Since the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas’s political bureau, questions have arisen about the seriousness of Iran’s stance—whether in responding to violations of its sovereignty or in continuing its support for its allies in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. Simultaneously, discussions about Gaza, which continues to endure one of the most brutal genocidal campaigns in modern history, have noticeably diminished. This decline in Iran’s engagement has been evident in the remarks of Iranian officials on numerous occasions.
Conversely, much of the focus has shifted to Iran’s nuclear program and the possibility of reaching a new agreement with international powers, particularly the United States.
Shifting Stance in Syria
Recent dramatic developments in Syria have highlighted Iran’s significant retreat from its earlier positions. Once a staunch supporter of the ousted Assad regime, Iran has softened its tone toward Syria’s new leadership, moving from labeling them as “terrorist armed factions” to expressing willingness for future engagement. This shift echoes the positions of Western nations, with Iranian officials emphasizing Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and signaling readiness to reopen their embassy in Damascus.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s recent statement, “The fate of President Bashar al-Assad cannot be predicted,” was a surprising concession. It suggested a veiled message to the United States of Iran’s complete abandonment of Assad. Moreover, the withdrawal of Iranian advisors, senior commanders of the Revolutionary Guard, and their families from Syria before the recent turmoil underscores Tehran’s reduced support for its Syrian ally.
Eroding Support for Regional Allies
Iran’s retreat is not limited to Syria. A review of its positions toward Hezbollah in Lebanon and the resistance in Gaza reveals a history of compromises—seemingly trading these alliances to secure its interests with the United States. This was exemplified when Iran’s new president once declared at the UN, “We and the Americans are brothers; there are no disputes between us, and everything is open for discussion.”
Iran’s response to Israeli attacks during this period was lackluster, failing to match the fiery rhetoric of earlier times that once threatened a broader regional war. This hesitant stance played a role in the collapse of Assad’s regime, enabling Syrian armed opposition forces to seize control of the country in just 11 days. Meanwhile, Hezbollah was left vulnerable to Israeli aggression, constrained by what Iran termed “traditional rules of engagement.” This approach prevented Hezbollah from utilizing its arsenal, including precision-guided missiles, and left it subject to agreements that were widely criticized as unfavorable to Lebanon, Hezbollah, or the so-called “Axis of Resistance.”
Strategic Realignment or Defeat?
This Iranian retreat reflects a broader realignment of its policies to navigate new realities under the Trump administration and intensified Western efforts to curb its influence. Rather than merely “clipping Iran’s wings,” this marks a significant setback for Iran’s regional ambitions, dismantling its military capabilities and weakening its dominance. This has plunged the “Axis of Resistance” into uncertainty as Israel’s role in Lebanon grows, new Syrian territories fall under occupation, and Gaza witnesses continued massacres. Additionally, Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank and northern Gaza signals the looming implementation of annexation plans, coupled with escalating settler violence and property seizures against Palestinians. Netanyahu continues to impose conditions on prisoner exchange negotiations with the resistance in Gaza, further prolonging his brutal war on the Strip.
Missteps or Misjudgments?
The critical question remains: Is this truly an Iranian retreat, or is it a misinterpretation of Tehran’s policies? Iran’s inconsistent positions since the onset of the “Al-Aqsa Flood” battle on October 7, 2023—an event that marked a strategic turning point exposing the potential for defeating the Zionist project—reflect hesitation in providing genuine support to the resistance. This indecision has weakened the resistance’s position, ultimately shaping a geopolitical reality in favor of the Netanyahu-Trump agenda rather than the resistance’s aspirations.
Has Iran finally been defeated in this regional conflict? Or are we witnessing a reordering of priorities and policies? Did Iran misread the situation, underestimating its own allies within the “Axis of Resistance” or the Syrian armed opposition factions? The answers may come from Damascus or Gaza, with the coming days likely to reveal shocking truths about Iran’s recent positions and their unexpected outcomes.
