There is a difference between "attack" (that has a connotation of being unprovoked and in bad faith) and "retaliation" against acts of drawing first blood.

More so if those primary attacks had 50K killed by way of proxies (100K according to more realistic estimates).

Sometimes, what one dishes out, comes back. If it does, rest of the world thinks it is only fair. Yes Iran has been retaliating, very weakly, to counterbalance attacks on itself by the US and its proxies.

There is not much doubt on who acted in bad faith first.

The US hurting its toe by kicking a stone and then complaining that it is the stone that attacked is not a good argument.