There were no systematic persecutions of Christians in Asia Minor during Peter's lifetime. Unless Peter, a quarter of a century after his death, was writing 1 Peter from heaven, he is not the author, just as he is not the author of 2 Peter.
For the sake of Christian unity—and indeed survival—1 Peter serves to reconcile the rift that existed (despite Acts sugarcoating the issue) between the followers of Peter and Paul.
I must remind you that the oldest complete Christian Bible, Codex Sinaiticus, contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Heremas as canon. Was the Church fooled? Did it lack spiritual discernment to include them?
The books of the Hebrews and the Revelation (which is never read to this day in the Orthodox churches, and was not officially included into the Constantinopolean canon until after the 9th century) were included into the New Testament as a bargaining agreement between the East and the West.
The East didn't want the book of revelation but wanted the book of Hebrews, and the West wanted the opposite; so they compromised and decided to include both! Some "spiritual discernment."
But, hey, you are free to believe whatever you wish. Pink unicorns on Jupiter are always and option, as are Grimm's fairytales. Then there is always the head-in-the-sand approach when one wants to be in the dark and pretend the sun doesn't shine and the world is only what is in their head.
As for the Bible, the famous verse says that "all scripture is inspired and profitable for teaching..." It doesn't say that one needs to establish the identity of the author; just the spiritual authenticity of the content. It also doesn't say what consitutes or how is scripture determined; nor does it list the books of the canon.
In fact, save for some fo the Espitles of Paul, the books of the Bible remain unsigned. The identities of their authors are presumed, and were added at a later date.
In ancient times, the names of scrolls (books) were titled according to the first sentence written. Thus the Hebrew title for the book of Genesis is In the Beginning. The Books of Moses remain unsigned, anonymous. Isaiah was most likely written by three individuals (based on the writing style), and three different periods.
The books of the Gospels were named after the Apostles (kata ... according to) sometime towards the end of the second century. The oldest fragments dating to the earlier parts of the second century, do not have kata or the names of the presumed authors.
Whoever wrote the Epistles of Peter, the Church eventually deemed "inspired" and included them in the canon, just as it decided after 300 years that the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas somehow "ceased" being "inspired!"
After all, the author of the book of Hebrews is also unknown and is considered "inspired" (as mentioned above) as profitable and good for teaching. So the identity of the author is not crucial because it is the content of the text and not the author that makes it "inspired."
When exactly did "the Church" make a dogmatic declaration of what the canon of Scripture was?
The Muratonian Fragment from 170 AD does not include the Shepherd of Hermes or the Epistle of Barnabas as Scripture, but does indicate they are worthy of being read.