival in Iran is not a state-sanctioned or public phenomenon, various independent reports indicate that, under the right conditions of social and political disillusionment (exacerbated by issues like economic hardship and governmental repression), a significant number of Iranians are embracing Christianity. This movement is characterized not only by the number of conversions but also by its broader message—a rejection of an oppressive system in favour of a hope that many find transformative, even if it must be expressed covertly.

The escalating conflict in Iran is, therefore, more than just a military exercise between nations.  It has a human and a spiritual side that brings Christ into the frame.  As Christians, this is therefore a call to prayer as well.