Amidst the raging wars in the Middle East, another equally dangerous war emerges: the sectarian-doctrinal war that drains minds and entrenches deep divisions among the people of the same nation. This confrontation, fueled by regional sectarian behavior, now threatens the future of the region and imposes a reality that requires re-reading outside the traditional frameworks of conflict.
The true compass that should guide peoples is the compass of freedom, as it is the only guarantee for building strong international and popular relations. From this perspective, it appears that there is an objective commonality among disparate regional powers in sabotaging the dream of the 'Arab Spring of Freedoms,' which is a historical crime against peoples yearning for change.
Iran has worked to transform the Arab sphere in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen into a defensive wall for its national center, using clear sectarian and ethnic agendas. This approach has led to a direct clash with the aspirations of the peoples, especially when the weapon of resistance shifted from its original direction to become a tool in internal sectarian wars.
The Sunni public, which had viewed the resistance experience with great appreciation, was shocked by Iran's bias against popular revolutions, particularly in the Syrian case. This emotional and political estrangement revealed the prioritization of doctrinal interests over the principles of liberation advocated by the Iranian Revolution in its early stages, which scattered popular sympathy for it.
The responsibility for aborting the Arab Spring cannot be confined to one party, as official Arab regimes led operations to finance military coups to ensure the return of repression. This intersection between 'Sunni' regimes and 'Shiite' Iran proved that the common hostility to the freedom of peoples is stronger than the declared doctrinal differences between these parties.
An undeclared consensus occurred between seemingly contradictory forces to thwart the democratic experiment in Egypt and other Arab Spring countries. This betrayal did not stop at the limits of internal politics but extended to affect the fronts of resistance, where true support for Gaza was absent at critical moments as a result of these narrow calculations.
Iran, as a state and a regime, deviated from the path of its first revolution to become an expansionist power that places its national interest above any unifying Islamic consideration. This political behavior has not changed even in the most difficult circumstances, as it continued to tamper with the Syrian social fabric and ally with the remnants of oppressive regimes without review or apology.
An objective assessment indicates that the Iranian regime did not differ much from Arab authoritarian regimes in its hostility to the aspirations of peoples for dignity. For this reason, we find that understandings between these regimes and Iran were sometimes easier than their understandings with the popular and democratic forces that emerged from the revolutions.
There is a state of fragmentation in the Arab street between the necessity of standing against external aggression and the bitterness of regional policies that suppressed freedoms. This fragmentation results from the absence of a freedom agenda among the warring parties, which treat the masses as subordinate tools, not as partners in destiny.
We reject political sectarianism that hides behind fatwas to justify betrayal or facilitate aggression against any regional party. At the same time, we affirm that self-defense is a legitimate right for any state, but this right does not grant immunity against criticism of its oppressive practices towards neighboring peoples.
The fundamental issue that separates us from any regime, whether Arab or regional, is the issue of freedom and the extent of its respect for the will of the people. Whoever is with human freedom is a natural ally, and whoever works to sabotage it cannot be relied upon for support, no matter how dazzling their slogans.
Authoritarian regimes have drained the energies of peoples for decades under the pretext of liberating Palestine, and in the end, we lost freedom and did not liberate the land. This historical lesson must be present today; human dignity cannot be bartered for any political or military promises that do not prioritize human beings.
The current war acts as a 'sieve' that exposes the falsity of claims and shatters the illusions promoted by authoritarian regimes for many years. Peoples today are more aware of the necessity of liberation from blind dependence and the search for an independent path that preserves their rights away from emotional blackmail.
In conclusion, freedom remains the criterion and the goal, and we will not sign 'blank checks' for any party that practices oppression under any name. The future will only be built by the hands of liberated peoples who reject internal tyranny and external aggression alike, believing that their dignity is the key to true victory.
Freedom is the starting point, the pillar of construction, and the guarantee of historical victory, and from it, we proceed and to it, we refer in evaluating conflicts.
شارك برأيك
Freedom as the Sole Compass Amidst Regional and Sectarian Conflicts