Before 1979, Iran under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was one of Washington’s closest partners in the Middle East and maintained quiet relations with Israel. The two countries cooperated on security and intelligence matters, reflecting Iran’s alignment with Western powers during the Cold War.
That alignment ended abruptly after the Islamic Revolution led by Ruhollah Khomeini. The new regime redefined Iran’s political identity around three central pillars: opposition to Western domination, rejection of Israel’s legitimacy, and governance rooted in Shia Islamic political theology.
As a result, hostility toward the U.S. and Israel became embedded in the structure of the state itself, rather than remaining a matter of foreign policy preference.
Religious identity and historical divide
Iran is the largest Shia Muslim-majority nation in the Middle East, while most Arab states are predominantly Sunni.
The Sunni-Shia split dates back to 632 CE, following the death of Prophet Muhammad. The dispute initially centered on leadership of the Muslim community:
1. Sunnis supported the selection of Abu Bakr, a close companion of the Prophet.
2. Shias believed leadership rightfully belonged to the Prophet’s family, specifically Ali.
Over time, this political disagreement evolved into deeper theological differences.
Today, an estimated 85-90 percent of Muslims globally are Sunni, while roughly 10-15 percent are Shia. Iran’s population is approximately 90-95 percent Shia. By contrast, most Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan are Sunni-majority.
The hidden Imam and political authority
A key theological concept in Twelver Shia Islam is the belief in the “Hidden Imam.” Shias believe the 12th Imam entered occultation and will one day return as the Mahdi.
This belief historically raised a political question: who should govern in the Imam’s absence?
For centuries, Shia clerics generally refrained from direct political rule, instead serving as moral and legal authorities within society. That approach shifted dramatically in 1979.
Velayat-e Faqih: Institutionalising clerical rule
Following the revolution, Khomeini introduced the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih, or “Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist.”
Under this model, a senior Shia jurist assumes political authority to ensure Islamic justice until the return of the Hidden Imam. The system established:
1. A Supreme Leader with ultimate authority
2. Clerical oversight over elected institutions
3. A state structured explicitly around Shia jurisprudence
This framework remains unique in the Muslim world. No Sunni-majority country operates under a comparable system of clerical supremacy.
Regional Tensions: Theology meets geopolitics
Iran’s political system shapes its regional posture. Tehran positions itself as a protector of Shia communities and supports Shia-aligned movements in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen. It frames these policies as resistance against injustice and external domination.
Sunni monarchies, particularly Saudi Arabia, view this activism as a strategic challenge. Concerns include threats to regional influence and potential unrest among Shia minorities within their borders.
What is often described as sectarian conflict reflects a broader mix of religious identity, political legitimacy, and competition for regional influence.
Persian identity and civilisational distinction
Iran’s distinct identity adds another dimension. Unlike most Middle Eastern states, Iran is Persian rather than Arab. It speaks Farsi and draws on an imperial history that predates Islam.
Differences in ethnicity, language, historical memory, and religious orientation reinforce Tehran’s sense of separateness from Arab-majority states, compounding existing geopolitical rivalries.
Why Sunni states align with Washington
For many Sunni-majority governments, alignment with the United States is driven less by theology and more by strategic calculation.
Saudi Arabia maintains a longstanding oil-for-security partnership with Washington dating back to 1945 and prioritises regime stability. Jordan, a resource-poor state, relies heavily on U.S. economic and military assistance. Egypt, following the 1978 Camp David Accords, entered a strategic partnership with Washington and continues to receive significant military aid.
These governments are not necessarily ideologically aligned with Israel. Rather, they prioritise economic stability, security guarantees, and regime survival.
A contest for regional leadership
Beyond theology and foreign alliances lies a broader struggle for influence. Saudi Arabia presents itself as a leader of Sunni Islam, while Iran positions itself at the forefront of a “resistance” axis opposing Western and Israeli influence.
In this context, Iran’s isolation reflects a combination of revolutionary ideology, Shia political theology, Persian identity, and geopolitical rivalry, factors that together distinguish its posture from that of most other Muslim-majority states.
