By Taghreed Saadeh
One of the fundamental principles of citizenship is that defending the homeland, its sovereignty, and its security is a collective responsibility that transcends political disagreements and ideological divisions. When a country faces external aggression or a direct threat, the natural expectation is that its citizens will rally around the protection of their nation, its institutions, and its territory, while retaining their full right to criticize governments and domestic policies.
Yet the Arab world has witnessed in recent years a highly unusual phenomenon that raises serious questions. Some have argued that attacks on Arab countries by Iran can be justified or at least overlooked because of the presence of American military bases on their soil or because of their regional and international alliances. Some voices go even further, accusing those who oppose such attacks of treason or of serving American interests.
The irony is that this line of reasoning ignores complex political and historical realities. Relations between Iran and the United States have never been defined by absolute confrontation alone, as some would like to portray them. Rather, they have gone through periods of accommodation and intersecting interests in a number of issues, particularly those affecting Arab countries. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq remains one of the most significant examples. It created an unprecedented opportunity for Tehran to expand its influence inside Iraq, in what appeared to be a major geopolitical and political gain resulting from the American intervention.
The region’s history is also filled with examples demonstrating that interests often prevail over slogans. Iran, which presents Israel as its primary enemy, has nevertheless engaged in arrangements and arms deals involving Tel Aviv during critical periods of regional conflict, particularly during the Iran-Iraq War, when Baghdad represented the principal Arab state confronting the Iranian project. Reducing the region’s realities to a simplistic narrative of a “resistance camp” versus a “camp of traitors” does not withstand historical scrutiny. Nor does it account for the long record of shifting alliances and pragmatic understandings that have shaped the behavior of regional and international actors alike.
When an Arab citizen becomes more willing to justify attacks against his own country by a foreign power in service of a political or ideological project he supports, then the very concept of citizenship comes into question.
Patriotism begins with recognizing a nation’s right to security and sovereignty and rejecting aggression against it, regardless of the identity of the aggressor or the slogans under which that aggression is carried out. Those who applaud Iran’s actions should take note of Iran’s own opposition figures, many of whom stood by their country despite their deep hostility toward the regime and the Islamic Revolution that has governed Iran for nearly five decades. Opposing a government is one thing; abandoning one’s homeland or justifying attacks against it is something entirely different.
16 Total Count
