It seems clear that the Arab street is divided about Iran: some see it as a direct threat to the region, while others applaud it because it confronts American dominance and the Zionist project. And the reality? The entire region is going through a phase of redefining itself, and our Arab awareness forms toward the American-Israeli war on Iran, as Abdullah Laroui suggests, slip into contradictory positions. Many of these positions are controlled by ideology, different affiliations, and narrow interests, more than they reflect a historical and rational reading of reality and its contexts.
Iran is a country with a long history and a strategic mind that prioritizes its geopolitical interests first, moving wherever there is a vacuum and opportunity. Its supporters see it as a force that challenges America and disrupts Israel, yet this perception overlooks a fundamental truth: that its regional project advances all issues in the region, even those that have ethical and political consensus. The issue is not in the declared speech, but in the prioritization; it is a project that does not stop at the borders of the neighborhood, but extends further.
As for the opponents? They see it as an ideological and security threat to the nation-state, ignoring that part of their position stems from the absence of a strong Arab-regional project that protects our interests and security.
The result? The Arab citizen finds himself between two incomplete awarenesses: one ignores the outcomes, and the other ignores the reasons. This is exactly what Laroui calls "false awareness"; awareness completely detached from history and reality, drifting behind superficial reactions, ideological projections, and fictitious alliances no more.
Therefore, a realistic reading away from slogans and coated speeches is essential. Yes, we aspire to break dominance in all its forms in our region, but this does not mean that Iran is undertaking this task on our behalf; it fights its battles according to its interests, not ours, often at the expense of our stability and interests.
This leads us directly to what we observe lately; some people side with Iran with a fragmented awareness, seeing it as a Muslim country fighting Zionism and American dominance, bestowing on this bias moral and religious legitimacy, despite what reality reveals of contradictions, yet the real problem begins when this inclination turns into a complete conviction, ignoring the question: What has it actually offered in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, or Yemen? The experiences are harsh: Syria is exhausted and trying to recover, Lebanon is almost paralyzed, Iraq is divided despite years of its influence, and Yemen is an open war with no viable stability model.
These are facts seen by the Arab citizen with his own eyes, and therefore even those who follow the Iranian narrative in facing the Zionist project find themselves hesitant before its strategic project and its results on the ground.
On the other hand, absolute rejection of Iran does not seem more aware; it reduces it to a security threat, ignoring that American dominance and the Zionist project are similarly existential threats. Thus, an Arab awareness torn between ideological emotions and fictitious alliances is formed.
From here, the need for a rational reading that reorganizes national interests within their regional and international intersections arises, far from adopting speeches that do not reflect the actual reality. The threats in the region are multiple, and they cannot be faced with selective awareness or emotional alignment.
The problem does not lie in the speech itself, but in its illusion, as explained in the book "Contemporary Arab Ideology": The real value of any speech lies not in its slogans, but in its ability to transform into tangible reality. Any speech that does not produce a viable model gradually loses its meaning, no matter how attractive it appears.
Therefore, the alignments of the Arab individual reflect a conflicted, incomplete awareness, prone to superficiality and often strays from a rational and realistic stance.
And here lies the importance of the state—yes, the state and its institutions—in building national awareness and its effectiveness, because it ties policies and national interests to historical, social, and economic reality, and helps avoid slipping into "false awareness" in Laroui's language.
Therefore, the Arab citizen needs tools to understand what is a slogan and what is reality, what is a genuine resistance narrative and what is only regional influence. If the state does not provide these tools, the individual will remain unable to understand his national interests and link them to his regional reality, and will become susceptible to exploitation and contradictory speeches from here and there.
The American-Israeli war on Iran, and previously on Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, is not just a regional conflict, it is a real test for the individual, the state, its institutions, and for awareness itself.
In the end, the issue is not with whom we stand, but how we think. Wars do not only redraw maps, but also reshape consciousness. Between a speech that fuels passion and a reality governed by interests, do we remain prisoners of emotion, or do we have the courage to think about what serves us, preserves national interest, and safeguards the future?
