Reading in light of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict following the shift in the Salafi position on Iran

written by abdelkebir belafsahi and translating by us

The Islamic arena has recently witnessed a remarkable shift in the positions of some Salafi figures toward Iran, following the strikes launched by the latter against Israel in the context of the ongoing escalation following the aggression on Gaza. This shift has raised numerous questions about the reasons for this temporary or potential shift, its consequences, and the nature of the shift in the priorities of the Salafi mindset between the doctrinal constant and the political reality.

In the general context of this shift, the Israeli aggression on Gaza represents an emotional and ideological pivot in the Islamic conscience, where various intellectual references intersect, even those that for decades have elevated the doctrinal conflict with Shiites, such as Salafism. The Iranian strikes against Israel were a symbolic event that gave Iran—albeit temporarily—the status of a “resistance actor,” at a time when Arab peoples are suffering from official regional abandonment.

There are divergent Salafi positions toward Iran, with one current showing conditional support. Some Salafi figures, such as Sheikh Hassan al-Kattani and his disciples, have expressed symbolic support for Iran at this moment, based on the logic of “supporting the oppressed,” or based on a “phased sorting” approach that prioritizes the conflict with Israel over all other issues. This position reflects a shift in priorities, as sectarian hostility is no longer a complete barrier to political engagement with forces hostile to Israel.

There is also a categorical rejectionist current, where a group of Salafis have maintained their traditional position, refusing to support Iran, even against Israel, adhering to the principle of “Oh God, strike the oppressors with the oppressors and bring us out of them unharmed.” This current is based on a vision that considers the Iranian project an extension of Safavid hegemony, and that any strengthening of it, even symbolically, serves the interests of Shiite expansion.

There are explanatory factors for this shift. The evolution of political awareness within the Salafi movement has witnessed, in part, an unannounced revision of its traditional literature, especially after the waves of the “Arab Spring.” This has made it more open to the political and realistic dimensions of conflicts, rather than being limited to ideological classification.

There is also the emergence of the priority of the Palestinian cause, as Palestine represents a point of Islamic consensus across sects. The recent Iranian strikes have created a new space for reassessing priorities. It seems that those Arab officials who failed to act were acted upon by Iran, regardless of its intentions or agendas.

There is also the influence of symbolic imagery and media conflict. In the age of digital communication, images and immediate events have become a powerful symbol. Consequently, Iran’s mere strike against Israel—even if limited—has given it the symbolism of “resistance” in the consciousness of segments of Salafi youth, far removed from the known ideological background.

Considering the implications and consequences of this shift, there is a shift that does not represent a doctrinal reversal of the Salafi position on Shiites, but rather reflects a temporary pragmatic shift imposed by an exceptional political moment. All of this points to the emergence of a new Salafi movement leaning toward “national pragmatism” or “Islamic sentiment,” where sectarian conflicts recede in favor of central issues such as Palestine. Conversely, the continuation of this shift depends on future Iranian behavior, as Iran’s return to sectarian rhetoric or bloody interventions in the region could return Salafis to a state of complete estrangement.

The shift in the position of some Salafis toward Iran represents a model for understanding the changes affecting conservative Islamic movements in the context of major crises. This shift reflects an internal struggle between doctrinal constants and political imperatives, and raises profound questions about the future of the relationship between sectarian identity and political positions within contemporary Islamic movements. It remains important to track these shifts, as they outline the contours of a new phase of Islamic engagement with the nation’s issues in a time of complex regional and international transformations.