What is happening today in the Middle East and its zones of intense conflict can only be described as seismic shifts, reshaping the contours of power and rewriting the rules of engagement. Systems and organizations have either fallen or been scaled back, while other nations find themselves facing a moment of reckoning, forced to confront the truth behind slogans they have upheld for decades.
Amidst this chaos and the rapidly intensifying complexities, a vital question arises—one that must be asked calmly and thoughtfully. It carries both regional and local dimensions and is directed in particular to my Shiite brethren across the Middle East: What comes next? What is required of us?
This question stems from an urgent need for critical self-reflection. It calls for an honest review of past events, an evaluation of their outcomes, and a frank assessment of our current reality. Observing the trajectory of various groups—especially in Iraq—it becomes evident that genuine self-examination and critique are rare. The talk of a “change in behavior” among some groups often reflects nothing more than submission to expanding economic interests nurtured by their deepening entanglement in political and economic power structures. These groups insist on reconciling the idea of the state with that of the non-state—a contradiction that cannot hold. How can two opposing concepts coexist?
A closer examination of the region’s developments reveals that this is a universal challenge. Today’s active forces are struggling to define their identity, torn between the concepts of homeland and broader nationhood. They waver between focusing on building their own states and expanding beyond borders to “support” those who share their ideological or religious beliefs, ostensibly to safeguard themselves. This, however, leads only to more violence, fighting, and bloodshed.
These forces are unable to set a clear course, oscillating between allegiance to national identity and loyalty to ideology. Too often, this results in prioritizing external agendas over internal national interests, undermining any serious effort to rebuild the state and its institutions. Instead, these forces perpetuate endless conflicts and confrontations. They are incapable of embracing a vision centered on building a future for humanity and addressing present challenges while disengaging from wars that drain resources and lack any clear purpose. These wars fail to protect citizens’ dignity or provide for their basic needs.
Regrettably, some use religious edicts or directives as a cover for their actions. Ideological movements often ground their activities in such justifications. This necessitates revisiting the vision of the world’s foremost Shiite religious authority in Najaf, particularly the guidance of Grand Ali al-Sistani. His vision for Iraq emphasizes statehood, national unity, and a commitment to citizens. He firmly rejects turning Iraq into a battleground for regional and international conflicts. He calls for disarming militias and placing weapons under the control of the state, building a corruption-free government capable of meeting the aspirations of Iraqis, and empowering qualified individuals to lead these efforts.
But are these calls being heeded? I doubt it. The religious authority has previously lamented, “Our voice has grown hoarse.” Yet even so, has the authority lost hope? Have national forces abandoned their resolve, despite all that has transpired? Absolutely not. To do so would betray their moral, national, and human responsibilities.
Today, Iraq finds itself in a near-complete state of disconnection between the government and its citizens. This gap has been exacerbated by the unchecked proliferation of weapons and the domination of the state by non-state actors. The latter has held the former hostage, making it nearly impossible to distinguish between the two or to identify who holds authority. This puts the state and its institutions in a precarious position—not only before the international community and regional allies but, most critically, before its own people. The Iraqi people have grown deeply disillusioned with the political process, losing all hope in the ability of the state and its institutions to recover. This loss of hope has severe consequences.
So, how can we address this entrenched problem, which has now reached critical levels within the state and its institutions? Much like a patient whose illness worsens under psychological strain, states, systems, and peoples face similar pressures under the weight of transformative regional events. However, such crises often present opportunities for reassessment and reform—to protect what exists, safeguard achievements, and secure the future.
The solution lies in returning to the state and reaffirming its principles. This means reengaging with the state, aligning actions with its interests and priorities, and reviving it beyond the hollow slogans that so often fail in moments of truth. It requires addressing citizens’ most pressing needs, such as electricity, water, genuine employment opportunities (not exploitative ones), healthcare, and more. It also requires confronting the issue of uncontrolled weapons, with all parties committing clearly and collectively to the principle that the state alone holds the authority over major national decisions.
Returning to the state also means heeding the guidance of religious authorities, who derive their legitimacy from their moral responsibility to outline priorities that serve Iraq and its people. It requires reaffirming loyalty to the homeland and its borders, steering clear of cross-border conflicts that reduce lands and lives to mere statistics in broader struggles. It demands a renewed understanding of Iraq’s geographical position, a respect for the unique characteristics of others, and the pursuit of shared interests through bilateral, trilateral, or multilateral cooperation—not through polarization, bias, or militarization in favor of one side over another.
I am reminded of a statement by the late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri: “No one is greater than their country.” Indeed, no individual can surpass their homeland, no matter how powerful, capable, or supported they may be. We must return to our country, our Iraq, and our state, and work for its sake. Slogans do not build or protect a nation; only decisions, actions, and a clear vision can achieve that.
This appeal, though repeated, remains critical in the current moment. The reality of Bashar al-Assad’s regime serves as a stark and cautionary lesson that cannot be ignored. Have we forgotten the ideological battles of the last century—between “reactionaries” and “progressives”? What did those conflicts achieve for their people, and where do those states stand today?
