لحظة ادراك

Iran, the Arabs, and the Six Hats

After all the turmoil that has swept through the region, let us assume a neutral research organization decided to host a brainstorming session for a diverse group of Arab intellectual and political elites, encompassing various ideological orientations. The session's headline reads in bold: “The Implications of Iranian Intervention in the Arab Region and Its Crises.” Invitations were sent to participants, accompanied by the discussion topics outlined as follows:

• The origins of this intervention
• The reasons behind it
• How it has evolved
• The official Arab perspective on the intervention
• The public perspective on the intervention
• The consequences and outcomes of this intervention

The first challenge that the session organizers must anticipate is the objection of some participants to the use of the term intervention in both the title and discussion points, arguing that it reflects bias and a pre-judgment by the organizers. They might suggest that a more neutral term, such as relationship, should replace it, making the session’s title “Arab-Iranian Relations and Middle Eastern Crises”. Consequently, the discussion topics could be restructured as follows:

• The historical relations between Iran and the Arabs
• The significance of Arab-Iranian relations
• The official Arab stance on relations with Iran
• The public opinion on Arab-Iranian relations
• The positive and negative repercussions of this relationship
• Paths to improving Arab-Iranian relations

The session organizers would then face a dilemma between two valid options. They could either:

1. Insist on maintaining the original title and discussion points, arguing that the invitations were explicit, and participation signifies prior agreement. Therefore, objections raised during the session lose their validity.
2. Accept the objections as legitimate, ensuring the session continues in a spirit of teamwork and remains free from accusations of bias.

In such a scenario, a 15-minute recess would be necessary to allow the research team to deliberate and decide. After consultation, the team could resolve to retain the original printed materials out of respect for prior agreement while introducing an innovative adjustment to the discussion framework. Instead of six separate discussion points, they could unify them under a single topic and employ the Six Thinking Hats methodology. This creative approach resolves the dispute without undermining the rights of any party.

Roles corresponding to the six hats are assigned to the first six participants, with the new unified topic requiring a realistic analysis of “Iran and the Arabs: Between the Blessings and Curses of Geography.”

The Six Hats

• :White Hat
  The Persian Empire predates Arab-Islamic civilization by over a millennium, with modern Iran (established by the Pahlavi dynasty in 1501) preceding the formation of modern Arab states by centuries. Shared geography has historically sown seeds of perpetual conflict rather than mutual understanding. Even Islam could not bridge this divide, as sectarian differences (Sunni vs. Shia) became another source of tension. Future political normalization requires prior cultural rapprochement between Arabs and Iranians.
• :Yellow Hat
  Iran, as an Islamic state, could potentially be a significant asset to the Arab and Islamic world. Post-conflict dialogue between Iran and the Arab system is now an urgent priority. Evaluating the past with a spirit of coexistence, good neighborliness, and non-interference in internal affairs is essential. Such a dialogue must be grounded in goodwill and sincerity, which could provide a solid foundation for future cooperation.
• :Black Hat
  The governing ideology in Iran, established by Ayatollah Khomeini, prioritizes exporting the Iranian revolution under the pretext of liberating Jerusalem. Any overtures for dialogue with Arabs are tactical maneuvers serving the broader strategic goal of exporting the revolution. Past attempts at cooperation—such as economic support and tourism agreements with Jordan—masked ulterior motives, such as infiltrating neighboring states. Iran's current weakened state necessitates a low-key political discourse to regroup, but it will likely revert to undermining any agreements with the Arabs once its strength is restored.
• :Red Hat
  The Iranian regime has caused immense harm in the Arab world, toppling multiple capitals (Baghdad, Sanaa, Beirut, and Damascus) and leaving these nations as failed states. It bears primary responsibility for these outcomes. Gaza, for instance, has become uninhabitable due to Iran’s support for Hamas and incitement against the Palestinian Authority, culminating in catastrophic events like the "Al-Aqsa Flood" operation. Genuine Arab-Iranian rapprochement is impossible without profound changes within the Iranian regime and its ideological framework.
• :Green Hat
  Geography is an inescapable reality, and both sides have made mistakes in managing their relationship. Arab initiatives to engage Iran economically, culturally, and socially are essential to foster trust, break down barriers, and influence Iranian citizens toward change. The Arab world’s vast resources could enable it to adopt a strategy of containment, reversing the current dynamic.
• :Blue Hat
  Over nearly half a century, the Iranian regime has consistently prioritized exporting its revolution. This approach has embroiled Iran and its neighbors in conflicts, including the devastating Iran-Iraq war (1980–1988), in which Gulf states supported Iraq while other Arab nations remained neutral. Failing to directly influence the Arab region, Iran turned to sectarian alliances, capitalizing on the Arab Spring to advance its agenda. Yemen, for example, fell under the control of Iranian-backed Houthis, while other attempts, such as in Bahrain, were thwarted.

Conclusions and Insights

As the participants rotate through their respective roles, the themes remain consistent, albeit expressed in varied language. The session concludes with several key takeaways:

1. The core of Arab-Iranian crises since the 1979 Iranian Revolution lies in the ideological clash stemming from Iran’s revolutionary agenda. Unless one side fundamentally alters its identity, a resolution remains elusive in the near future.
2. Recent conflicts (e.g., Gaza, Lebanon, Syria) indicate a sharp decline in the strength of the so-called "Resistance Axis." However, neither side appears willing to reevaluate or modify its approach.
3. External actors—including the U.S., Russia, Turkey, and Israel—continue to play a significant role in this conflict. Unless Arab states establish clear boundaries for their national interests and align their domestic forces, their territories will remain arenas for external influence.
4. Iran’s geographic reality necessitates a minimum level of Arab engagement, ideally through economic and cultural initiatives that gradually build mutual trust.
5. Within Iranian society, there is significant dissent against the regime's policies, particularly regarding its Arab neighbors. Similarly, many Arabs disagree with their governments' handling of Iran. This mutual dissatisfaction underscores the need for grassroots Arab-Iranian dialogue through informal forums to foster understanding without threatening existing regimes.

The End.