Why the Islamic World Has Not Stood by Iran Against Israel

Author: Gagik Mirzayan, associate professor at the Finance University

The entire Western bloc has united around Israel when it attacked Iran. By rights, the world's two billion Muslims should have supported Iran equally, but this is not the case – some Islamic countries even support Israel. Why is Islamic unity a mere illusion?

The military action by Israel against Iran is not only a heavy blow to the Islamic Republic, but also undermines the credibility of those who advocate the concept of "Islamic Unity": this conflict once again proves that so-called Islamic solidarity does not exist.

The current situation is paradoxical: on one hand, the entire Western bloc forms an alliance around Israel. Those politicians who were recently criticizing Tel Aviv's bombing of Gaza now praise the attack on Iran. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz openly stated that Tel Aviv is doing the West's "dirty work." Even worse, some European countries directly support Israel in its war efforts (such as intercepting Iranian rockets and drones with fighter jets), and are even prepared to follow the United States in attacking Iran – as long as the U.S. decides to intervene.

On the other hand, Middle Eastern Islamic countries merely criticize Israel's attacks on Iran at most. No country is willing to stand up for their "religious brothers," and some countries like Jordan even side with Israel: for example, assisting in intercepting Iranian drones and rockets flying over their territory. More importantly, almost all Islamic countries in the region hope that Iran will lose in this war.

Why is this happening? Why has the Islamic world not united around Iran to resist Israel's aggression? The reason lies in the fact that the action logic of Islamic countries is not "religious unity," but national interests.

This is a global trend: during the formation of nation-states, religion and ethnic identity gradually fade away, making way for national interests. The Christian world has also undergone this process – the idea of "Christian unity" in Europe quickly disappeared: the rise of nation-states suppressed the intervention of the main representative of identity recognition (the Vatican) in European affairs, and even emulated countries like Germany and Britain to establish their own national churches.

The evolution of Slavic identity follows the same pattern: Russia once used this identity as a tool to counter the Austro-Hungarian Empire or Turkey, but when Russia faced crises, Czechs, Bulgarians, and other "brother nations" often turned against Russia based on their own national interests. Essentially, only Serbia maintained "Slavic brotherhood" with Russia – and this was because Belgrade needed Russia's support on the Kosovo issue.

The evolution of Islamic identity and the concept of Arab unity follows the same trajectory: when the region was still under Ottoman rule and national states had yet to form, this identity was very strong. Even in the 20th century, as national states began to form, this identity continued to influence the ideological sphere – which explains why the flags of most countries include colors such as red, white, green, and black (symbols of resistance against the Turks), and why Israel's establishment initially led to all regional countries uniting against it, even attempting to form a unified state (such as the United Arab Republic formed by Syria and Egypt from 1958 to 1961).

However, people soon realized that there is a fundamental contradiction between Arab-Islamic identity and national interests: for instance, wars with Israel, an ally of the United States, hindered the development of relations and trade between Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies with the U.S.

More importantly, advocates of Arab-Islamic identity were seen as threats to the security of sovereign Arab states: Jordan realized this in 1970 when Palestinian militants attempted a coup within its borders; Lebanon became aware of this during its civil war caused by the expulsion of Palestinians; and Egypt woke up to this after President Anwar Sadat was assassinated in 1981 by supporters of Arab-Islamic unity (due to his peace agreement with Israel).

In fact, today those actively utilizing the "Arab-Islamic Unity" agenda are not Arab countries, but these two:

The first is Turkey. Vladimir Avatkov, a political science doctorate and head of the Near East and Post-Soviet Studies Department at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, explained in an interview with "Vzglyad": "President Erdogan harshly criticizes Netanyahu, even comparing him to Hitler, but that's about it. The opposition even accuses the current administration of cooperating with Israel."

Indeed, as one of the most vocal critics of Israel, Turkey was once one of the most active regional countries trading with Israel. Although nominal trade between Turkey and Israel has been suspended, it continues through Northern Cyprus. Turkey condemned Israel's attack on Iran, but when Iranian rockets flew toward Israel, Turkey sent out fighter jets – the opposition believes this was to assist in intercepting the rockets.

"The Turkish Republic hopes that after the war, both Israel and Iran will be weakened," Avatkov interpreted Ankara's logic of interest: Israel hinders Turkey's use of the Palestinian issue to erase the historical memory of Arab peoples (Middle Eastern countries remember the oppression they suffered under Ottoman rule, which hinders Turkey's expansion of influence in the region); while Iran is not only a competitor to Turkey for influence in the "Arab street," but also a geopolitical rival to Erdogan in the Levant, the Caucasus, and Iraq.

The second is Iran itself. Avatkov reminded: "Among all Middle Eastern countries, only the Islamic Republic of Iran denies Israel's right to exist in principle – not denying Jews, but the state."

But this is also not due to religious belief, but practical considerations:

Shiite Iran has historical opposition with Arab countries and Turkey. To consolidate its position in the region, Iran must utilize the "Israel factor": either cooperate with Israel against common Arab enemies, or provoke intense confrontation to gain recognition and respect from the "Arab street" (after all, the myth of "Islamic unity" still has a market there), proving to ordinary Arabs that Iranians are more "authentic" Muslims than their elites.

Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty chose the former, while the Ayatollahs after the Islamic Revolution chose the latter: they believed that simply supporting anti-Israel movements in the region would divert the anger of Sunni Muslim masses from themselves to Israel. But this path eventually led to open conflict between Iran and Israel – and in this conflict, no regional "religious brother" lent a helping hand.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7518668599536550412/

Disclaimer: This article solely represents the author's personal views. Please express your attitude by clicking the "like/dislike" buttons below.