Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s emphasis on Iran’s non-involvement in the current escalation between Israel and Palestinian factions can be understood in the context of several key factors. Foremost among these considerations is the desire to prevent a strong Israeli response, maintain open communication channels with the United States, avoid providing an opportunity for former President Donald Trump and the Republican Party, and manage American hostility toward Iran and its allies.

Despite Iranian officials, especially military figures, expressing support for “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm” conducted by Hamas on October 7th and reaffirming Iran’s ongoing backing for what it terms the “Axis of Resistance,” it’s noteworthy that at the same time, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei affirmed that Iran was not involved in the recent operation. This appears to be an effort to echo the repeated American denial of Iran’s role in the attack, particularly after American media outlets, such as the Wall Street Journal, reported on meetings between the leaders of the Revolutionary Guard and Hamas just days before the attack. On October 10th, Khamenei stated that “what happened was an action taken by the Palestinians, and anyone who says otherwise is mistaken and disregarding the Palestinian people.”

Numerous Considerations

Several considerations can explain Khamenei’s keenness to deny Iran’s involvement in the military operation carried out by Hamas against Israel, including the following key points:

1. Avoiding Israeli Retaliation Toward Tehran: Iran, along with other nations, believes that the execution of this military operation has exposed a significant security vulnerability within Israel. However, there’s also a concern that it could provoke a more aggressive response from the Israeli government, not only in dealing with Hamas and Palestinian factions but also their perceived “supporters,” specifically Iran. Iran is not ruling out the possibility that Israel may attempt to respond to this operation, thereby increasing the costs for the parties responsible for it. This response may go beyond targeting the military capabilities of the Hamas movement, as threatened by the Israeli government, and extend to intensified attacks on Iran’s affiliated sites and Shia militias in Syria. Additionally, Israel might resume intelligence operations within Iran, with a focus on more significant and impactful targets in the near future. Recent operations of this nature had focused on targeting nuclear and military facilities, as well as some nuclear scientists and military leaders.

2. Analyzing American Counteractions towards Iran: The United States has consistently showcased its military capabilities as a means to “deter Iran,” especially during periods of tension between the two parties. This has involved deploying military assets to the Arabian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. However, the recent American counteraction, triggered by a military operation conducted by Hamas against Israel, appeared distinct to Iran when compared to previous American demonstrations of power. This distinction can be attributed to two key factors:

Firstly, the proximity of certain American military assets to the region, notably in the Eastern Mediterranean, alongside the presence of the aircraft carrier “Gerald Ford,” suggested that Washington was not just contemplating an escalation of the ongoing military situation but also considering its direct involvement in the conflict, potentially extending to other regions and countries like Lebanon.

Secondly, the supportive rhetoric employed by U.S. President Joe Biden towards Israel in the post-military operation phase remained steadfast, despite any differences between the Biden administration and the Israeli government led by Netanyahu. President Biden reiterated the unwavering support of the United States for Israel and provided substantial military aid, all while likening Hamas to the organization “ISIS.”

Within this context, Iran assessed that engaging in a political escalation with the United States at this juncture did not align with its interests and strategic calculations. This was especially the case because such an escalation might provide an opportunity for anti-Iranian forces to intensify their campaign against Iran within the United States. Consequently, this could prompt the U.S. administration itself to adopt a more hardline approach, particularly given the upcoming U.S. presidential elections scheduled for November 2024. President Biden’s need for increased support from American Jews to boost his chances of reelection further factored into these considerations.

3. Impact of Regional Tensions on U.S. Presidential Elections: Tehran perceives that escalating regional tensions, even if Iran’s involvement is indirect, could increase the chances of former U.S. President Donald Trump in the upcoming presidential elections. This scenario holds true if he manages to reach that stage or if any other Republican candidate adopts a more hardline policy towards Iran.

While Iran consistently asserts that it is not concerned about the identity of the White House occupant, as all presidents generally adhere to broad U.S. foreign policy principles, with differences primarily in the execution of that policy, there remains a deep-seated concern that Trump’s return or the rise of any Republican candidate could lead to a renewed escalation of tension and confrontation between Tehran and Washington. Such a situation might even reach the point of direct confrontation, reminiscent of the events of January 3, 2020, when the administration of President Donald Trump authorized the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the former commander of the Quds Force within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, along with the deputy secretary-general of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces. Furthermore, they issued threats to target Iranian “cultural centers,” which hold significant strategic and historical importance for Iran due to various considerations.

4. Implications of Iran’s Involvement on Agreements and Relations: Iran’s direct involvement in the current confrontation would jeopardize existing agreements and disrupt communications with the United States. These agreements played a pivotal role in facilitating the prisoner exchange deal executed on September 18th. This exchange resulted in Iran receiving $6 billion of its frozen funds from South Korea, while U.S. authorities released five Iranians who were accused of violating U.S. sanctions against Iran. In return, Iranian authorities released five Americans who were held in their custody.

Furthermore, these agreements also contributed to the reduction in attacks on U.S. forces in both Iraq and Syria over the past few months. Iran had been using these attacks to apply pressure on the United States and strengthen its position in the negotiations surrounding the nuclear deal with the United States.

Without a doubt, if Iran’s involvement in this operation is confirmed, it would encourage the faction opposed to further dealings with the United States to intensify efforts to press President Biden’s administration to reconsider its current policy. This could lead to a shift toward increasing pressure on Iran in cooperation with European countries. These nations have chosen to maintain sanctions related to Iranian ballistic missile activities and drone operations even after the lifting of UN sanctions on Iranian activities linked to its ballistic missile program.

Dual Policy

In conclusion, Iran appears to be pursuing a dual policy when it comes to the ongoing developments in the Palestinian territories. On one hand, it allows for the dissemination of messages implying that it closely follows the escalation between Israel and Palestinian factions. On the other hand, it seeks to affirm that it is not directly involved in this escalation. This implies that Iran continues to employ a strategy of managing the escalation with its adversaries through its allies.