TEHRAN – The 12-day conflict between Iran and Israel outwardly appeared as a military confrontation, but at its heart it carried a social and feminine dimension.

In retrospect, and by reviewing the remarks of Netanyahu and Trump, it has become clear that the true objective of the war was not confined to missile exchanges and battles in the skies, but was instead designed for Iran’s streets and social networks.

Looking at interviews, military documents, and the sequence of events, the enemy’s plan seems to have been structured in five stages:

Stage One: The application of the “decapitation” strategy through the surprise assassination of commanders, ranging from senior staff officers to key operational figures. By severing the chain of command from the Armed Forces General Staff down to the IRGC Aerospace operational units, the enemy aimed to disorient field forces completely and paralyze the military’s defense.

Stage Two: The use of electronic warfare and drone strikes to bombard air defense systems and shut down missile cities, leaving the armed forces exposed.

Stage Three: Telephone threats directed at commanders, politicians, and even their families, intended to spread fear and neutralize them from within their households.

Stage Four: Cyberattacks against Bank Sepah and the disruption of financial accounts, particularly those belonging to the families of military personnel, aimed at reinforcing the credibility of the telephone threats and further entrenching passivity.

Stage Five: A large-scale media campaign. Israel mobilized its influence through foreign-based media outlets and social networks, spreading slogans such as “Stand up,” “Deliver the final blow,” and “Strike hard, Israel.” At the same time, Reza and Yasmin Pahlavi became active online, repeatedly urging people to take to the streets. Netanyahu himself openly addressed Iranians, declaring: “This is your chance to rise and make your voice heard.” He further emphasized: “These attacks can lead to regime change, because the Iranian regime is very weak.”

Yet despite the precision of this plan, the enemy’s calculations fell apart. On the battlefield, the structure of the armed forces was reorganized under the direction of the Commander-in-Chief, air defenses were restored after withstanding electronic warfare pressure, and Iranian missiles were fired at Tel Aviv even under heavy enemy fire. Most importantly, inside Iran’s cities—contrary to the expectations of the Zionist regime and the United States—no street unrest erupted.

Iranian society instead reacted in a very different way. On social media, citizens rallied in support of the country. Public reports to hotlines 110, 113, and 114 about drones and quadcopters multiplied, and national unity was reinforced against foreign pressure.

From a wide, macro perspective, the 12-day war showed that Iranian society responded in a way completely contrary to the calculations of Israel and the U.S. But to fully understand the elements of this outcome, a closer, micro-level look is needed. Beyond the role of the armed forces in reorganizing themselves, and the government’s efforts in managing fuel supplies, providing essential goods, and stabilizing currency, one must pay special attention to the role of women as the emotional managers of families.

This is crucial because the very core of the war was designed around provoking street unrest. Yet surveys, including one conducted by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), indicate otherwise: 77% of Iranians said they were proud of the armed forces’ response to Israel’s attacks during the 12-day war. Some 80.5% evaluated the military’s performance as either “very strong” or “relatively strong,” while 79.8% said the war had a “very significant” or “significant” effect on national cohesion. These results reflect a broad social self-awareness: “Under external pressure, the nation stood united.”

Looking at these figures, the consensus within public opinion about national cohesion becomes clear. In spite of the enemy’s media campaigns, society experienced both internal solidarity and renewed public trust. If the family is considered the smallest building block of society, then the resilience and endurance of families must be recognized as a key factor in this cohesion. In fact, the data and the collective interpretation of social behavior during the war strongly suggest that since women serve as the emotional managers of households, their ability to create calm and resilience within the family extended outward to strengthen society as a whole.

Research carried out during the COVID-19 crisis in Iran further confirms this role of women. A qualitative study carried out in 2021 in Iran found that housewives, while managing daily chores during quarantine, also took on the responsibility of caring for children and the elderly, as well as overseeing their children’s online education. They strengthened emotional bonds within the household in order to reduce psychological pressure. Another study, published in BMC Women’s Health in 2020, reported that the quality of life of married Iranian women during the pandemic was directly tied to their mental health, marital satisfaction, and their ability to manage family anxiety. Similarly, a 2022 study of Iranian students showed that social support within families—much of it provided by mothers and women—was significantly associated with lower levels of hopelessness and anxiety.

Taken together, these findings show indirectly that women are the pillars of family resilience during crises. Their unseen role in managing emotions and reducing anxiety within households, when scaled up to the societal level, leads to broader social cohesion. This pattern was made visible during the coronavirus pandemic, and it was repeated during the 12-day war.

Thus, Iran’s success in the 12-day conflict against a powerful, well-armed adversary was not the result of military power alone. An essential element was the social foundation created within families, with women at the center. The enemy expected the streets to be engulfed in flames and for Iran to be driven toward fragmentation. What actually emerged was national cohesion and unity.