Iran is the main beneficiary of the Israel-Palestine war

The signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel and several Arab states — the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan — in August 2020 brought the prospect, at least for the United States, of a more stable and peaceful future for the region. The agreements, sponsored by the White House toward the end of Donald Trump’s term as president, aimed to cement a lasting and stable peace for Israel. Moreover, the recent comments by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on the approaching normalization of relations with Israel in an interview for Fox News on September 23 ratified that under the Joe Biden administration the correct strategy established by his predecessor for the full recognition of Israel in the region was being followed.

On the other hand, the agreement signed between Iran and Saudi Arabia in Beijing in March 2023 fueled speculation, even within Iranian circles, about a possible détente between Iran and Israel as a counterpart concession by Tehran. This would have been a strategy to avoid new conflicts with the Arab monarchies in the region, especially considering the gradual rapprochement with the UAE and Saudi Arabia after the 2016 rift, and following Syria’s reinstatement in the League of Arab States after its suspension in November 2011.

These expectations quickly faded with recent events in Gaza. Nevertheless, it was predictable that this would happen. Since the inception of the Abraham Accords there have been well-founded concerns about the increasing marginalization of the Palestinian population in the face of declining Arab support for the Palestinian cause. The eventual inclusion of Saudi Arabia in these agreements would undoubtedly intensify this sense of helplessness.

The current crisis, although foreseeable for a variety of reasons, has nonetheless confounded many experts who have struggled to comprehend how this development was not anticipated, and how Hamas managed to mount such a detailed operation under the blockade conditions in which Gaza has existed for years. Accusations have been leveled against Iran for allegedly financing and arming Hamas. However, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has stated there is no direct evidence of Iranian involvement in this attack.

Likewise, Israel Defense Forces spokesman Daniel Hagari acknowledged they could not claim Iran had any role in the planning of the attack or the training of those involved. And although the Iranian authorities celebrated the attack and heralded the possible end of the “Zionist regime” in Israel, they also emphatically reiterated that they had had no part in the decision taken by a movement they consider independent, and denied the alleged meetings that The Wall Street Journal claimed had taken place in Lebanon with the attendance of the Iranian Foreign Minister, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian.

However, it is clear that Iran is the main beneficiary of this escalation for several reasons. First, it has been a staunch supporter of the “anti-Zionist resistance,” as opposed to the Arab states that had normalized or were in the process of normalizing relations with Israel. Second, without actively participating in the conflict, and without having to escalate its discursive battle with other Arab countries, Iran has gained notoriety for its alleged support for Hamas.

As in 2006, with the confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran could reap greater political benefits than any other regional actor, adding to the recent gains that President Ebrahim Raisi has made following normalization with Saudi Arabia, its inclusion in BRICS and the prisoner exchange with the United States. This has been mainly due to the fact that it does not need to adapt his discourse on support for Hamas to satisfy Western governments or Arab populations, which, in general, show more solidarity with the Palestinian cause than their own governments.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition