Al-Sudani and Maliki: More than Just an Iraqi Cold War

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani. (Reuters)
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani. (Reuters)
TT

Al-Sudani and Maliki: More than Just an Iraqi Cold War

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani. (Reuters)
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani. (Reuters)

A cold war is brewing between Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani and former PM Nouri al-Maliki. They are forging ahead rapidly towards next year’s parliamentary elections. The rivalry between them will be fierce, unless they strike a deal, said officials from Maliki’s Islamic Dawa party and the ruling pro-Iran Coordination Framework.

Maliki is seeking to hold early elections, which is unlikely to happen, but observers said he is simply trying to pile pressure on al-Sudani. More important than the date of the elections is the electoral law itself, which the rivals can shape to suit their or Iraq’s interests.

As it stands, Maliki appears the more eager of the two to draft the new law. People who have worked with him in drafting proposals revealed that he is thinking more about setting up “traps” for al-Sudani, who is eying a second term in office, than about his own chances of victory in the new parliament.

Kingmaker

Maliki is seen as the maker of uncrowned kings. They are kings who work for him in service of an agenda that he kicked off in 2006 when he first became prime minister, replacing Ibrahim al-Jaafari who was “shunned by the Iranian-American equation in Iraq.”

Maliki honed his political skills in the past two decades. He learned how to maneuver and smoothly move from one camp to another, something he has grown particularly adept at. He is also known for his “strong sectarian leanings and paranoia,” which draws to him all “ambitious and anxious Shiites,” said people who have worked with and against him in the past 20 years.

Even after leaving government, Maliki remained the “godfather” of the Shiite political project in Iraq. He was always sought out by “sectarian” parties whenever the system in Iraq came under threat, even if the threat came from Shiites themselves.

Ultimately, Maliki has presented himself as the “savior of the Shiites in modern Iraq.” The last time he managed to bring them together was when Sadrist movement leader cleric Moqtada al-Sadr sought to turn against them and expel them from government when he tried to forge an alliance with the Sunnis and Kurds in 2020. Maliki’s image as the “sponsor of the deep Shiite state” in Iraq grew further with the formation of the Coordination Framework that allowed al-Sudani to come to power.

In fact, Maliki believes he is the sole representatives of the deep Shiite state. He expects his allies to not infringe on his “historic standing and leadership.” But what happens when a person, who Maliki himself had brought to power and shaped their political agenda, rebels against him? What if al-Sudani were to run for a second term in office?

‘Right’ man

Al-Sudani was an agricultural engineer working for the government in the Maysan province when the American forces occupied Iraq and ousted Saddam Hussein’s regime. Because he was a senior state employee and son of a dissident Shiite family, he was appointed coordinator between the city authority and ruling American administration in Baghdad.

Over the years, al-Sudani assumed various public posts. It was evident that he was skilled at maneuvering government work and withstanding its upheavals.

Maliki sensed that al-Sudani was the “right man” around whom he could form his successive governments. Al-Sudani was minister of industry and minerals, labor and social affairs, and human rights in three governments. Maliki viewed him as a “second-class” politician, but at least he was consistent in serving the “Shiite project” over the years.

In 2019, hundreds of thousands of Shiite youths took to the streets to protest against the government and al-Sudani jumped ship from the Dawa party to form his own small party, the Al-Furatayn, with the goal of joining the league of major Shiite figures. Two years later, he was named prime minister after much political wrangling.

In 2022, al-Sudani visited Hadi al-Ameri’s house with a list of commitments he was demanding of the Coordination Framework – the sponsors of his new government. However, Maliki – along with Qais al-Khazali, the leader of the Asaib Ahl al-Haq group – were ahead of him and had prepared their own list of commitments they expected al-Sudani to meet during his term in office.

The list handed to al-Sudani reflected Maliki’s way of thinking and how he viewed the new premier as “an agricultural engineer who was tasked with heading a government.”

Al-Sudani aspired to be much more than that. He kicked off his work as prime minister calmly as he dedicated the early days to erasing the legacy of his predecessor Mustafa al-Kadhimi – at least, these were the “instructions” coming in from the Framework.

Al-Sudani’s aspirations

Later, al-Sudani began to show strong signs of his aspirations. He presented himself and his ministers as being focused on services and development, securing an unprecedented state budget at the time.

The Framework saw no political threat in a government that offers services. In fact, it believed that such services “have no value when it comes to political balances and equations”, according to Shiite politicians.

Two years later, however, al-Sudani now has the loyalty of nearly 50 lawmakers who “effectively defected” from the Framework. The PM believed that any former lawmaker was a potential future partner in his political bloc in the next parliament.

He also formed alliances with three powerful province governors: Asaad Al-Eidani of al-Basra, Mohammed al-Mayahi of al-Kut and Nesayif Al-Khattabi of Karbala – all defectors of the Framework.

Asked about al-Sudani’s current influence in parliament, Shiite leaderships told Asharq Al-Awsat that he boasts around 60 MPs and even more could join him.

In March, Maliki made light of al-Sudani’s power in parliament, remarking that back in 2014, he [Maliki] won 103 seats in the legislature but still wasn’t named prime minister due to political bickering. “So, what do 60 seats mean? Nothing. Numbers are not enough,” he added.

So why the animosity towards al-Sudani? Maliki believes that al-Sudani is eating away at his own political power, using the tools of the “deep state”, and extending his hand to his own supporters to create new alliances outside of the current political equation and Coordination Framework – the most important alliance in the country.

Long- and short-term plans

Maliki believes that he was the one who made al-Sudani and he should be the one who controls his political fate.

And yet, Maliki cannot wage an open battle with al-Sudani because he is bound by the traditions of the right-wing Shiite movement in Iraq and the need to allow it to grow and prosper. Moreover, al-Sudani has managed to occupy a significant role in Iraq: enjoying Iranian and American consensus – the most enviable role a prime minister can dream of. Wasn’t that the same role Maliki played in his first term as premier?

In the long-term, what Maliki can do is set up a trap for his former colleague by drafting a new electoral law that strips the prime minister of any privileges. He effectively wants to deprive al-Sudani of the privileges Maliki enjoyed in 2010.

Sources revealed that elections experts have been working with Maliki for the past two months to draft the new law. Progress has been made, especially with Sunnis and Kurds joining the process.

Maliki is so determined to see al-Sudani fail that he is willing to draft a law that wouldn’t even secure him – Maliki – a victory.

In the short-term, he is trying to lure al-Sudani’s allies away from him. If he can’t, then he will set them up to fail. Decision-makers in the Framework said that when al-Sudani makes it to the final stages of the elections, he’ll be lucky if he manages to retain one of the powerful three governors by his side. Maliki is determined to remove them from their alliance with al-Sudani.

Learning from Maliki

Al-Sudani is aware that the Shiites will be confronted with a new dynamism in the next elections that could lead to the end of the Coordination Framework or shift to new hubs of influence. Al-Sudani is hoping to become the head of one of these spheres of influence.

Observers said the PM will counter Maliki’s attempts to undermine him by holding “arduous” talks with the Sunni and Kurds and that he may mull various settlements that may persuade them to abandon the former PM’s camp.

As for his allies, he will seek to hold on to them even though partnerships in Iraq are constantly shifting. He will seek to gain more Shiite support, especially among governors and the military.

Al-Sudani is learning from Maliki. One of the causes of the tumult in the Framework is due to the “arrogance of the founders and their annoyance with the boldness of their students,” said a leading Shiite figure. He added that al-Sudani may not be the sole mutinous member, but al-Khazali is paving his own path to break away from Maliki.

The Shiite figure believes that the balance is now tipped in al-Sudani’s favor because he has so far presented himself as a “trusted partner to main players in the region, including Iran.” He also supports “promising partnerships that are tied to agreements to uphold calm and form a new Middle East of which Iraq is a main foundation.”

Heated battle

As the government enters its final year in office, the cold war between al-Sudani and Maliki will become more heated. Observers believe that recent corruption scandals and the involvement of government officials in suspicious dealings is only the warmup for what’s to come.

Al-Sudani may have come on top in some rounds, but Maliki managed to score points. A Kurdish official explained that in recent months, the PM has tried to gain influence in the local governments in Diyala and Kirkuk by sponsoring agreements with winners in the local elections, but Maliki had the final say in naming the first governor, effectively annulling the agreements al-Sudani had reached.

A Sunni politician taking part in the secret negotiations to draft the electoral law said “electoral nooses” will now start being set up, predicting a changes in the Shiite political landscape that will impact Sunni and Kurdish forces.

Shiite politicians are however, concerned that the soon-to-be grinding battle between al-Sudani and Maliki will threaten the gains of the right-wing Shiite movement after two years of prosperity.

Ultimately, Maliki will not be opposed to al-Sudani heading a small bloc in parliament. “There’s nothing wrong with the likes of Ammar al-Hakim, Hadi al-Ameri and others holding ten parliamentary seats,” said a leading Framework member, explaining that the battle is “all about numbers” and controlling them to avoid any surprises.

The prevalent belief in the Shiite camp is that the traditional factors that used to influence the political scene in Iraq were fading, namely the Shiite Religious Authority and the Americans. Iran does wield influence and “prefers to intervene at the final moment after watching the scene unfold very closely and patiently.”

So, how will the cold war end? The Shiite leaders spoke of three outcomes: Either al-Sudani makes it to the end, or he strikes a deal with Maliki with the sponsorship of a third party, or one of them ends up with severe political injuries.



From Black Death to Covid, Ships Have Long Hosted Outbreaks

Passengers stand aboard the Bahamas-registered cruise ship Ambition after they were confined following the outbreak of a gastrointestinal illness onboard, at the Bordeaux port in Bordeaux, southwestern France on May 13, 2026. (AFP)
Passengers stand aboard the Bahamas-registered cruise ship Ambition after they were confined following the outbreak of a gastrointestinal illness onboard, at the Bordeaux port in Bordeaux, southwestern France on May 13, 2026. (AFP)
TT

From Black Death to Covid, Ships Have Long Hosted Outbreaks

Passengers stand aboard the Bahamas-registered cruise ship Ambition after they were confined following the outbreak of a gastrointestinal illness onboard, at the Bordeaux port in Bordeaux, southwestern France on May 13, 2026. (AFP)
Passengers stand aboard the Bahamas-registered cruise ship Ambition after they were confined following the outbreak of a gastrointestinal illness onboard, at the Bordeaux port in Bordeaux, southwestern France on May 13, 2026. (AFP)

A deadly outbreak on a cruise liner is just the latest in a long history of infectious diseases spreading rapidly in the cramped confines of ships, from the Black Death to Covid.

People around the world remain in quarantine or self-isolation after a rare outbreak of hantavirus on a cruise ship left three dead and infected at least seven more.

Another scare came on Wednesday, when more than 1,700 passengers were confined to a cruise ship docked in the French city of Bordeaux after an elderly passenger man died of a heart attack.

Dozens of passengers showed symptoms of a stomach bug, however initial tests ruled out norovirus -- a common infection on cruises -- and officials said there was no connection to hantavirus.

The latest incidents shone a light on how ships -- whether they are cruise liners, aircraft carriers or old wooden boats -- can be the ideal environment for viruses to spread.

"The worst place to have an epidemic, like a fire, is in close quarters far from help, such as a ship on the high seas," US historian Alfred Crosby once wrote about the Spanish influenza pandemic of 1918.

Jean-Pierre Auffray, the honorary president of the French Society of Maritime Medicine, told AFP that "the risk is twofold".

There is the danger that passengers and crew transmit the disease to each other on the ship -- and then the risk they transport their illness across the land, he explained.

"Ships remain enclosed environments where there is prolonged, repeated and close contact, which facilitates the spread of some outbreaks," he said.

This is particularly the case for viruses "transmitted through the air, such as influenza and Covid-19, and those transmitted through contact or food, such as norovirus," added Auffray, whose book about seafaring infections will be published next month.

The Andes strain of hantavirus, which spread onboard the MV Hondius cruise ship, can be spread via aerosols, research has suggested.

The World Health Organization has warned that more hantavirus cases could yet emerge, but also stressed there "is no sign that we are seeing the start of a larger outbreak".

- Sailors or retirees? -

At the height of the pandemic in 2020, Covid tore through many vessels.

The luxury cruise ship Zaandam and its many sick passengers were turned away by numerous Latin American countries before finally docking in the US state of Florida.

Hundreds of sailors onboard the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle also contracted Covid.

While sailors on military ships are often young and fit, cruise ship passengers tend to be more elderly and vulnerable.

However the viruses spread in the same way: in close quarters where people regularly share equipment.

"We learned from the Covid pandemic, and there have been improvements on cruise ships," Auffray said.

"We've improved the ventilation systems, which allow us to better combat aerosol transmission."

"There is better training for the ship's doctors," Auffray added.

- 'Woe to us' -

The other threat comes when infected passengers disembark.

Before the MV Hondius docked in the Canary Islands on the weekend, the local government had initially opposed taking it in.

In previous centuries, quarantined ships were kept away from ports, sometimes forced to dock at tiny islands called lazarettos.

"The ethics were not the same. Quarantine meant: 'You'll die on your ship -- don't come and infect us'," Auffray said.

Now, the passengers of outbreak ships like the MV Hondius can be tracked, to ensure they do not spread disease to their home countries.

People who merely came in contact with passengers are currently being isolated and checked for hantavirus in several countries.

While diseases can now hop continents on airplanes, for most of human history they crossed seas on boats.

This was how the Black Death -- the most devastating pandemic in human history -- arrived on Europe's shores back in the 1340s.

Sailors from Genoa were laying siege to the ancient Crimean trading hub of Caffa when they became infected by plague-ridden corpses catapulted over the walls by the Mongol Golden Horde.

When the sailors journeyed back across the Mediterranean, they brought with them a plague that wiped out up to 60 percent of the population in parts of Europe.

"Woe to us for we cast at them the darts of death!" Italian notary Gabriel de Mussis wrote at the time.

"Whilst we spoke to them, whilst they embraced us and kissed us, we scattered the poison from our lips."


Grief Silenced, Suppressed as South Lebanon, Beirut Suburbs Are ‘Barred’ from Mourning War Dead

Women mourn during the funeral procession for three Lebanese Civil Defense members killed in an Israeli airstrike on the village of Majdal Zoun in southern Lebanon. (dpa)
Women mourn during the funeral procession for three Lebanese Civil Defense members killed in an Israeli airstrike on the village of Majdal Zoun in southern Lebanon. (dpa)
TT

Grief Silenced, Suppressed as South Lebanon, Beirut Suburbs Are ‘Barred’ from Mourning War Dead

Women mourn during the funeral procession for three Lebanese Civil Defense members killed in an Israeli airstrike on the village of Majdal Zoun in southern Lebanon. (dpa)
Women mourn during the funeral procession for three Lebanese Civil Defense members killed in an Israeli airstrike on the village of Majdal Zoun in southern Lebanon. (dpa)

Residents of South Lebanon and Beirut’s southern suburbs are caught between grief and resilience, a feeling unlike any other, and one that is suffocating most families.

Some have the courage to raise their voices and express the pain, grief, and regret they feel over their losses. Others feel ashamed to speak out because of social constraints imposed on them, which make their grief seem disgraceful or forbidden.

Comparisons over loss are always present, and the main justification remains that what people lose is nothing compared with the blood of those who fall defending their land.

In the largely devastated South today, grief is not allowed to take its natural space. A mother who loses her son or husband, a woman who loses her home, a father who loses his source of income, and others all find themselves facing a social system that forces them to suppress their emotions.

This suppression, in turn, becomes a form of self-censorship that prevents any citizen from grieving or crying. Silence becomes the only option, because expressing pain may be interpreted as weakness, lack of patience, or even a moral failing toward the “larger cause” championed by Hezbollah.

This is the reality now lived by almost every family that has lost, or continues to lose, homes and loved ones in Beirut’s southern suburbs, the Bekaa, and the South. Towns are being destroyed, memories are being erased, and any hope of return is fading.

Meanwhile, expressing pain has become an act of betrayal on social media, where it has become a social court that judges people’s feelings and emotions.

This is what happened to many people who dared to raise their voices in grief and blame those who made the decision to go to war, namely, Hezbollah.

A women grieves as she rests her head on one of nine people killed the day before in an Israeli airstrike on the southern Lebanese village of Jibchit, during their funeral in the city of Sidon on May 10, 2026. (AFP)

Accusations of treason

Nour, who remains displaced with her family in a school and lives each day hoping she will not receive news that her home in the South has been destroyed, said: “We are all doing our best to endure, but some people cannot bear more than they can handle.”

She said that expressing what a citizen from the South feels is now met with ready-made accusations. “He is considered against the resistance [Hezbollah], an agent and a traitor,” she revealed, adding: “People have started setting the standards and deciding what is right and what is wrong.”

“We have become a people left to our fate, and no one asks about us,” she lamented. “Those who criticize us for expressing our pain are the ones living comfortable lives and passing judgment from afar.”

“Those who see expressing our pain as a crime should live one day like the days we are living, and then talk about dignity and patriotism,” she added.

‘Forbidden from expressing our pain’

Zeinab also spoke of the pressure faced by those who express their pain.

“It is as if families who lose their livelihoods, their children, their homes and the work of years are expected to show patience and the morals of Ahl al-Bayt, morals that those accusing others of betrayal do not possess as they throw around charges of treason at random,” she said.

“I am a daughter of this environment, and I know very well what people say when they speak about their pain,” she declared. “But we are not allowed to express this pain out loud, or we are deemed traitors.”

“My house, which my husband and I built over 10 years in the South, was destroyed. My husband lost his shop, and today I look at my children and do not know where to take them, what their future will be, or who will compensate us for our losses.”

Organized suppression

Against this backdrop, sociologist Mona Fayyad told Asharq Al-Awsat: “What is happening today in the environment controlled by Hezbollah is a policy of silencing people, within a narrative that is being imposed by force.”

She said that in the past, Hezbollah had achieved a measure of success that covered up losses. The party also had organized bodies capable of providing psychological and financial support to families, helping contain losses and giving them meaning through slogans, such as the “liberation of Jerusalem” and others.

That, she said, pushed people to suppress their pain and express it only within that framework.

“Today, however, the situation has started to change little by little, and people have begun daring to raise their voices, which is why campaigns accusing them of betrayal are increasing,” Fayyad explained.

A man watches as rescuers work at the site of an Israeli strike that took place on May 6, in the southern suburbs of Beirut, Lebanon, May 7, 2026. (Reuters)

Pent-up feelings

Fayyad spoke of the suffering of Lebanese people in general, and residents of the South, Beirut’s southern suburbs, and areas under Israeli bombardment in particular.

“People are hurting on several levels, and all Lebanese are living in a difficult state of waiting, unable to plan for the future, which is one of the hardest things a person can experience,” she said.

“We are now in the unknown, and we are threatened in terms of security and the economy.”

She said residents of the South and Beirut's southern suburbs who lost their homes face double suffering, amid insecurity, displacement and tens of thousands of destroyed homes that leave them unable to know their fate.

“These people are carrying a heavy burden, and they are forbidden from expressing it, but the pressure will inevitably explode somewhere,” Fayyad remarked.

“The problem is that they have no horizon ahead of them, amid declining support, losses turning into numbers with no value, and a refusal to acknowledge defeat.”

“And yet, voices have begun to emerge. But shock is still dominant, and people have not yet absorbed what happened,” Fayyad went on to say.

“With time, and as the picture becomes clearer, this pain will unfortunately come out into the open in different forms, from psychological and physical illnesses to nervous breakdowns.”


Arafat and Tehran: From Revolutionary Embrace to Open Hostility

Yasser Arafat during a visit to Tehran on February 17, 1979. He was the first official figure to visit Iran after the "Islamic Revolution" (Getty).
Yasser Arafat during a visit to Tehran on February 17, 1979. He was the first official figure to visit Iran after the "Islamic Revolution" (Getty).
TT

Arafat and Tehran: From Revolutionary Embrace to Open Hostility

Yasser Arafat during a visit to Tehran on February 17, 1979. He was the first official figure to visit Iran after the "Islamic Revolution" (Getty).
Yasser Arafat during a visit to Tehran on February 17, 1979. He was the first official figure to visit Iran after the "Islamic Revolution" (Getty).

Yasser Arafat was the first foreign leader to visit Iran after Khomeini’s 1979 Iranian Revolution. At the time, he believed the Palestinian cause was gaining a powerful new ally in revolutionary Iran, which immediately closed the Israeli embassy and handed it over to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). But Arafat soon discovered that Tehran’s public support for Palestine was neither unconditional nor straightforward. What began as a honeymoon quickly unraveled into a lasting rupture.88888

Associates of Arafat, who was known for his wit and political sharpness, recalled his surprise when Khomeini insisted on using a Persian translator during their meeting despite speaking fluent Arabic. Arafat was even more unsettled when Khomeini urged him to declare the Palestinian revolution an Islamic one. Those moments deepened Arafat’s suspicions that Iran’s support came with ideological and political conditions attached.

Arafat’s ties with Iranian revolutionaries had predated the revolution, and he responded cautiously. He told Khomeini that the Palestinian struggle was not an Islamic revolution but a national movement representing all Palestinians, Muslims and Christians alike. Later, he would joke about the irony of the leader of the Islamic Revolution pretending not to speak Arabic—the language of the Quran—even though the two men had previously spoken in Arabic before the revolution succeeded.

Arafat–Tehran: Open Hostility

Despite his reservations, Arafat initially maintained cordial relations with Tehran. But the relationship collapsed after the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War in 1980. Iranian leaders demanded that Arafat publicly support them against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Instead, Arafat leaned toward Iraq. From that point on, relations spiraled into open confrontation.

 

Iran increasingly sought to weaken Arafat and the PLO by cultivating rival Palestinian factions. Palestinians still remember that Tehran did little to help Arafat during Israel’s siege of Beirut in 1982, while he was simultaneously confronting Syria, then one of Iran’s closest regional allies. Damascus supported and financed a major split within Fatah led by Said Moussa Muragha, better known as Abu Musa, who later founded the breakaway movement Fatah al-Intifada and settled in Syria. Tehran also encouraged divisions within other factions operating under the PLO umbrella.

Palestinians also remember the role played by Lebanese Shiite militias affiliated with the Amal Movement, which had pledged allegiance to Khomeini and later participated in massacres inside Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.

From that point onward, relations between Iran and the PLO, and later the Palestinian Authority, remained deeply strained. Mutual accusations continued even after Arafat’s death, eventually evolving into something close to declared hostility.

Between periods of tension and cautious rapprochement, Iran eventually found an opening with the establishment of the Palestinian Authority through its growing ties with Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Tehran initially offered the two groups public political support, then financial and military backing, eventually integrating them into a broader regional axis. That axis remained intact until the Hamas-led October 2023 attack on Israel, which triggered devastating consequences not only for Hamas but for Iran’s entire regional network, ultimately reverberating back to Tehran itself.

Supporting Rival Factions to Undermine Fatah

Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad established relations with Iran in the late 1980s, shortly after both movements were founded. Those ties deepened throughout the 1990s and intensified during the Second Intifada, which erupted in late 2000. Iranian support expanded further after Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007.

That takeover gave Iran unprecedented influence inside the Palestinian territories. Tehran intensified military cooperation with Hamas and Islamic Jihad through joint meetings, strategic coordination, and training programs. Fighters from Gaza were sent to Iran and to Hezbollah camps in Lebanon for military training under the supervision of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Iran poured money into both groups and trained their operatives to manufacture and launch rockets and other weapons, significantly strengthening their military capabilities. At the same time, the Palestinian Authority and Fatah accused Tehran of fueling Palestinian division through its limitless support for Islamist factions.

Two Hamas sources, one inside Gaza and one abroad, told Asharq Al-Awsat that Hamas’ takeover of Gaza opened the door to an entirely new relationship with Tehran. According to the source outside Gaza, Iran provided extensive financial and military support while helping improve the movement’s combat expertise.

A source inside Gaza said Iran proposed establishing training facilities inside the enclave, but Hamas rejected the idea and instead limited cooperation to sending selected operatives abroad for training. Even so, the relationship substantially enhanced Hamas’ military capabilities.

Islamic Jihad’s relationship with Tehran was even older and stronger. A source from the movement said Iran played a decisive role in arming Palestinian factions during that period, supplying ready-made Grad rockets and Iranian-made Fajr missiles before local production capabilities were later developed using Iranian technical expertise.

Iran’s influence became so visible in Gaza that smaller armed groups also received funding, while some organizations openly embraced Shiite ideology or even called themselves “Palestinian Hezbollah.”

Although Hamas and Islamic Jihad insisted that their political decisions remained independent, Iranian influence became impossible to conceal. Neither movement directly answered questions about whether Tehran had deliberately encouraged Palestinian fragmentation. Instead, sources maintained that Iran’s primary objective was to strengthen the “resistance” against Israel and reinforce Gaza’s front line.

The Turning Point of the Syrian Revolution

The Syrian uprising against President Bashar al-Assad in 2011 exposed the fragility of the Hamas-Iran alliance. Hamas sided against Assad and left Damascus in 2012, enraging Tehran. Iran sharply reduced its financial support to the movement, a fact later acknowledged publicly by Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal.

Meshaal admitted that Hamas’ dispute with Assad severely damaged ties with Iran and that Tehran was no longer the movement’s primary financial backer. Iran had expected Hamas to support Assad during the uprising, and Hamas’s refusal cost the group both its Syrian base and substantial Iranian funding.

Still, Tehran did not abandon its efforts. Instead, it tried to cultivate influence within Hamas itself. Sources said Iran shifted toward providing limited support directly to Hamas’ armed wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, in an apparent attempt to create tension with the movement’s political leadership.

At minimum, Iran succeeded in deepening internal debates within Hamas over regional alliances and political loyalties. The period proved difficult for both sides, and repeated attempts at reconciliation angered Hamas’s Sunni support base because of Iran’s growing regional role.

Abu Marzouk Debunks Iran’s Claims

As Hezbollah worked behind the scenes to repair relations, a leaked phone call revealed unprecedented criticism from within Hamas itself. In January 2012, Asharq Al-Awsat obtained and published a recording of Mousa Abu Marzouk, then deputy head of Hamas’s political bureau, sharply attacking Iran and denying Iranian claims that it had significantly supported Palestinian resistance since 2009.

In the recording, Abu Marzouk criticized Tehran’s regional policies, including its role in Yemen, and described Iranian diplomacy as manipulative. He also claimed Iran conditioned its support on Hamas helping improve Tehran’s relations with countries such as Sudan, describing that as part of Iran’s pressure tactics. He accused Iranian officials of exaggerating their support, saying: “Every ship they lose, they claim was heading to Gaza. A ship was seized in Nigeria and they said it was for us. I told them: apparently every intercepted ship in the world belongs to us.”

A Hamas source abroad told Asharq Al-Awsat that the leaked recording infuriated Iran and forced Hamas leaders to provide explanations to Tehran during an already dangerous turning point in the relationship. The crisis was eventually contained, but it exposed the deep mistrust underlying the alliance.

Building the Axis and the “Unity of Fronts”

Within months of that incident, efforts to restore ties resumed. Relations steadily improved as Hamas’ Gaza leadership tightened its grip over the movement’s political bureau elected in 2017, headed by Ismail Haniyeh, with Yahya Sinwar leading in Gaza and the military wing gaining unprecedented influence.

A source said Iran had strong incentives to preserve the relationship with Hamas because it remained “the largest Sunni Islamist movement in Palestine, with broader reach and capabilities than any other faction.” The relationship, he noted, never completely broke down, and once Hamas’s military leadership gained prominence, ties deepened further in ways that served both sides’ interests.

Relations continued to improve as Hezbollah and Iranian officials worked to restore Hamas’ ties even with the Syrian regime, though reconciliation was never fully completed before Bashar al-Assad’s government collapsed.

Hamas regained Iranian backing, and Tehran consolidated a regional axis in which the movement became a central pillar. Iran also promoted the idea of the “unity of fronts,” convincing its allies that all arenas confronting Israel were interconnected. That appears to have helped persuade Sinwar that Tehran would stand firmly behind Hamas after the October 7 attack, something that did not happen.

Iran, which denied prior knowledge of the attack, chose not to intervene directly, raising serious doubts about the cohesion of the so-called “axis,” the credibility of the “unity of fronts,” and the true extent of coordination among its members.

Even Palestinian Islamic Jihad, despite receiving substantial Iranian support alongside Hamas, reportedly had no prior knowledge of the attack. The movement was generally viewed as more closely aligned with Tehran, or at least more willing to accommodate Iranian political priorities.

The October 7 Turning Point

Islamic Jihad was not immune to Iranian demands that went beyond support for “the resistance.” In 2015, the two sides entered a serious but short-lived crisis over Yemen after the Palestinian movement refused to issue a statement backing the Houthis and their seizure of large parts of the country, including the capital, Sanaa.

Iran responded by cutting support to Islamic Jihad, much as it had previously done with Hamas, and redirected funding to the Sabireen Movement, a splinter faction formed by former Islamic Jihad figures with Iranian backing.

A source from Islamic Jihad told Asharq Al-Awsat that the sharp decline in Iranian support marked one of the most difficult periods the movement had ever faced.

Ultimately, Iran could not escape paying a price itself. It found itself pulled into confrontation with the United States and Israel after wars had already engulfed Hamas and Hezbollah. Those cascading conflicts were set in motion by the October 7 attack, which reshaped not only Iran’s regional axis but the broader Middle East.

The War’s Endgame

The war is still ongoing, and it remains unclear whether Iran will eventually abandon Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and the Houthis to protect itself. Tehran continues to assure the Palestinian factions that support will continue, although that support has slowed in recent months because of the war, regional instability, and intensified Israeli and American efforts targeting Iranian financial and logistical networks.

Israel has assassinated several Iranian officials responsible for managing ties with Palestinian factions, while Washington has increasingly demanded that Tehran halt support for its regional proxies.

The Palestinian Authority Cuts the Final Thread

Throughout the war, Hamas and Islamic Jihad publicly sided with Iran, signaling their desire to preserve the relationship, though it remained unclear how much control they truly had over that decision, or what the alliance’s future might look like.

The Palestinian Authority, however, appears to have decisively severed what Arabs often call the “Muawiya thread,” the final strand holding a relationship together.

During the Gaza war, the Authority not only attacked Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, for praising Hamas’s October 7 operation — accusing him of sacrificing Palestinian lives and land to serve Iran’s agenda — but also said Hamas was serving Iranian interests rather than Palestinian national ones.

At the same time, the Palestinian Authority refrained from condemning the joint American-Israeli strikes on Iran while later condemning Iranian attacks on Arab countries.

The war pushed the Authority more firmly into alignment with the so-called “moderate Arab axis” in opposition to the Iranian-led camp, abandoning much of the ambiguity that had long characterized its political posture.

A well-informed source told Asharq Al-Awsat that the Palestinian Authority had not changed its position so much as clarified it. “Its stance is not new,” the source said, “but it is now more explicit. The Authority is strengthening its place within the moderate camp against the Iranian axis.”

The Palestinian Authority believes everything changed after October 7. But it also believes the wars unleashed by the attack will ultimately vindicate its own political strategy while weakening Iran and its regional allies.