Fanning the Flames of Sectarian Strife

Some Arab media and cultural elites have pushed aside the American-Israeli aggression against Iran and instead chosen to interpret current events as a sectarian conflict between what they describe as “Sunni and Shiite forces.” According to this narrative, the so-called Sunni camp stands with the United States and encourages it to continue the war against Iran, while the Shiite camp mobilizes all its resources in defense of Tehran.

Rather than calling for unity and solidarity in the face of what many perceive as an American-Zionist colonial assault, these elites—on both sides—have devoted themselves to spreading an inflammatory discourse that diverts attention from the reality of the conflict. Instead, they portray the situation as though it were a religious war in which the United States intervenes on behalf of one sect against another. Within this discourse, the “enemy” is no longer America or Israel, but rather certain Arab states or Iran itself.

Ironically, many of these voices claim to embrace secularism, yet their rhetoric is saturated with sectarianism, incitement, and division. They repeat historically inaccurate claims such as the notion that Sunnis and Shiites have been in continuous conflict for 1,400 years, despite the fact that history overwhelmingly demonstrates that periods of coexistence, integration, and intermarriage were the norm rather than the exception. The contemporary Sunni-Shiite explosions are primarily the product of modern political developments such as the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the 2003 American invasion of Iraq, and the transformation of some Arab Spring uprisings into civil wars in which Israel and foreign powers played significant roles in fueling and prolonging the violence. Sectarianism—particularly between Sunnis and Shiites—is not embedded in Arab societies by nature; rather, it is rooted in political, social, and economic failures, especially the inability of the modern nation-state to fulfill its responsibilities.

Furthermore, the very term “Sunni forces” is neither accurate nor realistic. There is no unified “Sunni axis.” Sunni-majority states pursue divergent policies, particularly regarding the war against Iran. Pakistan, along with Egypt and Turkey—all Sunni-majority countries—is actively engaged in mediation efforts aimed at stopping the aggression. The same complexity applies to the term “Shiite forces.” Some actors support Iran, such as Hezbollah, Iraqi factions, and the Houthis, while others openly reject Tehran’s policies. The Iraqi Sadrist movement, for example, had longstanding disputes with Iran even before the current war and accused Tehran of violating Iraqi sovereignty.

This does not deny the existence of sectarian identities themselves. The real problem lies in the exploitation of these differences within the framework of regional rivalries and the deliberate fueling of conflicts. Unfortunately, certain political and media elites are instrumentalized to magnify these divisions, presenting them as the greatest threat facing Arabs and Muslims today.

Modern Arab intellectual thought contains a rich body of literature that has critically deconstructed sectarianism as a political phenomenon in which religion is manipulated as a tool for mobilization and division. The late Iraqi sociologist Faleh A. Jabar argued that sectarian conflict is not a struggle between two doctrines, but rather a struggle among political elites competing over power and resources in the name of doctrine. Likewise, the late Grand Imam Mahmoud Shaltut, known for his famous fatwa promoting Sunni-Shiite rapprochement, maintained that Islam is far broader than any single sect and that division between Sunnis and Shiites constitutes a fitna—an internal strife exploited by the enemies of the (Islamic nation).

It is difficult to believe that those currently inflaming sectarian tensions are unfamiliar with this intellectual heritage. Yet for reasons tied to political interests and affiliations with particular agendas, they insist on reviving another legacy drawn from the darker archives of history—a discourse centered on “Safavid Persian expansion,” “Rafidah” (a derogatory term for Shiites), “Nawasib,” and other deeply divisive labels. In doing so, they contribute not to resolving the crisis, but to deepening the fractures that threaten the cohesion of the region itself.

Originally published in Al-Masry Al-Youm