After a period of analysis, conclusions and even official statements linking Iran to the terrorist attack carried out by the Hamas terror organization against Israel on Oct. 7, this issue has returned to the forefront of debate. This happened after the spokesman of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Ramadan Sharif, stated that the Al Aqsa Flood operation was a response to the assassination of the former commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Qassem Soleimani.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
This statement reignited widespread discussion about the motives behind this devastating attack, which caused extensive damage to the Gaza Strip. It is noteworthy that the Revolutionary Guard official did not mention the Palestinian people, their cause, or any of the reasons Hamas cites as motivating its attack. Instead, he reduced the matter to what was reported by Iran's Mehr agency, saying that the Al Aqsa Flood operation was one of the retaliatory operations carried out by the resistance axis against the Zionists for the martyrdom of General Soleimani.
The Revolutionary Guard sought to clarify what it described as a "misunderstanding" that occurred in part of his statement regarding the Al Aqsa Flood operation. The commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, General Hossein Salami, stated that the Al Aqsa Flood is a purely Palestinian operation, independent of any external influence, and it operates independently of "our retaliation for the blood of former Guards commander Qasem Soleimani." He added thay undoubtedly, the resistance front has many commonalities, but each member has its independence in its actions, stressing that "we support the Palestinian people until the last breath and support the operations we undertake without fear of anyone."
What strikes me as an observer is that the Revolutionary Guard considers Hamas as one of the arms of what it calls the resistance axis, and the relationship between the two is an organizational one that connects the branch to the root. It is not a cooperative relationship based on ideological or any other grounds.
The second point is the reason why Ramadan Sharif, the spokesman for the Guards, linked the Oct. 7 attack to the issue of avenging Soleimani's death, whether in whole or in part. It is unclear how he could have fallen into what the Revolutionary Guards' statements call a "misunderstanding," given that his job is to clarify points of confusion and ambiguity so that others can understand any position or policy related to the Revolutionary Guards.
Iran, which always carefully weighs the pros and cons of its political positions, may have concluded that directly associating with the terrorist attack by Hamas outweighs the strategic benefits that can result from a policy of plausible denial. Insisting that the decision for the attack came from within Hamas and that Iran has no influence on the terror group's decisions in this matter, especially since an official acceptance or announcement without denial implies a high likelihood that Iran would pay the price for all these attacks and the human and material losses they caused, both to Israel and to other countries (especially with regard to the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea).
Therefore, the oscillation between acknowledgment and denial remains a tactic chosen by Tehran to affirm its role without bearing the consequences. Certainly, Ramadan Sharif's statement was not subject to misunderstanding, misinterpretation or distortion. Revolutionary Guard officials are well aware of this, and it is more likely that a specific message is intended, either to Israel or to regional and international parties concerned with the Palestinian issue, particularly the events in Gaza.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
Iran fears the collapse of its "investments" in Gaza by eliminating Hamas's influence and permanently sidelining the terror group from the Palestinian equation.
The key question here is why now? How can an official in the position of Iran's Revolutionary Guards spokesman make such a statement when he is fully aware of the rising tensions in the regional geostrategic environment and the growing discussion about the possibility of an expanded war in Gaza due to Houthi attacks and the threat to international trade in the Red Sea, for which the US and Western international powers hold Iran responsible?
The answer to this and other puzzling questions may find answers in the coming days.
