Why the Muslim world is not united behind Iran: Beyond religion in international politics

At moments of heightened tension involving Iran, a recurring question captures public attention: why do Muslim-majority countries not rally behind Tehran, despite a shared religious identity? The expectation of unity is understandable, particularly in a country like Bangladesh, where religion often shapes identity, solidarity, and political narratives. Yet the reality of international relations is far more complex.

The absence of a unified Muslim front behind Iran is not an anomaly; it is a predictable outcome of how states behave in a system driven primarily by power, security, and strategic interests.

To begin with, ideology, including religion, does matter in shaping state behaviour. Iran is not a conventional nation-state in purely secular terms. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, it has projected itself as a revolutionary Islamic republic with a mission that extends beyond its borders. Its leaders have consistently framed foreign policy through an ideological lens, emphasising resistance to external domination, opposition to Israel, and solidarity with what it defines as oppressed populations. This ideological orientation has had tangible consequences.

Iran has cultivated relationships with non-state actors and political movements across the Middle East, positioning itself as a champion of resistance. It has also used religious symbolism and rhetoric to strengthen its legitimacy both domestically and internationally. In this sense, ideology informs Iran’s worldview and shapes its strategic choices.

However, ideology alone cannot explain patterns of alliance and conflict. The modern international system is fundamentally organised around sovereign states, each pursuing its own survival and advantage. Even when states share cultural or religious ties, they do not necessarily share interests. One of the most significant dividing lines is the historical and political split between Sunni and Shia Islam. Iran, as the largest Shia-majority country, occupies a distinct position within the broader Muslim world.

Most other Muslim-majority states are predominantly Sunni, and over time, sectarian identity has become intertwined with geopolitical competition. While theological differences alone do not cause conflict, they often reinforce existing rivalries and shape perceptions of threat. For many Sunni-led governments, Iran’s regional ambitions are viewed with suspicion, not solidarity.

This dynamic is particularly evident in the long-standing rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Both states aspire to leadership roles in the Muslim world, but they represent different ideological visions and strategic priorities. Their competition extends across multiple arenas, from political influence in Iraq and Lebanon to proxy conflicts in Yemen and Syria. In such an environment, supporting Iran is not simply a matter of religious alignment; it is a strategic decision with far-reaching consequences.

Equally important is the nature of Iran’s political system and the message it sends to other governments. Iran’s revolutionary model explicitly challenges established political orders, particularly monarchies and authoritarian regimes. Its emphasis on popular mobilisation and resistance to external influence can be perceived as destabilising by neighboring states. Many governments in the region are therefore cautious, if not outright resistant, to aligning themselves with a system that could inspire domestic opposition or undermine their legitimacy.

Beyond regional rivalries and ideological concerns, the logic of national interest plays a decisive role. States make foreign policy decisions based on calculations of security, economic benefit, and international positioning. Many Muslim-majority countries maintain close ties with multiple global powers, including but not limited to the United States and European nations. These relationships often provide military protection, economic investment, and diplomatic support. Aligning too closely with Iran could jeopardise these benefits, particularly given Tehran's history of sanctions and international pressure.

Moreover, the Muslim world itself is extraordinarily diverse. It spans multiple continents, cultures, and political systems. Countries such as Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, and Morocco operate within very different domestic and international contexts. Their priorities range from economic development to regional stability to internal governance challenges. Expecting these states to adopt a unified foreign policy based solely on religious identity overlooks this diversity.

It is also worth noting that unity is not guaranteed even within individual countries. Iran itself is home to a wide spectrum of political opinions and social attitudes. Public sentiment toward foreign policy and conflict can vary significantly, reflecting economic pressures, generational differences, and differing visions of Iran’s role in the world. If consensus is difficult to achieve domestically, it is even more challenging at the international level.
Ultimately, the lack of unified support for Iran underscores a broader truth about global politics: religion may shape identities and narratives, but it does not override the fundamental drivers of state behaviour.

Power, security, and interest remain paramount. Countries act not as representatives of a single shared identity, but as independent actors navigating a complex and often competitive international system.
In this light, the question is not why Muslim countries fail to unite behind Iran, but why we expect them to do so in the first place. The answer reveals less about divisions within the Muslim world and more about the enduring realities of international politics, where shared beliefs coexist with competing interests, and where unity is the exception rather than the rule.

* Md. Al-Amin is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Barishal

* The views expressed her are the writers own