Tehran’s Response to the Gaza Ceasefire and the Global Misreadings
WANA (Oct 12) – Tehran’s positive reaction to the Gaza ceasefire was among the most unexpected diplomatic turns in the current Middle East crisis. The Iranian Foreign Ministry’s statement — expressing support for any initiative aimed at “ending the massacre of the Palestinian people” — was interpreted in Washington as “a signal of Iran’s willingness to engage.” Across Western media, a wave of commentary followed, speculating about a possible thaw between Tehran and Washington.
Yet behind this fleeting optimism lies a deeper reality that many overlooked: Iran’s fundamental concern over weakening the resistance and the potential disarmament of the Palestinians.
Iranian people supporting the people of Gaza. Social Media / WANA News Agency
Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, responding to proposals for Gaza’s postwar future, said: “We have always supported the people of Gaza and the resistance groups. Any decision that stops the crimes and defends the rights of the Palestinian people is naturally acceptable to us. However, we warn against the deceptions and betrayals of the Israeli regime.”
This dual stance — support for humanitarian peace but suspicion toward political peace — is central to understanding Tehran’s position. Contrary to much of the Western commentary, Iran is not opposed to a ceasefire or to dialogue itself. Its real concern lies elsewhere: in what Iranian officials see as a project to turn “peace” into a mechanism for disarming Palestinians and legitimizing Israel.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry Statement on Gaza Ceasefire Proposal
WANA (Oct 06) – Iran’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement regarding the proposed Gaza ceasefire plan put forward by U.S. President Donald Trump, stressing that any decision in this regard lies solely within the authority of the Palestinian people and resistance groups. The statement read: “While taking into account the dangerous dimensions and implications of […]
Iran’s Core Concern: A Peace that Disarms
From Tehran’s perspective, any U.S.-backed peace plan is only credible if it preserves the rights of the resistance. In other words, “peace” must not mean “disarmament.” That distinction marks the core divide between Iran and the current architects of the ceasefire.
Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, Speaker of Iran’s Parliament, reaffirmed this today: “The Islamic Republic of Iran supports any initiative that ends war crimes and genocide in Gaza.” But he cautioned that such support should not be mistaken for overlooking Palestinian rights or endorsing the disarmament of resistance forces.
Tehran is acutely aware that this model of peace echoes past experiences in the region — from Camp David to the Abraham Accords — the same order that Donald Trump once hailed, declaring, “Iran will join us sooner or later.”
A man wearing a Trump mask attends a rally in support of the people of Gaza, after Friday prayers in Tehran, Iran, October 10, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
Araghchi’s reply to that notion was direct: “The so-called Abraham Accords, despite their sacred name, are rooted in betrayal — designed to deprive the Palestinian people of their legitimate rights and to normalize relations with an occupying, child-killing regime. The position of the Islamic Republic has always been clear and remains unchanged: such a plan bears no resemblance to our ideals.”
Behind Tehran’s endorsement of the ceasefire, therefore, lies a calculated strategy: support for any humanitarian effort to stop the bloodshed, but opposition to any political framework that neutralizes the resistance.
Peace or Power Reconfiguration?
Iran is not alone in questioning the true intentions behind the ceasefire proposals. Even within Israel, voices have emerged suggesting that “ending the war” is more a temporary tactic than a genuine shift in strategy. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly spoken of an “unfinished mission,” while Israel’s defense minister insists that “our task is not yet complete.”
A Ceasefire That Tastes Like Defeat for Israel
WANA (Oct 10) – October 9, 2025, has been recorded in history as the day when Palestinian resistance forces managed to overcome Israel’s military campaign. Two years after launching a large-scale offensive under the slogans of “completely destroying Hamas” and “disarming Gaza,” Israel now finds itself sitting at the negotiating table—under pressure and after a […]
For Tehran, such statements confirm its view that Israel seeks not stability, but a reconfiguration of the regional order in its favor — one where Israel maintains military and technological superiority, while surrounding nations remain perpetually dependent.
Hossein Ajorloo, an Iranian expert on West Asian affairs, explains: “The Islamic Republic views such an order as hegemonic and destabilizing. From Tehran’s perspective, if the resistance is disarmed, the regional balance of power collapses — placing Israel in a position to launch preemptive strikes.”
This analysis reflects a broader consensus within Iran’s policymaking circles: national security concerns come before everything else.
People attend a rally in support of the people of Gaza, after Friday prayers in Tehran, Iran, July 25, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
Two Possible Scenarios: Pressure or Opportunity
Recent debates in Washington reveal a growing split in how to approach Iran. One camp within the White House sees the Gaza ceasefire as an opportunity to reduce tensions; the other views it as a chance to tighten pressure on the resistance axis.
Analysts close to Iran’s Foreign Ministry say Tehran interprets this duality as evidence of Washington’s ongoing strategic confusion — still torn between “containment” and “engagement.”
Regional observers add that if the current trajectory continues — with increasing pressure on resistance groups in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, and Yemen — it could pave the way for direct containment of Iran itself.
Conversely, Middle East scholars such as Fawaz Gerges of the London School of Economics argue that as the resistance axis weakens, Israel’s incentive for direct confrontation will diminish, pushing Washington toward a kind of “managed calm.”
In short, Iran sees itself standing at a crossroads: it must either brace for a new phase of escalating pressure or exploit divisions among Western actors to maintain regional balance.
Why Hamas Said ‘Yes’ and What It Means for Israel?
WANA (Oct 11) – Hamas’s conditional acceptance of the ceasefire plan in Gaza has brought the equations of the two-year war and Israel’s stated objectives to an unexpected point. While Washington and Tel Aviv describe the plan as a step toward stability, many analysts see it as a sign of a shift in the field […]
Tehran and the Logic of Distrust
Ultimately, Tehran’s worldview still revolves around a familiar premise: deep structural distrust toward the intentions of the United States and Israel. In his latest remarks, Araghchi stated: “The current U.S. administration has shown that its positions constantly shift. They now make lofty promises about reconstruction and restoring Palestinian rights, but there are serious grounds for doubt.”
From Tehran’s standpoint, no lasting peace can take root in the Middle East until these doubts are resolved. History, Iran argues, shows that every time “peace” is promised, pressure on the resistance soon intensifies.
Thus, Tehran’s endorsement of the recent ceasefire should be understood not as a strategic shift, but as an act of political realism — a pragmatic acknowledgment of the human cost of war.
In Iran’s eyes, true peace begins only when the balance of power tilts toward deterrence, not domination. And perhaps for that very reason, in Tehran, the phrase “end of war” still translates to “the beginning of another phase of mistrust” — a phase where every silence may be the prelude to another storm.
