The Middle East, a region rich in history, culture, and natural resources, has often been portrayed through a simplistic lens, particularly when it comes to the complex relationships between its various religious sects. One of the most persistent narratives promoted by many Western analysts, governments, and media outlets is that of the “Sunni-Shia divide.” This binary portrayal suggests that the region’s turmoil is primarily the result of an age-old, intractable conflict between the two largest Islamic sects—Sunni and Shia. However, this reductionist narrative obscures the true causes of instability in the region and misrepresents the intricate web of geopolitical, economic, and social factors at play.
By focusing on the religious differences between Sunnis and Shias, Western powers have not only misrepresented the nature of conflicts in the Middle East but have also, in many instances, exacerbated tensions and set the region ablaze. The narrative of the “Sunni-Shia divide” is not just inaccurate—it has been instrumentalized by external actors to justify interventions, invasions, and policies that have further destabilized the region.
The Historical Context of Sunni-Shia Relations
To understand the problems with the “Sunni-Shia divide” narrative, it is crucial to examine the historical context of relations between these two sects. Sunni and Shia Islam emerged from a schism over leadership following the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 CE. While this division has persisted for centuries, it has not always been a source of violent conflict. In fact, for much of Islamic history, Sunnis and Shias coexisted relatively peacefully in the same communities, shared cultural practices, and even participated in intermarriages.
In many Middle Eastern societies, the religious distinctions between Sunnis and Shias were secondary to other identities such as ethnicity, tribe, or class. Throughout history, rulers, both Sunni and Shia, often governed diverse populations, and sectarianism was typically not the primary driver of state policy. The notion of a perpetual Sunni-Shia conflict is thus historically inaccurate and ignores the broader sociopolitical contexts in which these communities have lived.
Western Interventions and the Rise of Sectarianism
The narrative of the “Sunni-Shia divide” began to gain prominence in the Western media and political discourse following the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The revolution, which established the Islamic Republic of Iran under Shia clerical leadership, challenged the geopolitical order in the Middle East, particularly U.S. and Western interests in the region. Iran’s rise as a regional power was perceived as a threat to Sunni-majority states allied with the West, such as Saudi Arabia. Rather than understanding the revolution in its political and ideological context, Western governments began framing the new Iranian regime as the epicenter of a broader “Shia crescent” threatening Sunni-majority states.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 further exacerbated sectarian tensions in the region. Iraq, a country with a Shia majority but historically ruled by Sunni elites, became a hotbed of sectarian violence following the fall of Saddam Hussein. The U.S.-led occupation dismantled the Baathist regime and instituted a new political order that disproportionately empowered Shia political factions. As the security situation deteriorated, Sunni insurgents, feeling marginalized and threatened by Shia militias, began to frame their struggle in sectarian terms. Meanwhile, Western media and analysts framed the conflict as a battle between Sunnis and Shias, rather than acknowledging the role of foreign intervention, economic collapse, and the destruction of state institutions.
The portrayal of the Iraq War as a sectarian conflict laid the groundwork for further divisions. This narrative not only obscured the role of Western powers in destabilizing the region but also provided a convenient justification for continued military interventions. By framing conflicts in the Middle East as religious wars, Western governments could sidestep responsibility for their own actions and present themselves as neutral arbiters trying to manage an ancient and inevitable conflict.
The Instrumentalization of Sectarianism in Proxy Wars
As regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Iran vied for influence in the post-Iraq War Middle East, sectarianism became a tool in a broader geopolitical struggle. However, this was not an organic or inevitable outcome—it was the result of deliberate policies by both regional and external actors. Western powers, particularly the United States, played a significant role in stoking these tensions by supporting one side over the other in various conflicts.
The Syrian Civil War, which erupted in 2011, is a prime example of how the “Sunni-Shia divide” narrative has been instrumentalized. The conflict, initially a popular uprising against the authoritarian regime of Bashar al-Assad, quickly took on a sectarian tone as regional powers became involved. Iran and its allies, including Hezbollah, supported the Assad regime, which is dominated by Alawites, a sect with Shia roots. On the other side, Sunni-majority countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar provided support to various rebel factions, many of which were Sunni Islamist groups.
While the sectarian element of the Syrian conflict is undeniable, it is crucial to recognize that the war is not simply a religious struggle between Sunnis and Shias. It is a multifaceted conflict driven by geopolitical interests, economic factors, and the legacy of colonialism and dictatorship. However, the Western media has often framed the Syrian war as part of a broader Sunni-Shia struggle, reinforcing the idea that the Middle East is plagued by ancient, unresolvable religious hatreds.
Similarly, in Yemen, the conflict between the Houthi movement (predominantly Zaydi Shia) and the Saudi-backed government has been framed as part of the broader Sunni-Shia divide. While sectarian rhetoric has been employed by both sides, the roots of the Yemeni conflict are far more complex. The war in Yemen is driven by issues of political power, regional autonomy, and economic grievances. Yet, by presenting it as a Sunni-Shia conflict, Western analysts and policymakers have obscured these deeper causes and contributed to a narrative that fuels further violence.
The Dangerous Consequences of the Sectarian Narrative
The Western focus on the “Sunni-Shia divide” has had dangerous consequences for the region. By reducing complex political, social, and economic conflicts to sectarianism, Western powers have encouraged sectarian actors and policies that deepen divisions and prolong violence. This narrative has provided a convenient cover for authoritarian regimes in the region, allowing them to frame their repression of political dissent as necessary to prevent sectarian violence.
For example, in Bahrain, a Sunni monarchy has long ruled over a Shia-majority population. When pro-democracy protests erupted in 2011, the Bahraini government, with the backing of Saudi Arabia and tacit approval from Western powers, framed the protests as a Shia uprising backed by Iran. This allowed the Bahraini regime to justify its violent crackdown on demonstrators and avoid addressing the legitimate grievances of its population.
Moreover, the sectarian framing of conflicts has discouraged efforts to find political solutions that transcend sectarian lines. In Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon, attempts to build inclusive political systems have been undermined by the insistence that these societies are inherently divided along religious lines. This narrative has made it difficult for political actors to appeal to broad, cross-sectarian constituencies and has empowered sectarian militias and parties.
A Path Forward: Moving Beyond Sectarianism
To bring peace and stability to the Middle East, it is essential to move beyond the simplistic narrative of the “Sunni-Shia divide.” This requires recognizing that the region’s conflicts are driven by a complex interplay of political, economic, and social factors, and that sectarianism is often a tool used by political elites—both within the region and outside it—to advance their own interests.
A path forward must involve supporting inclusive political processes that address the root causes of conflict, such as economic inequality, authoritarianism, and foreign intervention. Western powers, in particular, must stop using sectarianism as a pretext for intervention and instead promote diplomacy and dialogue that fosters unity across religious and ethnic lines.
Ultimately, the key to ending the violence in the Middle East lies not in perpetuating myths about an inevitable “Sunni-Shia divide,” but in addressing the real, material grievances of the region’s people. Only by recognizing the true nature of these conflicts can we hope to build a more peaceful and just future for the Middle East.
