A Safer, Freer, Less Oppressive World

Tehran's aggressive posturing has taken a menacing turn, with covert threats issued against America's Middle Eastern allies in retaliation for any potential Israeli military actions against them. This belligerent stance comes after Iran's unprovoked barrage of 180 ballistic missiles targeting Israel earlier this month, an act that starkly underscores Tehran's expansionist and destabilizing intentions in the region.

Israeli officials, understandably alarmed by Iran's escalating provocations, are now contemplating preemptive strikes on Iran's nuclear and oil infrastructures. This response is not merely reactive but a strategic necessity given the existential threats posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions and its demonstrated willingness to engage in conquest-oriented warfare.

However, in a display of sheer intimidation, Iran has warned of “devastating hits” not just against Israel's civilian sectors but also against any Arab nation that might support or host operations against them. Reports from The Wall Street Journal detail Iran's threats extending to countries like Jordan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, nations hosting American military presence, thereby attempting to isolate Israel and restrict the operational capabilities of its allies.

These threats from Iran are not just vague warnings; they represent a calculated strategy to coerce neighboring states through fear of reprisal, potentially targeting their critical oil infrastructures and endangering both local populations and the broader stability of global energy markets. This aggressive policy not only endangers regional peace but also challenges the sovereignty and security of these nations.

Moreover, the Biden Administration's naive stance that Iran has not definitively decided to build a nuclear weapon appears increasingly detached from reality, especially in light of Iran's aggressive military posturing and its history of deceptive practices regarding its nuclear program. This assessment seems to downplay the serious strategic setbacks Iran has faced, including the elimination of key Hezbollah figures, which might actually be pushing Tehran closer to nuclear weaponization out of desperation or as an act of defiance.

The Biden administration’s position has also seen them unlock (or facilitate access to) over $30 billion dollars to the Iranian mullahs: $6 billion in a prisoner swap and $10 billion from Iraqi electricity sales. This was in the aftermath of the Obama administration’s facilitation of over $150 billion. All of this revenue has freed up revenue streams for Iran’s fueling of its proxy armies in the region.

The fear among Arab officials is palpable, not just for their oil facilities but for the broader implications of Iranian retaliation, which could involve attacks by Tehran's numerous proxy groups—the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, and its sympathetic relationship with ISIS—across the region. This scenario not only jeopardizes US military assets in the Persian Gulf but also threatens to ignite a broader conflict, destabilizing one of the world's most critical oil-producing regions.

The Sunni-Shiite Divide

The religious conflict between the Sunnis of Saudi Arabia—and other Middle Eastern countries—and the Shiites of Iran represents one of the most enduring and complex schisms within Islam. It is rooted in historical, political, and theological differences that have significantly shaped Middle Eastern politics and, therefore, world politics.

However, this divide did not originate from purely religious grounds. It has been exacerbated by political power struggles, national identities, and economic interests, particularly over control of oil-rich regions.

The Sunni-Shia split dates back to the 7th century following the death of Prophet Muhammad in 632 AD. This schism fundamentally concerns who should have succeeded Muhammad as the leader of the Muslim community.

Sunnis, who constitute the majority of Muslims globally, believe that the first three caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman) were rightfully appointed, while Shiites (or Shias) maintain that leadership should have passed directly to Ali ibn Abi Talib, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, and his descendants, who they consider to be the rightful Imams.

Theologically, while both sects share the fundamental beliefs of Islam, the differences lie in matters of religious authority, interpretation of Islamic law, and the role of imams. For Sunnis, the caliph or leader is elected and serves as a political and military leader without divine authority. Conversely, for Shiites, the Imam holds both political and spiritual authority, possessing divine insight.

Politically, these differences have manifested in state governance. Saudi Arabia has positioned itself as the guardian of Sunni Islam, hosting two of Islam's holiest sites in Mecca and Medina, and promoting Wahhabism, a puritanical form of Sunni Islam. Conversely, Iran, since the 16th-century Safavid dynasty and especially after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, has become the epicenter of Shia Islam, advocating for a theocracy under the guidance of clerics, as per the doctrine of Wilayat al-Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist).

The modern conflict has intensified due to several factors:

• The establishment of the Islamic Republic in Iran, with its revolutionary Shia ideology, was seen as a direct challenge to the Sunni monarchies, particularly Saudi Arabia. This led to a competition for regional influence, where Iran supports various Shia groups and movements—including groups that use terrorism as a political and ideological tool—across the Middle East, while Saudi Arabia supports Sunni entities.

• The rivalry has played out through proxy conflicts in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq, where both nations support opposing factions, often along sectarian lines. This has not only fueled sectarian violence but also deepened the geopolitical rift.

• Control over oil routes, particularly the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait, adds an economic dimension to this conflict, where both nations vie for influence over energy resources crucial to global markets.

• Beyond religion, this conflict also embodies nationalistic and ethnic dimensions. Saudi Arabia represents Arab Sunni identity, while Iran champions an unnatural Persian-Shia ethos, although both countries host minorities of the other sect.

Currently, there's a recognition of the historical Sunni majority in regions now predominantly ruled by the Shia, like Iran's conversion under the Safavids, illustrating how religious identity can be politically enforced. But it is critical to understand that the tenets of Islam—per the Quran and the Hadith—mandate the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” mindset, where Shia and Sunni Muslims are mandated to coalesce as Muslims, above all else, against external threats or share grievances against their leadership, yet remain divided by state policies or historical resentments.

The Case For The Sunni Countries
To Stand Against The Iranian Mullahs

The alignment of Sunni countries in the Middle East with Western powers against the Shiite regime in Iran—although not considerable under Islamic doctrine—could be framed as a strategic necessity for several reasons, reflecting geopolitical, economic, security, and religious dimensions.

Iran, under its Islamofascistic theocratic rule, has positioned itself as a regional hegemon, using its influence to support proxy forces—almost exclusively of the terrorist organizational cloth—across the Middle East, thereby destabilizing countries like Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. Sunni-led nations, particularly those like Saudi Arabia, have viewed this expansionism as a direct threat to their sovereignty and regional influence. Aligning with the West, which has military and economic might, provides a counterbalance to Iran's ambitions.

Further, Iran's nuclear program represents a direct security threat to both the region and the world. Western powers, particularly the US, have been at the forefront of negotiations and sanctions aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear capabilities, with many believing the efforts futile. Sunni countries, especially those in the Gulf, fear a nuclear-armed Iran, which could lead to a nuclear arms race in the region, potentially destabilizing it further.

Additionally, the stability of oil markets is crucial for Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, and others, whose economies heavily rely on oil exports. Iran's threats to close the Strait of Hormuz and its support of the Houthi rebel (read: terrorist) group in the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait, through which significant portions of the world's oil supply passes, pose a direct economic threat. Western navies, particularly the US, have been guarantors of maritime security in this region.

While Western-led sanctions are targeted specifically against Iran, they also affect neighboring economies through trade restrictions, currency fluctuations, and more. A Sunni-Western alliance could potentially negotiate better economic conditions after any regime change, ensuring economic stability.

A Sunni-Western alliance to end the tyrannical reign of the Iranian mullahs—and effort consisting of military support and intelligence sharing—can help Sunni states combat Iranian-backed militias more effectively. This includes the debilitation of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza, and various factions in Iraq and Syria. 

While this can be overstated, the ideological differences between Sunni and Shia Islam, particularly when aggravated by nation-states like Iran that support and facilitate the aggression of terrorist organizations, contribute to regional tensions. Aligning with the West is a way to curb what many Sunni leaders perceive as Iranian religious imperialism.

Finally, while ideologically controversial, the common adversary in Iran has led to tacit and—in an increasing number of cases—explicit cooperation between Sunni states and Israel, with Western backing, specifically in the Abraham Accords, brokered by the Trump Administration. This unusual alignment focuses on shared security concerns against Iran's missile program and its support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

A Better Future Without The Iranian Mullahs

The argument for Sunni Middle Eastern countries to stand with the West against Iran's regime isn't just about religious or cultural differences. It can be seen as deeply rooted in the desire for regional stability, economic security, and a relative increase in freedom—both in the marketplace and in the regional culture.

This alignment, while fraught with complexities, reflects a pragmatic approach where Sunni states seek to leverage Western power to counteract what they perceive as an existential threat from a Shiite-led, nuclear-capable, conquest-oriented Iran.

However, this geopolitical strategy must also navigate the risks of increased militarization, potential escalation, and the broader implications of aligning closely with Western foreign policy in a region known for its volatility.

Iran's aggressive threats and actions are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of intimidation and expansionism, which demands a robust and united international response to curb Tehran's destabilizing influence and protect the sovereignty and security of nations in the Middle East. This response must consider—seriously—the ending of the tyrannical reign of the Islamofascist, terrorist-supporting mullahs, non-indigenous to the Persian nation.

We live in very dark times. But a deposing of the Iranian regime—a deposing and elimination of the regional and global threat posed by the Islamofascist mullahs in Iran—would make tomorrow a safer, freer, and less oppressive for all the world.

It is time for the free world–and especially the Sunni world—to address the cancer.