On April 26, a devastating explosion tore through Iran’s bustling port city of Bandar Abbas, claiming 57 lives and injuring over 1,200 people. The blast was centered at the Shahid Rajaee port, Iran’s largest container hub, and sent shockwaves through the city, shattering windows and damaging infrastructure for miles. Authorities are still investigating the cause, with preliminary reports pointing to mishandled chemicals, though speculation about sabotage persists.
Amid this tragedy, the Iranian people’s response has revealed a critical lesson for American policymakers. Iran’s capacity for unity in the face of crisis should not be underestimated, as it was decades ago by Saddam Hussein.
Despite economic hardships and political discontent, Iranians have rallied together in the wake of the Bandar Abbas explosion. Across the country, citizens lined up to donate blood for the injured A grassroots Iranian folk music festival in Bushehr was transformed into a mourning solidarity show, with organizers cutting it short out of respect for the catastrophe.
Doctors and psychologists across the country offered to help the injured and those traumatized by the catastrophe. Auto mechanics volunteered to repair damaged vehicles for free, while others sent glass to repair broken windows in homes.
This response challenges the narrative propagated by some Iranian opposition groups and Western analysts, who argue that public dissatisfaction with the government renders Iran vulnerable. They suggest that internal divisions could lead Iranians to welcome foreign intervention as an opportunity to overthrow the government.
But the outpouring of support following the explosion suggests otherwise. Iranians, regardless of their grievances, appear to prioritize national cohesion when confronted with external or catastrophic events — a “rally-around-the-flag” effect of citizens uniting behind their government in times of crisis.
The unity displayed in Bandar Abbas echoes the public response during the Iran-Iraq War, a historical precedent that offers a stark warning to those advocating for aggression toward Iran.
In September 1980, Saddam Hussein, perceiving Iran as weakened by the 1979 Islamic Revolution, launched an invasion, expecting a swift victory. He believed that Iran’s internal turmoil and ethnic divisions would prevent a cohesive defense. Saddam’s miscalculation was influenced by Iranian opposition groups and some other forces, who suggested that Iranians were too dissatisfied to defend their country.
Instead, Iranians — including revolutionary militias and regular volunteers — united to repel the Iraqi advance. By 1982, Iran had regained nearly all lost territory, turning the conflict into an eight-year stalemate that cost over one million lives.
Saddam’s error stemmed from underestimating the Iranian people’s resilience and their willingness to set aside internal differences to defend their homeland. This is not an anomaly but a recurring feature of Iran’s response to external threats.
Certain Iranian opposition groups and Western hawks keep pushing a narrative that mirrors Saddam’s flawed assumptions. They argue that widespread dissatisfaction — fueled by economic sanctions, inflation and political repression — has left the regime on the brink of collapse. These groups interpret such discontent as an opportunity, suggesting that foreign intervention, whether through military action or covert operations, could trigger a popular uprising against the government.
Historical and contemporary evidence contradicts this view. During the Iran-Iraq War, internal divisions did not prevent a unified defense. Similarly, the port explosion has not led to calls for protests but to acts of national solidarity. Even amid speculation of mismanagement, the public response has focused on supporting the victims rather than blaming the government. This suggests that foreign aggression would likely strengthen the government’s domestic position by rallying Iranians against a common external enemy.
The strategic risks of misjudging Iranian unity are significant. Iran today is not the isolated nation of 1980. It has developed a relatively sophisticated army and missile program and wields considerable influence through a network of allies across the Middle East. A military intervention or escalation could ignite a broader regional conflict, drawing in these actors and complicating U.S. interests in the Middle East.
For U.S. policymakers, particularly those advising President Trump, the Bandar Abbas incident serves as a warning. The forces pushing for aggressive policies risk repeating Saddam’s grave miscalculation. The assumption that Iranians would welcome foreign intervention ignores evidence of national unity displayed in times of crisis.
Public opinion data further complicates the hawkish narrative. While some Iranians express frustration with their government’s policies, they also value their nation’s sovereignty. Recent polls indicate support for Iran’s regional military presence, suggesting a preference for national strength over foreign interference. These sentiments align with the solidarity seen in Bandar Abbas, where the focus has been on collective recovery rather than division.
Rather than pursuing policies that assume Iranian fragility, Western policymakers should prioritize diplomacy, engaging Iran through negotiations that address mutual concerns, such as nuclear proliferation and regional stability. Aggressive actions could derail negotiations, undermining diplomatic efforts to address Iran’s nuclear program and the possibility of improving relations between Iran and the U.S. A military misstep would not only fail to achieve regime change but also risk entangling the U.S. in a costly conflict with far-reaching consequences.
Iran is not a house of cards waiting to collapse, as hawks continue to argue, but a nation capable of rallying against external threats. To avoid the pitfalls of past miscalculations, the U.S. must approach Iran with a clear-eyed understanding of its resilience and a commitment to dialogue over confrontation. Engaging Iran through diplomacy instead of confrontation is not only prudent but necessary for regional stability.
Barzin Jafartash Amiri is chief editor of Voice of Manufacturing in Iran.
