Their cultural heritage are still very different.
Arabs are culturally different from one another, as well, depending on which group of Arabs you are talking about.
Well, you have to admit, the Israelis had Western support due to their effectiveness. America's goal was to have a solid footing in the middle east to get easy access to oil and control over trade routes. This was significant due to the Cold War.
Support to so called "Israel" had nothing to do with securing oil supplies. For that, they always had the Saudi and similar regimes.If what you say is true, would that mean the Saudi and Gulf regimes were equally as organized as the so called "Israelis" because they have been supported by the West? The real reason was that so called "Israel" was composed of so called Jews who arrived from Europe, and similar Jews controlled/still control a large chunk of political, financial, media and related industries in the West, and to some extent in the former Soviet Union too.
It wasn't just about the weapons, religion and support. The Israelis were far more organized than the Arabs. That's what made the difference between victory and defeat!
What made the Arabs victorious in 1973? The Westerners supported so called "Israel" (and still do) because of their own reasons, which as I have mentioned, include their religious inclinations, political inclinations, racial similarities etc. This support even extends to distorting history to paint so called "Israel" as an indomitable power and a victor in all wars, while reality is completely different. Arabs' lack of unity should be blamed on themselves more than any external powers, but that does not detract from the unfliinching Western support towards so called "Israel".
To be frank, I wouldn't really buy anything from that particular media source. But that, I'd make an exception.
Okay firstly, it is highly unlikely that the US will ever attack Iran.
Secondly, Israel's capacity to launch a full-fledged strike on Iran is at best limited. Believe me, if they had, they would have done so a long time ago. It is pretty obvious that they don't get everything in America's arsenal of technology and weapons. Even they have their limitations regardless of how much fanboys huff and puff over it.
However, they may try to use a proxy like what they did during the Iraq-Iran War. Most probably, the country your source mentions.
So called "Israel" has only one way of attacking Iran, and that is asking USA to do it. Likewise, despite many proclamations on internet fora to the contrary, neither Iranians, nor Turks nor Pakistanis, would be able to hold a candle to what Arabs have been able to achieve against so called "Israel" in direct conflict or warfare.
That explains why despite so many warnings, chants and threats, the most that the current Iranian regime has done against so called "Israel" is use proxies like Hezbollah (who are Arabs), while Turks meekly backtracked when many Turks were killed by so called "Israelis" (an act which was condemned by almost the whole world, and for which, almost the whole world held so called "Israel" responsible except its Western allies), and Pakistan, which bent over backwards at one warning from America of being bombed back to the stone age.
Not to insult any Muslim majority nation, but hearing some (English language) forum banter on this and many other fora, many people are under the wrongful impression that somehow Turks, Pakistanis or Iranians are the strongest Muslim countries, militarily immensely powerful and some superpower in the making, while in reality, they either kow-tow to Americans, or they dare not upset the 'balance' that Americans use force to maintain.
Without Arabs, the current Muslim world has very little to show, and of the very little to show, most of it comes from Iran, sad as it may be. I know that some of my above comments will ruffle many a feathers, and some people may start brewing a storm in a teacup here over my comments, but I have no intention of starting a measuring contest amongst Muslim countries.
If Iran, Turkey or Pakistan were capable of challenging the West or taking on so called "Israel", they would have. If Turkey or Pakistan were capable of openly challenging the dictums of the West, they would have. Only Iran has challenged Western narratives openly, yet, amongst these countries, and even they have not dared to open a front against so called "Israel".
Do not forget that Iran and Syria is bound by a mutual defense treaty, which means that if one is attacked, the other must come to its defense. What happened when so called "Israel" bombed Syria's nuclear reactor? Did the Iranian military sweep aside so called "Israeli" military?
Unless the Arabs, who form the majority in the Middle East region, and who are also mostly Muslim in one of the few regions of the world with an overwhelming majority, get their acts together, the rest of the Muslim world can not reclaim its rightful position. Until that time, one would probably come across silly non-stop online bravado claiming Iran, Turkey or Pakistan as some sort of mighty countries that could turn the tide in favour of the Muslim world. In reality, these three countries together do not have a single city where the average citizen earns more than $30,000 a year, for example, or which could be called developed. These three countries together do not possess half the MBTs owned by a single country like Russia (which has more than twice the number of tanks owned by the next country on such a list), and one could point to dozens of such facts to point out that for the Muslim world to actually take its rightful place, the Arabs should get their acts together and stop all these silly infighting, evict their puppet rulers (whether they are Western or Russian puppets) and then, the Arabs could act as a beacon for the rest of the Muslim world.
Sorry for the somewhat long speech, but if you thought that Iran (or Pakistan or Turkey) are somehow 'above' Arabs because of internet bravado, then you are wrong. There is hardly any sector in which these three countries are above Arabs, while Arabs are ahead of all three of them combined in many sectors. One important factor, though, is that Arabs have not yet had a popular, revolutionary government that cut all ties with the West to advance themselves further, at least not yet. That's something Iran has been able to do but neither Pakistan nor Turkey.
That bias has its origins in the founder's pro-American stance on the true way of life. 
