The Book “We Defend Our Iran,” A Project Shaping the Identity of Iran’s Future Generation
Newly published books centered on “We Defend Our Iran” reproduce the 12-day war with Israel in the form of an ideological identity that bears resemblance to holy war in the classroom.
In recent weeks, a new collection of textbooks titled “We Defend Our Iran” has entered Iranian schools, an educational package designed not merely to convey information, but to construct a specific identity in the adolescent generation. The publication of these books only weeks after the end of the 12-day war between Iran and Israel demonstrates an immediate and calculated decision: “to transform a brief military confrontation into the foundation of national and religious identity for students.”
This move recalls similar projects in countries where the state attempts to transform wars into “foundational myths” of society; an issue that generates significant ethical, legal, and religious sensitivities in education, particularly for Christian audiences who place values of peace, truth-seeking, and freedom of conscience at the center of their faith.
The new books describe the 12-day war as “an example of hybrid warfare” and introduce three pillars of victory as follows: “unity of people,” “authority of armed forces,” “leadership that unites.” However, what distinguishes this narrative from simple political analysis is the sanctification of war.
From the very first page, a quotation from the founder of the Islamic Republic serves as an ideological preface: “We proved in war our victimization and the oppression of the aggressors. In war, we recognized our friends and our enemies.”
Such statements transform war into the source of collective self-knowledge; analysis of war is set aside and replaced by the theology of war—a war that reveals truth, exposes the enemy, and marks victory as a sign of “divine victory.”
In this narrative, the student is invited to see the world through binaries of right/wrong, us/them, and faith/enmity; binaries that later produce tangible effects in social policy, media, and even religious doctrine.
Reports indicate that in these books, Israel is presented not as a political actor, but as an “unconventional neighbor,” “artificial,” “lawless,” and “offspring of colonialism.” These words carry heavy weight: Israel is portrayed as an illegitimate entity, while Iran and its surrounding region are presented as “home” and “family.”
From here, the primary structure of the book’s worldview is formed: “a world in which identity is constructed not on the basis of historical reality, but on the basis of boundaries of belief.” For Christian audiences, this section holds particular importance, as in Christian traditions (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox), moral matters in politics require distancing from absolute enemy-making and emphasizing human dignity. Transforming a nation or country into a “de-sanctified other” is the starting point of structural violence.
One notable aspect of the books is the narrative about Iran’s military technology. Missiles are presented as “moral” because they are precision-guided and refrain from killing civilians. These claims stand in stark contradiction with international reports about the destructive consequences of Iran’s proxy wars in the region, yet the books present them as “self-evident.”
Furthermore, nuclear energy is portrayed not as a technical or economic issue, but as a pillar of “Iran’s survival” and “the natural right of the nation.” Indigenous knowledge is an unsanctionable capital and a driver of national authority. In this view, science and technology are blended with religious ethics to create a binary image: “Iran oppressed yet powerful; besieged yet victorious; wounded yet aided by God.”
This model of narrative diverts the concept of human progress from the path of peace, sustainable development, and global cooperation, directing it toward the field of “sacred armament.”
The books consider art’s role to be “stronger than weapons.” Graffiti, epic songs, and images of war martyrs are presented as tools for preventing forgetting and cementing a war-based identity.
This type of use of art bears similarities to propaganda models of the Cold War era, Maoist China, and certain authoritarian regimes. Art, which in its essence invites reconciliation, reflection, and truth-seeking, is transformed within this framework into a weapon for reproducing sacred anger.
In the books’ narrative, the enemy is everywhere present: “on social networks, in diplomacy, in economics, in cyberspace, and even in the adolescent’s mind.” The adolescent is obliged to remain constantly vigilant, to suspect external analyses, and to maintain themselves in a state of cognitive readiness.
This structure, more than it strengthens critical thinking skills and dialogue, reinforces a spirit of suspicion, political anxiety, and ideological sensitivity.
From an international perspective, incorporating war into formal education has known precedents: “Russia introduced a section called ‘Important Conversations’ into schools after its attack on Ukraine,” “North Korea has had ‘sacred enemy-hatred’ in its curriculum for decades,” “China, following 2017 reforms, incorporated the concept of ‘political patriotism’ into education,” yet Iran’s distinction lies in the direct sanctification of war, the simultaneous connection of politics, conflict, technology, and theology.
This combination diverts the educational system from its primary function (developing independent personality, nurturing thought, and respect for truth).
This new government program has several key messages, particularly for religious minority audiences:
- De-peacing education: Education that should be a bridge between peoples is transformed into a field for reproducing enmity.
- Erasing human dignity: When the enemy is presented as unconventional and illegitimate, the next step is erasing human dignity in the adolescent’s mind, which contradicts the Gospel’s teachings on reconciliation, truth, and love.
- Transforming God into a guarantor of military victory: War-laden theology presents God not as a source of love, but as “guarantor of victory over the enemy,” a conception that from the Christian perspective is dangerous and distorting.
The books “We Defend Our Iran” are not merely a narrative of a 12-day confrontation; they are an attempt at mental engineering of the future generation. In this project, “war becomes sacred,” “technology becomes myth,” “the enemy becomes absolute,” “faith becomes political,” and “school becomes a permanent battlefield of narratives.”
This process will have profound consequences for Iran’s future. A generation that may be inclined more toward viewing the world through “defensive identity,” “endless vigilance,” and “sacred division” rather than toward peace, truth, or justice.
