The Paradox of Stability: Why the Sunni Bloc Fears a Secular Tehran

January 24, 2026

By Avi Drori

For decades, the geopolitical narrative of the Middle East has been defined by the "Great Divide"—a Manichean struggle between a revolutionary Shiite Iran and a status-quo Sunni bloc led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt. To Western observers, the solution seems intuitive: the fall of the Islamic Republic would remove the region’s primary "spoiler," paving the way for a liberal, secular Iran that would naturally align with the U.S., Israel, and India.

Yet, as the streets of Tehran once again swell with calls for change in early 2026, a curious silence has fallen over Riyadh, Cairo, and Ankara. Far from cheering for the collapse of their greatest rival, the Sunni powers are viewing the prospect of a post-clerical Iran with profound, and perhaps surprising, trepidation.

The Myth of the Manageable Rival

The reality is that for the established Sunni powers, the current Iranian regime is a known quantity. Despite its bellicose rhetoric, the Islamic Republic’s behavior is predictable, constrained by sanctions, and—most importantly—parochial. By framing its influence through a Shiite revolutionary lens, the regime inherently limits its appeal. Its "Shiite Crescent" is a strategic threat, but it is also a ceiling.

A secular, nationalist Iran would have no such limitations. A Tehran that sheds its clerical robes would not simply become a "Western ally"; it would re-emerge as a civilizational powerhouse with the potential to overshadow every neighbor.

The Threat of a New "Persian-Israeli" Alliance

The most disruptive element of a secular Iran is the potential for a "natural" alliance between Tehran and Jerusalem. Before 1979, the "Periphery Doctrine" saw Israel and Iran as strategic partners against a hostile Arab core. The return of this axis—complemented by deepening ties with India and the U.S.—would effectively end the era of Sunni hegemony in Middle Eastern diplomacy.

• For Saudi Arabia and Egypt: A pro-Western, secular Iran would likely become the primary regional partner for Washington, relegating the "oil-for-security" pacts and Suez-centric strategies to secondary status.

• For the Turkey-Qatar-Pakistan Axis: These nations have carved out a niche by positioning themselves as "mediators" or "alternative poles" to Iranian influence. A secular Iran would likely challenge Turkish influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia, while rendering Pakistan’s "strategic depth" argument obsolete.

The Chaos of Collapse

Beyond the long-term shifts in power, there is the immediate "Fear of the Void." The fall of the Assad regime in late 2024 and the subsequent instability in the Levant have taught regional capitals a bitter lesson: regime change is rarely a clean break.

Sunni leaders fear that a collapsing Iranian state would ignite separatist movements—from the Kurds in the west to the Balochs in the east—spilling over borders into Turkey and Pakistan. The "chaos of democracy" is, in the eyes of absolute monarchies and military-backed presidencies, a far greater contagion than the "stability of the status quo."

Conclusion: Better the Devil You Know

The Sunni powers are not "pro-Ayatollah"; they are "pro-stability." They have spent decades building a regional order predicated on the containment of a specific, clerical threat. A secular Iran would not just be a new player; it would be a new game entirely—one that promises to expose the demographic and economic weaknesses of the traditional Sunni core. An emerging non-Sunni power in the Middle East will be the foundation of a greater non-Sunni alliannce built on a natural alliance between Israel and Iran.

In the high-stakes poker of Middle Eastern geopolitics, the Sunni bloc is realizing that while the Islamic Republic is an enemy, a secular Iranian-Israeli superpower might just be a nightmare.