Gaza War and Iran’s Middle East Playbook

Since the October 7 incident, Iran has intermittently engaged in the Israel-Palestine conflict. This involvement seems motivated by its genuine support for Palestinians. However, some national interests also play a role. These interests include regional influence, anti-Israel and anti-US policies, as well as opposing IMEC (India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor). These actions align with Iran’s Middle East playbook, which blends ideological support with realpolitik objectives.

Iranian Involvement in Gaza War

Iran’s involvement operates on two distinct levels: 

• Ideological support for the Palestinian cause, rooted in the revolutionary Shiite values of 1979
• Realpolitik objectives focused on securing influence in the region. 

Iran’s Middle East playbook involves supporting groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, reflecting this dual motivation. In most cases, especially those involving Hezbollah and Syria, the driving force is national interest, particularly securing regional influence and maintaining a strategic foothold.

Iran’s direct actions linked to Palestine include support for Hamas and retaliatory missile strikes on Israel. These actions appear to stem from two factors. One is ideological solidarity with the Palestinian cause. The other is broader anti-Israel policies.

The opposition to Israel enshrined in Iran’s constitution after the 1979 revolution continues to shape its foreign policy, combining ideology with strategic objectives. 

It is important to note that Iran also engages in non-kinetic forms of warfare. These include cyberattacks and threats of preemptive action. Such actions signal its strategic patience and calculated resistance. Iran is aware that Israel and the United States repeatedly try to provoke it. Their goal is to force Iran into making a mistake that would justify further sanctions, destruction of its nuclear program, or even direct invasion.

Despite the occasional missile strikes or direct confrontations, Iran has strategically managed its proxies, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. It uses these groups as tools to exert influence. This approach allows Iran to avoid exposing itself to full-scale conflict.

While Hamas may act more aggressively than Iran prefers, such as the October 7 attack, Iran continues to provide them with military and political backing, aligning with both its ideological and geopolitical objectives.

Also See: October 7th Hamas Attack on Israel – Just or Unjust War?

Iran’s Proxy Warfare vs. Palestinian Interests

Realistically, there is nothing wrong with pursuing national interests, but Iran needs to be careful as Palestinians may have to pay the cost if any experiment goes wrong. The delicate balance between hard power (proxy warfare) and soft power (diplomacy and political support) is key to Iran’s approach. Iran has been prudent in the past, but it must remain cautious as it is the only Islamic country openly resisting Israel militarily and diplomatically.

Though Qatar and Turkey also play roles in the conflict, the two countries have a rather calculated and guided stance. Their approach focuses more on soft power and diplomacy, hosting Hamas leaders (in Qatar’s case) and providing financial and political support to the Palestinian cause. 

Qatar, while hosting Hamas leaders, provides financial and diplomatic support to Palestinian factions like Hamas and Al-Quds, balancing between its relationships with the West and its backing for Islamist groups. Similarly, Turkey under President Erdogan has supported Palestinian groups diplomatically, emphasizing solidarity with Jerusalem (Al-Quds). 

In contrast, Iran’s more aggressive stance—via Hezbollah and Hamas—sets it apart as the main regional actor challenging Israel militarily.

How Iran’s Actions Affect Palestinian Interests

Future risks include potential overreach by Iranian proxies, which could backfire and drag Palestinians into conflicts with disproportionate consequences. Iran must be careful not to let its proxy strategies result in unintended escalation, as Israel’s superior military power and U.S. backing present significant risks. The possibility of Israel provoking Iran through cyberattacks or targeted strikes, such as those on Iranian officers in Syria, continues to add to the tension.

While Iran’s ideological commitment to Palestine remains genuine, its role in the conflict is also about realpolitik: ensuring that its interests in Lebanon, Syria, and beyond are protected. It also sees the conflict as part of a broader anti-Western strategy, opposing projects like IMEC, which Iran perceives as threatening its trade and energy security. Thus, its actions are a blend of both ideology and pragmatism.

In conclusion, Iran’s cautious approach reflects its broader strategy to counter Israel and U.S. influence. Although it is heavily involved in proxy conflicts and non-kinetic actions like cyber warfare, Iran seeks to avoid direct large-scale confrontation. The challenge for Iran lies in balancing its ideological solidarity with Palestine and its geopolitical objectives. It must ensure that it doesn’t overextend and expose itself to retaliation.

SAT Commentaries’ are social media threads by various authors, reproduced here for website use. Views are their own.

SAT Commentary

SAT Commentaries, a collection of insightful social media threads on current events and social issues, featuring diverse perspectives from various authors.

Related posts:

Cyber Warfare: 21st Century’s Primary Battlefield? Afghanistan: The Four-Pronged Saga

Pakistan-Iran Crisis: Check or Checkmate?