Speculation about Iran’s involvement in Hamas’s vicious attack on Israel has been rife over the past week – along with questions about whether the Islamic Republic or one of its regional proxies will become involved in the war between Israel and Hamas.
Iran denied involvement in planning the attack, but the country’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei praised the massacre in a televised address on Tuesday. “We kiss the hands of those who planned the attack on the Zionist regime,” Khamenei said. “The Zionist regime’s own actions are responsible for this catastrophe.” Hamas, for its part, has claimed sole responsibility for the October 7 attack, in which militants killed an estimated 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians, injured over 3,000 and took up to 150 hostages took.
Although Iran and Israel have been in conflict since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, there has never been a real war between the two. However, Iran supports proxies in the region, including Hezbollah. the Shiite militant group in southern Lebanon, which could decide to join the conflict, although it is not yet clear whether the group has taken concrete steps in this direction. (Rockets were fired from southern Lebanon into what is now northern Israel this week, although it is not clear at this time whether they were fired by Hezbollah or another group.)
Iran provides Hamas with material support as well as training and money, experts told Vox, as does Hezbollah. Proxy groups – armed groups affiliated with a state actor — such as the Fatemiyoun Brigade in Syria and the Badr Organization in Iraq, as well as the Houthis in Yemen, are more likely to work with the Iranian regime, but it would be wrong to automatically blame Saturday’s attack on the regime on its doorstep.
“Hamas has a pretty complex relationship [with Iran]” Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, told Vox. “It is a Sunni group, not a Shiite group like most of the groups that Iran supports, but it also has a history of breaking with Iran,” particularly because of Iran’s support for the Assad regime at the outbreak of the Syrian civil war Year 2011.
Although groups like the Houthis in Yemen sometimes directly contradict the policies and desires of their benefactor, no other non-state actor has seen such a significant political and ideological divide as between Hamas and Iran, Vaez said.
In addition to supplying Israel with ammunition and other materiel, the United States has deployed an aircraft carrier strike group in the eastern Mediterranean as a deterrent to deter Iran from engaging through one of its proxy groups, U.S. officials said.
Although it is unlikely that Iran will launch its own specific, direct attacks against Israel, the possibility of a regional conflagration is real. But assessing the likelihood, especially given that Iran has a lot to lose if it actually gets involved, is another question entirely.
Iran vs. Israel: a story
Israel and Iran once had close economic and strategic ties; Iran imported Israeli weapons and Israel purchased Iranian oil before the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Both countries also had close ties with the United States and considered the fight against the Soviet Union and the spread of communism as part of their foreign policy, according to the US Institute for Peace.
But the 1979 revolution produced a hardline Shiite government that saw Israel as a usurper on Muslim lands – and saw the United States as an enabler.
“In this worldview, Israel was seen as a Western colonial outpost and Zionism as a version of imperialism,” wrote Shireen Hunter, an independent scholar and honorary fellow at Georgetown University’s Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, in an article for the Stimson Center March. “Many Arab governments at the time also rejected Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, and radicals who opposed Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel formed a so-called rejection front.”
Meanwhile, groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories also formed, partly against Israel, but also in relation to local constituencies. Hezbollah, for example, was created in response to a number of pressures in Lebanon, not the least of which was the Israeli invasions in 1978 and 1982 that sought to eliminate Palestinian militant groups in the region. This also happened in the context of a brutal, 15-year sectarian civil war in Lebanon.
In addition to carrying out terrorist attacks against U.S. and Israeli targets in Lebanon, the group also provided some basic needs and support to people living in poor Shiite areas south of Beirut. This number increased under the leadership of Hassan Nasrallah, whose investments in social services for this constituency increased Hezbollah’s popularity. In addition to its militant and terrorist activities, Hezbollah is represented in the Lebanese parliament, although its political support has declined in recent elections.
Iran has provided funding and training to Hezbollah since the group’s early days, and the connection between the two has been well documented as the Islamic Republic has made attempts to expand its influence throughout the Middle East.
The connection between Iran and Hamas is less clear; Although both the Islamic Republic and Hezbollah provide Hamas with funding, training, and weapons, Iran does not direct its actions nor does Hamas necessarily coordinate its plans with Iran.
“Iran’s relations with other groups really fit on a spectrum,” Vaez said. “On one side of the spectrum is Hezbollah, because Iran’s relationship with Hezbollah is really like the relationship between two NATO allies.” Hezbollah only has Iran as a state backer, while Hamas has relationships with militant groups in Iraq and Syria to other nations.
In fact, Hamas has a looser relationship with Iran, although many experts agree that the group has benefited from Iranian funding, training and other support. However, there is no clear reason to believe that Hamas coordinated with Iran in this particular attack, especially given the high penetration of the Israeli security service in the Iranian regime. Direct coordination with Iran could have seriously jeopardized Hamas’ plans for its Oct. 7 attack, Vaez said.
Would Iran intervene directly in the conflict?
Probably not. There is a lot to lose – including access to $6 billion in assets that the US and Qatar have already restricted pending an investigation into Iran’s role in Hamas’ capabilities and attack on Israel, the New reported York Times on Thursday.
“There is the Iran question: Is Iran participating directly?” Raphael Cohen, director of the RAND Corporation’s Project Air Force strategy and doctrine program, said during a panel discussion Tuesday. “On the scale of ‘likely’ to ‘less likely,’ this is probably one of the less likely scenarios. “But if Israel feels the need to attack Iran directly or vice versa, it would have broader implications for a regional war that could affect not only Israel, but also many Arab states, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia.”
Vaez said that in recent years Israel has been on the offensive in Iran, not the other way around.
“Israel and Iran have long been waging a multidimensional cold war against each other,” Vaez said. “If you look at the covert operations that Israel has conducted against Iran in recent years – and the overt operations it has conducted against Iranian personnel and assets in Syria – that is really not the case [been] “This is a real juxtaposition” as Israel carries out cyberattacks against Iranian infrastructure, such as the massive Stuxnet attack on Iran’s Natanz nuclear enrichment facility and targeted assassinations of military commanders and nuclear scientists.
Iran has also been on a significant path of de-escalation with the US and other countries, most recently agreeing to a prisoner swap in September that released several US citizens imprisoned in Iran in return for the freedom of five Iranians and access to assets worth $6 billion humanitarian effort.
Regional actors such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have also made progress in easing tensions with Iran and charting a path to address their various conflicts; Risking this to attack Israel directly seems unlikely.
Hezbollah could certainly intervene directly; Hezbollah and Israel fought a war in southern Lebanon in 2006, which ended with Israel withdrawing and sending United Nations peacekeepers to southern Lebanon.
“Hezbollah will make its decisions and has made its decisions in the past whether there is an American aircraft carrier there or not,” Joel Rubin, a former assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in the Obama administration, told Vox. “So you have the US providing you with support and backing – and hopefully enough power to make those who have influence over Hezbollah say ‘stand down’.”
Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, Iran’s foreign minister, met with senior Hezbollah leaders and Lebanese officials in Beirut this week, Portal reports. “The continuation of war crimes against Palestine and Gaza will provoke a reaction from the rest of the Axis,” Amir-Abdollahian said Thursday, likely referring to Iran, Hezbollah, militant groups in Iraq and Syria, and Palestinian armed groups. “And of course the Zionist entity and its supporters will be responsible for the consequences of this.”
But what exactly that means in the context of both the war and de-escalation efforts between Iran and its adversaries is unclear.
The most likely scenario, Vaez said, is that groups that Iran supports ideologically but with which it has loose ties, such as Palestinian armed groups or groups in Syria and Iraq, could exploit the conflict to attack either Israeli or U.S. positions in Syria and attack in Iraq.
Since March, there have been no attacks on US forces in Syria or Iraq under US-Iran de-escalation agreements, but when those agreements fail – because the US decides to permanently freeze the $6 billion held in Qatar, for example – This could be reason enough for Iran to encourage smaller allied groups to attack US positions.
Most news organizations make money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to accomplish at Vox, there are several reasons why we can’t rely solely on ads and subscriptions to keep us running.
First, advertising spending rises and falls with the economy. We often only know in a few months what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it difficult to plan ahead.
Second, we are not in the subscription business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world – not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe this is an important part of building a more equal society. We can’t do that if we have a paywall.
That’s why we’re also turning to you, our readers, to help us keep Vox free. If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted, high-quality information, would you give Vox a gift today?
Yes, I give $5/month
Yes, I give $5/month
We accept credit cards, Apple Pay and Google Pay. You can also contribute via
