Table of Contents
Introduction to Iran’s Regional Role
Iran is a central but indirect actor in the Israel Palestine conflict. It is not a party on the ground in Gaza or the West Bank, yet its alliances, ideology, and military capabilities shape the regional environment in which the conflict unfolds. To understand Iran’s role, it is important to see how its foreign policy, its rivalry with Israel, and its competition with Arab states intersect and feed into the broader regional power struggle.
Iran’s involvement is not static. It has evolved through the Cold War, the Islamic Revolution in 1979, wars with neighbors, and shifting alliances with global powers. Across these changes, one constant theme has been Iran’s effort to project influence through networks of allied groups and states, many of which are directly engaged in confrontations with Israel.
Historical Context of Iran’s Policy Toward Israel and Palestine
Before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran under the Shah recognized Israel and maintained discreet diplomatic and security ties. This was part of a broader alignment with the United States and Western powers and a shared concern about Arab nationalism. The Palestinian issue did not occupy a central place in Iran’s foreign policy.
The Islamic Revolution radically altered this posture. The new leadership framed the Islamic Republic as a champion of the oppressed, including Palestinians, and rejected Israel’s legitimacy. Official Iranian rhetoric began to present Israel as a colonial and unjust presence and to link support for the Palestinian cause with resistance to Western influence in the Middle East. From this point on, the Palestinian issue became intertwined with Iran’s ideological identity and its rivalry with both Israel and pro Western Arab regimes.
Over time, especially after the Iran Iraq War in the 1980s, Iran developed a strategy of supporting non state armed groups opposed to Israel. This approach allowed Iran to increase its influence in the Levant without sending its own regular forces into direct conflict.
Iran’s Strategic Objectives in the Levant
Iran’s relationship to the Israel Palestine conflict serves several strategic goals. One objective is deterrence. Iran sees Israel and the United States as major threats, especially in light of its own nuclear and missile programs. By supporting armed groups around Israel’s borders, Iran aims to build a network of allies that can respond if Iran is attacked.
A second objective is regional influence. By positioning itself as a consistent backer of the Palestinian cause, Iran seeks moral and political capital in the wider Muslim world and competes with rival states, particularly Saudi Arabia, for leadership on key regional issues. This competition is not only religious or ideological, between Shia led Iran and mostly Sunni led Arab governments. It is also geopolitical, over who sets the agenda in the Middle East.
A third objective is domestic legitimacy. The Iranian leadership uses its stance on Palestine and opposition to Israel to reinforce its revolutionary identity at home, mobilize public opinion, and present itself as part of a broader struggle against perceived injustice and foreign domination.
The “Axis of Resistance” and Proxy Networks
Iran’s activities are often described within the framework of the “Axis of Resistance.” This is not a formal alliance with treaties and institutions. Rather, it is a loose network of states and armed groups that share opposition to Israel and to a Western led regional order. Iran is the core state actor in this axis. Syria is a crucial state partner, while non state groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and various Palestinian factions form the armed network on the ground.
In practice, Iran supports these actors through funding, weapons transfers, training, and political backing. This support varies in depth and dependence. Hezbollah is widely seen as Iran’s closest and most capable proxy, with deep ideological and organizational ties to Tehran. Some Palestinian groups receive significant assistance, while others keep more distance and maintain multiple sources of support.
This network allows Iran to project power into areas directly surrounding Israel, without deploying its own conventional forces. It also provides Iran with leverage in crises. Escalations involving Hezbollah or Palestinian armed groups can send signals to Israel, the United States, and regional rivals about Iran’s ability to influence events.
Iran and Hezbollah: The Northern Front
Hezbollah is central to understanding Iran’s impact on the Israeli security environment. Founded in the early 1980s in Lebanon, Hezbollah emerged with Iranian support in the context of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and the Lebanese civil war. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, often abbreviated as IRGC, played a key role in training and organizing Hezbollah’s early fighters.
Over decades, cooperation between Iran and Hezbollah has grown stronger. Iran provides financial aid, military training, and technology, including rockets and missiles of increasing range and accuracy. In return, Hezbollah serves as both an ideological ally and a powerful military partner that can challenge Israel from Lebanon’s territory.
For Israel, Hezbollah is a major strategic concern. Hezbollah’s arsenal includes many tens of thousands of rockets aimed at Israeli cities and infrastructure. The presence of this “northern front” creates a constant risk that any conflict in Gaza or the West Bank might expand into a wider regional war. For Iran, Hezbollah is a key deterrent. Any potential strike on Iranian territory must take into account the likelihood of a Hezbollah response.
Iran’s support for Hezbollah also affects Lebanese politics. Hezbollah is both a political party and an armed movement. Its role in Lebanon gives Iran a voice inside a neighboring state while contributing to internal Lebanese tensions and international debates about sovereignty and armed non state actors.
Iran, Palestinian Factions, and Gaza
Iran’s relationships with Palestinian groups have been shaped by ideology, strategy, and changing regional conditions. Iran has supported various factions at different times, including groups within the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and elements of Hamas, among others. The level of alignment has fluctuated, especially when Palestinian groups have disagreed with Iran over the Syrian conflict or relations with Arab governments.
In Gaza, Iranian support has focused on enhancing the military capabilities of armed groups that confront Israel. This support may include funding, transfer of weapons components, training in tactics such as tunnel warfare and rocket production, and assistance in communication and surveillance technologies. Some of these transfers are direct, while others involve complex regional smuggling routes and intermediaries.
From Iran’s perspective, aiding armed actors in Gaza serves several purposes. It pressures Israel on its southern front, strengthens Iran’s “resistance” credentials, and creates additional complications for rival Arab states that may seek closer ties with Israel. For Israel, Iranian involvement in Gaza adds an external strategic layer to what might otherwise be a primarily local or bilateral confrontation.
At the same time, Palestinian politics are not fully controlled by Iran. Palestinian groups have their own agendas, internal rivalries, and local calculations. Their decisions do not always align with Iranian preferences. This limits Iran’s ability to dictate events, even when it is a major supporter.
Syria, Iran, and the Strategic Corridor
Syria is a crucial link in Iran’s regional strategy. Since the 1980s, Syria and Iran have maintained a close relationship. For Iran, friendly control of Syrian territory creates a land and air corridor from Iran through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon, often described as a “land bridge.” This route facilitates movement of weapons, supplies, and personnel to Hezbollah and, indirectly, to Palestinian factions.
During the Syrian civil war, Iran intervened to support the Syrian government, seeing its survival as vital to the continuity of the Axis of Resistance. Iranian forces and allied militias operated in Syria, and Israel carried out many airstrikes against targets related to Iranian supply lines and infrastructure, often with the stated aim of preventing advanced weapons from reaching Hezbollah.
The Syrian theater illustrates how the Israel Palestine conflict is embedded in broader regional confrontations. Israel’s military actions in Syria are primarily directed at Iranian assets and proxies. Iran’s activities there, in turn, seek to preserve its ability to support its allies near Israel’s borders. While Palestinians are not the main actors in Syria, the stability and orientation of the Syrian state have direct consequences for the strategic environment around Israel and the Palestinian territories.
Nuclear and Missile Programs and Their Regional Impact
Iran’s nuclear program and its development of ballistic missiles have a significant indirect impact on the Israel Palestine conflict by shaping the broader regional balance of power and the risk calculations of all actors.
Israeli leaders view the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapons capability as an existential threat. This has driven Israeli diplomacy and covert activity aimed at constraining Iran’s nuclear progress and at influencing international negotiations, such as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, often called the JCPOA. The prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon also affects how Israel thinks about its conventional military posture, including its willingness to engage in preemptive actions against Iranian linked groups in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza.
Iran, for its part, argues that its nuclear program is peaceful and that its missile capabilities are defensive. It regards Israel’s own military power and its close ties to the United States as reasons to maintain strong deterrent capacities. Whether or not Iran seeks nuclear weapons, the perception that it might do so fuels mistrust and adds pressure to an already tense region.
The interplay between Iran’s strategic programs and the Palestine question appears indirectly. For example, during periods of intense nuclear negotiations, Iran’s allies may adjust their actions relative to Israel, either to avoid undermining talks or to increase pressure on Western states. Conversely, escalations involving Gaza or the West Bank may influence the international climate around Iran’s nuclear file.
Rivalries with Gulf States and Competing Regional Visions
Iran’s involvement in the Israel Palestine conflict also needs to be seen in light of its rivalry with some Gulf Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. These states have their own interests in the conflict and their own responses to Iran’s activism.
For many years, Saudi Arabia and others presented support for Palestinians as a central part of their foreign policy, but they were also deeply skeptical of Iran’s revolutionary ideology and regional ambitions. They accused Iran of using the Palestinian cause for its own ends and of exacerbating sectarian divides. Iran, in turn, accused these states of abandoning the Palestinians when they sought closer security and economic ties with Western powers and with Israel.
Recent normalization agreements between Israel and some Arab states have intensified this rivalry over narratives. Iran portrays these agreements as betrayals of the Palestinian cause and points to its continued resistance line as proof of its commitment. Some Gulf leaders argue that engagement with Israel provides them with leverage to influence Israeli policies and to address security threats, including those they attribute to Iran itself.
These competing visions affect Palestinian politics in tangible ways. Different Palestinian factions may receive differing levels of support from Iran, Qatar, Turkey, or Gulf capitals. Alignments can shift, and Palestinians sometimes find themselves balancing between multiple regional patrons whose conflicts are only partly about Palestine itself.
Relations with Global Powers and Their Effects
Iran’s role in regional power politics is intertwined with its relations with the United States, Russia, China, and the European Union. These wider relationships shape Iran’s freedom of action and influence how other actors respond to its involvement in the Israel Palestine arena.
The United States identifies Iran as a key adversary in the Middle East and maintains extensive sanctions on its economy. Washington cooperates closely with Israel on monitoring and countering Iranian activities, both in relation to nuclear and missile programs and to support for armed groups. This alignment strengthens Israel’s position but also contributes to Iran’s sense of encirclement.
Russia has cooperated with Iran in Syria and maintains dialogue with both Israel and Iran. Russia’s presence complicates calculations for all parties, as Israeli military actions in Syria must account for Russian air defenses and political interests. Iran’s coordination with Russia can enhance its ability to sustain its regional network, yet it also ties some of Iran’s options to Moscow’s broader strategic aims.
China and the European Union engage Iran primarily around trade, energy, and the nuclear issue. Economic ties and negotiations, such as those connected to the JCPOA, influence Iran’s resources and its calculations about escalation. When sanctions are heavy and diplomacy is stalled, hardline voices within Iran may gain strength. This can strengthen the logic of confrontation and reduce incentives for restraint among Iran’s allies near Israel.
Risk of Regional Escalation and “Shadow Wars”
Iran’s involvement introduces a constant risk that local clashes in the Israel Palestine arena might escalate into a broader regional confrontation. This risk is sometimes described as a “shadow war,” where cyberattacks, covert operations, and limited strikes occur below the threshold of open war between states.
For instance, clashes between Israel and armed groups in Gaza can trigger exchanges of fire with Hezbollah on Israel’s northern border, or rocket attacks from other Iran linked groups in neighboring countries. Israeli strikes on Iranian or allied targets in Syria may lead to retaliatory actions elsewhere. Each side tries to calibrate its actions to avoid a full scale war while still signaling strength and resolve.
The presence of multiple actors with different chains of command increases the chance of miscalculation. Iran does not control every decision of its allies, and Israel does not control every response of its partners. An unexpected incident, such as a missile causing mass casualties or a misinterpreted move, can quickly change the political pressure on leaders and narrow the space for de escalation.
Debates About Iran’s Role and Its Future Trajectory
Within the region and internationally, there are sharp debates about Iran’s role in the Israel Palestine conflict. Some argue that Iranian support helps Palestinians resist a much stronger opponent and keeps the Palestinian issue on the global agenda. Others emphasize that this support contributes to cycles of violence, strengthens hardline actors, and reduces prospects for negotiated solutions.
There are also discussions within Palestinian and Arab political circles about the costs and benefits of close alignment with Iran. Some groups appreciate the concrete military and financial backing that Iran provides. Others worry that being seen as part of an Iranian led axis may alienate potential supporters or deepen sectarian and geopolitical divides.
Future scenarios depend on many variables. Changes in Iran’s domestic politics, progress or breakdown in nuclear negotiations, shifts in regional alignments, and developments within Israel and Palestine themselves will all influence Iran’s calculations. However those factors evolve, Iran is likely to remain a significant indirect player in the conflict, because its core strategic interests and identity narratives are tied to the broader struggle over the region’s political order and the fate of Palestine.