Iran’s World Cup opener stirs identity clash in Tehrangeles – Politico


A Politico opinion piece by Daniel Miller said Iran’s World Cup appearance in Los Angeles is forcing many Iranian Americans to choose between celebrating their heritage and rejecting the Islamic Republic, whose flag appears on the national team’s jerseys.
The piece focused on Los Angeles, home to the largest Iranian community outside Iran, and said some Iranian Americans do not see Team Melli as representing the Iranian people because they view it as tied to the Islamic Republic.
“I cannot stand the Islamic Republic flag at all,” Los Angeles restaurateur Roozbeh Farahanipour told Politico, adding that more than 20 of his friends and relatives had been killed by the Islamic Republic. “To me, this is not the Iranian team; this is the Islamic Republic’s team.”
Politico also cited exiled Prince Reza Pahlavi as saying football had become “a weapon” in the Islamic Republic’s “war against the Iranian people.” Pahlavi called on fans attending the World Cup to show solidarity with Iranians.
The article said the pre-revolution lion-and-sun flag, widely used by opponents of the Islamic Republic, has become common at protests in Los Angeles but is banned by FIFA under restrictions on political expression by fans.
Iran is scheduled to play New Zealand and Belgium at SoFi Stadium near Los Angeles before facing Egypt in Seattle.
The team’s base camp was moved to Tijuana, Mexico, and that it will fly in and out of the United States for matches, in part because the US government did not want the team staying in the country.
The piece also noted the possibility of a politically charged US-Iran knockout match in Dallas if both teams finish second in their groups.







Bahrain’s Foreign Ministry condemned renewed Iranian attacks on Bahrain and Kuwait after seven ballistic missiles were launched toward the two countries early Saturday and intercepted.
The ministry said the attacks were a “flagrant violation” of the sovereignty of both countries, the UN Charter and international norms, and a threat to security and stability in the Persian Gulf region.
It also said the attacks violated UN Security Council Resolution 2817, which it said condemned Iran’s “unjustified attacks” and any attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz or obstruct international navigation there.
“Security is not built with missiles and drones, and stability is not preserved by laying mines,” the ministry said.
Bahrain called on Iran to immediately stop the attacks, move toward peace, open the Strait of Hormuz fully and without restrictions or fees, disclose the locations of naval mines and cooperate in removing them.
The ministry also called for a safe humanitarian corridor to allow civilian vessels to pass and for more than 20,000 stranded sailors to leave safely and return to their families.
Bahrain said it remains committed to peace and stability in the region, but warned that its patience should not be read as weakness and that defending its sovereignty, security and people is a red line.
Ali Akbar Velayati, an adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, said Iran’s growing power had reshaped the regional balance and forced President Donald Trump to seek a temporary deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
“The West’s long-feared nightmare has materialized,” Velayati wrote on X, adding that Iran’s rising power had changed the “strategic map.”
He claimed Reuters and The Guardian had acknowledged that Trump needed a temporary agreement to reopen Hormuz, calling it “the collapse of the Iran pressure doctrine” and “a victory for the resistance.”
Velayati also warned regional states against what he described as the “illusion of appeasement,” saying the emerging balance of power would not be built on weakening Iran-backed groups.
“Diplomatic wishful thinking carries a heavy price – lasting peace grows from a balance of power, not from hollow, unbacked commitments,” he wrote.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi rejected Lebanese President Joseph Aoun’s claim that Tehran was using Lebanon as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the United States.
Aoun said Friday that Iran was using Lebanon in its talks with Washington and that the Lebanese people were paying the price for Tehran’s interests.
“Had Lebanon been bargaining chip for Iran, we’d have a deal long ago,” Araghchi wrote on X on Saturday. “Save Lebanon from your real foe, Mr. President.”
His remarks came as Lebanon has become one of the disputed issues around the US-Iran talks, with Iranian officials and hardliners insisting that any understanding with Washington must address the conflict involving Hezbollah.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it targeted and stopped one of four oil tankers that had been attempting to leave the Strait of Hormuz after receiving an IRGC warning at 1:30 a.m. Saturday.
In a statement, the IRGC said the other vessels turned back after the warning.
The Guards also said US drones struck a communications tower on Qeshm Island and another tower in Sirik at around 2:30 a.m. using two projectiles.
The IRGC said its aerospace forces responded by launching ballistic missiles at the US Ali Al Salem air base in Kuwait and facilities belonging to the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.
US Central Command said US forces intercepted multiple Iranian ballistic missiles and drones launched toward the Strait of Hormuz and that there were currently no reports of injuries to US personnel and denied IRGC claims that the Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain had been damaged.
For decades, a dangerous illusion governed the Persian Gulf. Arab capitals knew the Islamic Republic was hostile. Yet, they believed the threat could be managed.
They treated Tehran’s subversion as a chronic illness, not a fatal one. The Arab states of the Persian Gulf opted for quiet diplomacy. Tehran opted for proxies and intimidation. This tense balance was always a house of cards.
That house has collapsed.
The recent war between the United States, Israel, and the Islamic Republic changed everything. It did more than degrade Iran’s military. It shattered a long diplomatic illusion. The regime is not just a disruptive actor. It is a direct existential threat. Specifically, it threatens the economic foundations and long-term stability of the Arab states of the Persian Gulf.
Look closely at the targets the regime chose. Before the war, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar all signaled a desire for peace. Some lobbied against escalation. Others kept direct lines open to Tehran. Qatar even acted as a mediator.
None of it mattered. Iranian missiles still struck Qatari LNG infrastructure. They targeted Riyadh, the Saudi capital. The United Arab Emirates, historically a vital economic lifeline for Iran, absorbed the most brutal strikes on its primary commercial hubs.
This was a calculated message. Goodwill is no shield when your economic success is the actual target. Tehran does not just view the Arab states of the Persian Gulf as geopolitical rivals. It views their development as an existential threat to its own legitimacy.
For decades, the regime blamed its economic misery on outside enemies. It preached permanent revolution and resistance. Yet, just across the water, the Arab states of the Persian Gulf chose a different path. They built world-class infrastructure, trade, and global growth.
This contrast is terrifying to the Islamic Republic. Ordinary Iranians look across the Persian Gulf and ask a dangerous question: Why does our country, with far greater natural resources, deliver nothing but poverty?
Tehran has no answer. It cannot match the economic model of its neighbors, so it resorts to economic vandalism. If the regime cannot build prosperity at home, it must destroy it next door to level the playing field.
This reality explains why the conflict has evolved beyond mere proxy warfare. The Arab states of the Persian Gulf are accustomed to dealing with asymmetric threats. They have managed Iranian-backed groups like Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, and the Houthis for years.
The current crisis targets something deeper. It is not a standard security dispute. It is a direct assault on the economic model of the Arab states of the Persian Gulf.
Look at the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran views this vital waterway as a geopolitical jugular. The regime knows that prosperity in the Persian Gulf relies on global investor confidence, open trade, and energy exports. By shutting the Strait, Tehran is holding the entire region's future hostage. If the Islamic Republic cannot climb out of its own economic grave, it will drag its neighbors down into it.
The old playbook is broken. De-escalation, mediation, and managed coexistence are no longer viable strategies. They hold diplomatic utility, but they cannot replace a core security doctrine. The regime proved it will eagerly strike the very neighbors who tried to contain the flames.
The Arab states of the Persian Gulf are confronting a reality they long sought to defer. The Islamic Republic is not a wild animal that can be tamed or managed indefinitely. It is a systemic threat. History shows that treating an expansionist power as a mere management problem only invites more aggressive escalation.
This shift does not require a reckless rush to war. It does mean the Arab states of the Persian Gulf can no longer remain passive observers while others carry the burden. The United States and Israel have already initiated a confrontation. The implications extend far beyond the regime's nuclear ambitions. Leaving this conflict unfinished is highly dangerous. It merely hands Tehran a life support system, giving it time to recover, rebuild, and repeat its destructive cycles.
A deeper transformation is also underway. The strategic interests of key Arab states of the Persian Gulf now directly align with the aspirations of the Iranian people. The average Iranian derives no benefit from the regime’s foreign adventures. Instead, citizens pay the ultimate price through brutal domestic repression, systemic corruption, and engineered economic ruin. The regime behaves like an absentee landlord, burning its own house down for insurance money to fund foreign militias.
By now, the pattern is undeniable. The Islamic Republic’s hostility is not a temporary phase. It stems from a profound systemic insecurity. A neighborhood defined by stability, economic growth, and global integration acts as a mirror. It exposes the regime’s self-inflicted failures. Tehran simply cannot survive the comparison. The old assumptions are officially dead.
The Arab states of the Persian Gulf are not dealing with a conventional rival. They are facing an existential adversary. This adversary views their prosperity and international alignments as an active threat to its survival.
Neutrality is no longer a shield. The Arab states of the Persian Gulf cannot afford to be passive spectators while their future is decided by others. True security will not come from managing the threat from a distance. It will come from actively building a region where totalitarian vandalism can no longer sabotage human progress.
To achieve this, the Arab states of the Persian Gulf can mobilize three vital partners. The first is the Iranian people, who are eager to liberate themselves from their oppressors. The second is Israel, which faces the exact same existential threat but possesses advanced capabilities to directly confront the regime. The third is the United States, whose strategic support remains entirely irreplaceable.
The Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf should actively coordinate with this triad, first behind the scenes and then openly. Together, they can finally bring down the Islamist regime in Tehran. Only after the Iranian people establish a representative government can the region breathe and find a true partner for peace, regional security, and shared prosperity in Iran.