Gaza’s Post-War Order: What Iran Stands to Lose

This fall, as world leaders convened in Sharm El Sheikh to discuss the future of Gaza, Iran distanced itself from the global peace process. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian was noticeably absent from the high-profile summit, where American President Donald Trump and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi urged international leaders to endorse the U.S.-backed Gaza Peace Plan, which Israel and Hamas had signed just days before. The plan lays out terms for de-escalation, disarmament, military withdrawal, exchanges of hostages and prisoners, humanitarian aid, and the rebuilding of Gaza under a temporary transitional governance team of apolitical Palestinian technocrats. But for Tehran, the subsequent meeting and provisions only underscored how quickly it risks being sidelined in a region where its rivals are increasingly setting the agenda.

Despite receiving an official invitation, Tehran opted not to attend. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that the Islamic Republic would “not engage with counterparts who have attacked the Iranian people and continue to threaten and sanction” the country. While the regime’s hardliners celebrated the decision, reformists criticized the move as a wasted opportunity and a symbol of the country’s isolation.

Losing Control of the Agenda

Iran’s hesitation to fully back the peace process likely reflects Hamas’ failure to achieve any of its major goals since agreeing to pause hostilities. When the first phase of the ceasefire came into effect on October 10, both Iran and Hamas laid out conditions for the ceasefire’s success, including the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and other occupied Arab lands—implicitly challenging Israeli control over the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Iran also stipulated that talks leading to a future unified governance over Palestine including Hamas should begin. Not only have these demands gone unanswered, but Israel has largely used the ceasefire to consolidate its control over large swaths of the Gaza Strip.

Hamas’ representatives have long insisted that Gaza’s long-term stability depends on sustained Arab and Muslim support, implying that non-Arab countries of the Middle East, including Iran and Turkey, should play a role. This demand directly counters President Trump’s efforts to secure Arab support for the peace deal by granting the Arab states influence in post-war Gaza. In Tehran, Hamas’ envoy Khaled Ghudoumi lashed out at Arab states, calling on them to leverage their economic influence to pressure Washington and produce better results for the Palestinians. If they failed to bring about a just peace, Ghudoumi claimed that Hamas could move to recruit fighters to its cause from these Arab states—an implicit threat to their internal stability.

Washington’s quest to create a new Palestinian governing authority—one that could work with Israel and maintain legitimacy among the Palestinians without a commitment to statehood—forced Hamas to introduce additional conditions to shore up its power. These conditions included a demand for a Palestinian consensus before transferring administration of Gaza to a committee of technocrats. Hamas also rejected any effort to disarm, despite an October 23 meeting of Palestinian factions in Cairo that urged it to surrender its weapons and plan for the day-after scenario. Iranian pundits framed this as a reaction to vague clauses in the original Trump plan that do not strictly call for binding disarmament by Hamas. According to the pundits, the Hamas reaction to reject full disarmament is therefore a logical response in order to force clearer U.S. guarantees that Palestinian rights would be upheld, even if Hamas were sidelined. Nevertheless, these developments have caused deep anxiety in Iran, which has seen one of its most capable proxies reduced to a side player in shaping the Palestinian cause.

Iran Must Re-Engage

So far, the U.S.-brokered ceasefire has generally held. But Hamas’ future role in Gaza and Iran’s ability to influence Israeli behavior remain in doubt. As such, Tehran is bracing for potentially rapid, destabilizing shifts across West Asia. Iranian officials worry that Israel’s newfound military supremacy—which has reached new heights in recent months—could further erode Iran’s strategic landscape. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently asserted that Israel will no longer be content with containing threats from its enemies. He stated that Tel Aviv will actively “finish the job” against Hamas and ensure the region no longer poses a danger, asserting Israel’s military dominance as it did against Iran’s nuclear program in June and Hamas offices in Doha in September.

Under these circumstances, Tehran hopes that Hamas will remain the preeminent power in Gaza, threatening Israel and thwarting Tel Aviv’s regional ambitions. Such a future appears unlikely at this time, and Iran does itself no favors by eschewing the peace process. It is clear that the Gaza ceasefire and accompanying peace plan will not only re-shape Gaza’s future but Iran’s long-term ability to wield influence in a volatile region.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Gulf International Forum.