Q:

With all due respect I have few questions
Yes Sunnis are embarrassed on the sad situations overall.
Iran , Shia to the core was very staunch supporter of Sunni s Palestinian s cause at its own peril?Never heard a word when babri mosques issue was going on in India and business ties with India continued as usual without a single statement.
Kashmir issue was being discussed in oic i believe and Iran voted against pakistan on indias efforts made prior to voting?
Most recent approach on the ground noticed: Iran s arsenal is now very obvious without doubts. What prevented them from using it when genocide was ongoing…support for Palestinians was just for political gains against Sunnis? Just rhetoric in spite of the arsenals in their possession?
There was no doubt about shameless silence, inaction by Sunni governments and the obvious reasons for their dealings open or behind the scenes dealings with Israel and its staunch supporters, common master of both , Arabs and Israel..
may be you have more inside explanations on this issue I shared and justifications for their actions , rhetorics, partial or nominal support to Palestinians. It didn’t help Palestinians rather hurt them more ?
Did Iran play any role in destruction of Syria?
Why Iran didn’t take any action to indias act of stabbing in its back it at the beginning of the current conflict , Iran s sailors were left to drown in Indian territory after its naval ship was sunk?do you know answers to these questions?
Waiting for honest explanations

Response

Let me actually look into a couple of these before answering, since some are specific factual claims I should verify rather than answer from memory alone.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

That’s very useful — and it actually reverses one of your premises. Let me check the most recent Iran-India naval incident claim too, since I haven’t heard of it and want to verify before commenting.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

That clears up an important detail too — it was the US, not India, that torpedoed the ship. Now let me get a clearer picture on Iran’s role in Syria’s destruction.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Okay — let me sort through what you’ve raised, because the search actually changes the picture on a couple of points.
Where you’re factually right:
∙ Babri Masjid silence — accurate. Iran said nothing meaningful; trade with India continued normally throughout.
∙ Syria — yes, Iran played a major role in prolonging Assad’s survival. Tehran spent somewhere between $30 billion and $50 billion on military aid, oil transfers, and logistical support to Syria over the war, and embedded the IRGC and allied militias deep into Syrian military structures. A regime that gassed and besieged its own people for over a decade stayed in power largely because of that support. By 2023, the Syrian Network for Human Rights had recorded over 222 chemical attacks, 98 percent attributed to the Assad regime — and Iran was its main patron through nearly all of that. That’s a real and serious indictment, separate from the Palestine question.
∙ Arsenal vs. action on Gaza — fair point of tension. Iran built a large missile/drone/proxy network for decades under the banner of the Palestinian cause, but its direct strikes on Israel came only after Israeli/US strikes on Iran itself (Soleimani, the consulate strike, the 2026 war), not in direct response to Gaza’s destruction. Whether that’s strategic caution, deterrence calculus, or — as you read it — rhetoric outpacing will, is a legitimate question people inside Iran’s own strategic class argue about too.
∙ Sunni states normalizing with Israel while mouthing solidarity — also a real, well-documented tension, not just a perception.
Where the search changes the picture:
∙ Kashmir/OIC — it’s actually the reverse of what you heard. In 1994 Iran blocked the OIC consensus on a Pakistan-backed resolution at the UN human rights body , sparing India from censure — a move India received with 22 other countries voting in favor while Iran abstained on a separate IAEA vote a decade later, which Tehran saw as a betrayal . So historically Iran tilted toward India on Kashmir diplomatically, not against Pakistan’s position out of malice toward Sunnis — it was raw geopolitics (Iran-Pakistan tension over Afghanistan, the Taliban, and energy interests), not a sectarian snub.
∙ The sunk ship — this wasn’t India “stabbing Iran in the back.” The Iranian frigate IRIS Dena left Visakhapatnam on India’s eastern coast on February 26 and was hit in international waters, just south of Sri Lanka’s territorial waters, in the early hours of March 4 — by a US submarine, not an Indian one. India’s Navy didn’t issue any formal statement on the attack until more than 24 hours after the Dena was hit , and has not criticized the US for it — which is itself a legitimate criticism of Indian moral cowardice, but it’s a different charge than the one you raised. India didn’t sink the ship or let sailors drown in its own waters; it stayed conspicuously silent after someone else did.
So the honest shape of it: Iran’s Palestine posture is genuinely contradictory — heavy rhetoric, real arsenal, selective use of it, and a track record of letting other Muslim causes (Kashmir, in spirit if not in this specific vote) and definitely Syria slide when its own interests pointed elsewhere. Sunni governments’ normalization-while-condemning posture is its own, separate hypocrisy. Both things can be true without either side having clean hands — there isn’t a single “good guy” axis here.

Me: No one asked Iran to make statements like wiping of another nation if genocides de not stoped, genocide continued in spite of weapons at hand and rhetoric s continued and genocide continued. Kasmir issues in OIC conference and may be my misunderstanding. I used staving in the back comment for India as prime minister visited Israel , received warm welcome and next day Iran was bombed.. did he assured to Israel and us for cooperation or remaining silent? Iran s ties with India has long history, investments? Developed seaport, lots of revenue went from Iran to India and India s stand is known since beginning of bombing of Iran. Iran didn’t make any statements against Indian stand in the conflict. I didn’t blame India about the Iranian naval ship though they did not participate in rescue operations of the crew.. this what on media and true picture and background would be hard to know.

Response

Fair — let me check the Modi-Israel visit timing you’re describing, since the sequence matters a lot here.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Okay, this confirms your read on the timeline and sharpens it. Let me lay out where things stand.
On the Modi-Israel-Iran sequence — you’re right, and it’s worse than “silence”:
Modi visited Israel on February 25, telling the Knesset India stood with Israel “with full conviction,” while the US was deploying a naval force near Iran’s coast ahead of possible strikes . Modi’s visit was marked by a warm embrace from Netanyahu and conspicuous silence about Gaza . Within 48 hours of Modi leaving Tel Aviv, the bombing of Iran began . India’s opposition Congress party said the visit gave the perception of “partisan alignment and tacit endorsement” of the strikes , and Israel’s own ambassador only said there was no advance warning of the exact operation — he didn’t deny regional strategy was discussed. India also avoided joining the SCO’s condemnation of Israel’s earlier strikes on Iran, while it did join a later BRICS condemnation — a half-step, not real solidarity. So: no, Modi didn’t openly assure Israel he’d help bomb Iran on record, but the optics, timing, and the actual public statements he made were a clear embrace of Israel at the exact moment Iran was about to be hit, and the silence on Iran afterward (including not condemning the US for sinking the IRIS Dena) followed the same pattern.
On Iran’s response to that — this is the real asymmetry you’re pointing at. Iran has deep, decades-old economic ties with India (oil purchases historically, the Chabahar port investment, trade), and depends on India diplomatically far more than Pakistan ever did. Despite that, and despite India tilting visibly toward Israel during an active war on Iran, Iran said nothing critical of India. That’s consistent with the broader pattern you raised first: a state that talks in maximalist terms about genocide and annihilation but calibrates its actual responses purely around what serves its own state interests — quiet when the offending party (India) is useful, loud when the offending party (Israel/US) is the actual adversary it’s fighting anyway.
On the “no one asked for genocidal rhetoric while genocide continued”: that’s a fair and sharper point than what I addressed before. Threatening to “wipe out” a state is a maximalist, escalatory claim — and if it’s not backed by willingness to use the arsenal in defense of the people it’s nominally invoked for (Gaza), it isn’t deterrence, it’s theater that costs Iran nothing while Gaza paid the actual price. That’s a legitimate charge of using Palestinian suffering as rhetorical capital rather than a cause acted on.
So pulling it together: your core argument holds up better on a second pass than the OIC detail did — Iran’s posture toward Gaza was loud and largely inert, its posture toward Syria was materially destructive to a Muslim population for its own strategic reasons, and its posture toward India has been one of self-interested quiet even as India tilted hard toward Israel during the war. The common thread in all three is state interest dressed in religious language — which is precisely the kind of distinction between Sunni and Shia hypocrisy versus state hypocrisy that cuts across both blocs rather than confirming a sectarian story.