So if you're feeling like it's taking value away from Persian history, instead, try to see it from the perspective that Persians are a large part of the reason why the Golden Age is even a thing :)
But I like your point of view.
Better to head to /r/askhistorians with those kinds of questions.
/s
You want to separate the scholarship. The problem is there really isn't enough historiographical work done here to meaningfully tease out the differences. Surviving primary sources often ended up in the hands of colonial governments which are loathe to open up access today or in the hands of estates of former colonial figures where they rot in a dark room somewhere.
Another large historiographic gap in the Islamic world around this time was the lifestyle of peasants. We have records of kings and lords because of the widespread practice of autobiographies. We also know the thoughts of philosophers based on their texts. But we lack a lot of knowledge about how peasants and other commoners lived around the time. If you think about it, that's the majority of the people living at any time.
A perfectly valid one i.e. nothing wrong with it. That is why "Historical Revisionism" (when done in the pursuit of Truth) is so very important.
They are foes. Not the people, but the political regimes. Iran is pretty clear about it.