The Sunni popular dissent unconsciously raises the issue of Iran's sectarianism, its role in the region and its actual stance towards Al-Aqsa Flood, especially after the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas' political bureau, may Allah have mercy on him, in Tehran without any significant response from Iran. This is also evident after the statements of Supreme Leader Khamenei about the conflict between the Husseini front (the Shia world) and the Yazidi front (the Sunni world). However, the reactions from the Sunni populace varied in their approach to dealing with the Iranian stance and its credibility. I propose some fundamental principles to clarify the importance of addressing the “Al-Aqsa Flood” event consciously. Among the most important are:

First: Iran and Sectarianism

1. Iran is a sectarian state according to its constitution, aiming to spread its doctrine in the Arab world, specifically. It has a documented and drawn-out project to control the leadership of the Islamic world.
2. Iran operates as a sovereign state, not subordinate, interacting with the West, the United States, Russia, and China based on mutual interests.
3. Iran's cooperation in certain areas for its own interests, does not prevent it from clashing with these countries in other areas.
4. Iran cooperates with some Arab countries and exchanges interests with them, while being in conflict with others.

Second: The Zionist Entity

1. The Zionist entity is an enemy and occupier of Palestine, violating all human rights of our Palestinian brethren.
2. The Zionist entity has a religious project in the region to Judaize Palestine and expand to “Greater Israel.” It is the primary enemy and planner of all strategic changes in the Arab region, in collaboration with the United States and the West.
3. “Israel” is a state that operates based on interests, cooperating with Iran and others, understanding with it on certain issues or strategic matters, ensuring Iran does not intrude on Israeli interests and sovereignty, while maintaining control over Sunni areas under a balance overseen by the United States.
4. “Israel” competes with Iran in areas of influence based on a push-pull equation without changing positions.

Third: The Arab System

1. The Arab system, according to the Sykes-Picot agreement, is not a single geographical sovereignty system. It has no comprehensive project and is unwittingly consumed by internal conflicts in various areas (Western Sahara, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iraq...), making it weak without vision or project.
2. The Arab system is predominantly subject to the will of the United States and the Western system, executing the will of these major countries more than mutual Arab interests.
3. All Arab countries lack the strength to change Iranian and Israeli occupations due to division and selfishness, thus lacking a geographical project, relying on protection and support from major countries.
4. Most Arab countries have surrendered to the reality of Israeli occupation, peace, and normalization, while also submitting to Iranian expansion in the region.
5. The majority of Arab countries want to end the resistance explicitly, publicly, and some covertly, thus supporting Israel in its mission to eradicate the resistance.

Geopolitical Situation in the Region

1. Iran exploited this situation by supporting Jihad and Hamas in Palestine for its interests and to create a threatening force to Israel from within.
2. The Arab normalization trend acted oppositely, supporting the Oslo Accords and normalization, thus standing against the resistance.
3. This created a conflict in vision, interests, and struggle between the Arabs and Iran, causing a significant imbalance in the Palestinian cause's trajectory.
4. Hamas, Jihad, or the resistance in Palestine found no support from the Arabs except for some developmental aid; hence, the battle became existential and zero-sum for them, relying entirely on Iranian support, which they consider a matter of evaluating harms and benefits.
5. Hamas and the resistance did not change their Sunni doctrine but altered their alliances based on changing Arab realities and interests, adjusting the positions of enemies, allies, and friends.

The “Al-Aqsa Flood” Battle

When the “Al-Aqsa Flood” occurred, it was an event within the political and military dynamics that did not change the fundamental strategic equation (Iranian project and Israeli project). This event tactically created two fronts: a predominantly Iranian and Shia front supporting the resistance, and a front supporting Israel and normalization with it. Hamas collaborated with the resistance support front as it had no choice, while Arab regime countries (the normalization path) supported Israel, not directly against the Iranian regime but to end the Palestinian cause and the resistance.

The Required Position

Therefore, the positions of the honorable and supportive peoples for the resistance and the Palestinian cause should not exceed the following:

1. Fully supporting the Palestinian resistance, avoiding any harm to it or the people of Gaza, as they are at war with Israel and its allies. This is a necessary faith-based doctrinal stance, with no choice but to cooperate with Iran due to the Arabs' cessation of support, with some countries even aiding Israel in besieging and killing them.
2. Using all means to stand against Israeli dominance and project.
3. Employing all legitimate means against the normalization project and Arab betrayal.
4. Warning against the Iranian project and its strategic danger to the Sunni population and livelihood in the Arab region without delving into sectarian disputes.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Read the Article in Arabic