The Iranian government took nearly 12 hours to comment on the ceasefire agreement signed in Sharm el-Sheikh between the Israeli occupation and the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas. While world powers and international organisations quickly welcomed the deal, Tehran’s delay drew attention — prompting speculation about the motives behind its cautious silence.
According to the official Iranian news agency IRNA, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs eventually issued a statement reaffirming Iran’s unwavering support for what it called the “legitimate Palestinian resistance.” The statement emphasised that Iran had employed all its diplomatic channels — regionally and internationally, through the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the United Nations — to pressure the Israeli occupation and its backers to end what it described as “genocide” and to expel the occupiers from Gaza.
The ministry also paid tribute to “the martyrs of the resistance” and called on the international community to ensure Israel’s full compliance with the terms of the ceasefire, warning against potential “deception and betrayal” by Tel Aviv. It further demanded justice through the prosecution of those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Gaza.
Cautious Silence and Doubts About U.S. Mediation
Beyond this statement, no top Iranian official directly commented on the deal. However, Iranian state-affiliated media downplayed the United States’ role in reaching the truce, questioning both its neutrality and sustainability. Analysts linked this caution to remarks made by U.S. President Donald Trump on October 8, 2025, when he claimed that the ceasefire was the result of “American diplomatic efforts” and even suggested that “the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities helped accelerate the agreement.”
The conservative newspaper Kayhan sharply criticised these comments, arguing that Trump’s framing of the truce as “a step toward peace in the Middle East” contradicts Iran’s position — which views Washington as a partner in Israel’s crimes in Gaza and therefore an untrustworthy mediator.
Iranian Media Portrays the Truce as a Resistance Victory
Iran’s state television avoided mentioning the roles of the United States, Egypt, Turkey, or Qatar in brokering the deal. Instead, it hailed the ceasefire as “a victory for Hamas and the Islamic resistance”, portraying Israel as the defeated side in a war that has lasted two years.
Political commentators appearing on Iranian TV reiterated that the Israeli occupation had failed to achieve its objectives and was ultimately forced — through American pressure — to accept a ceasefire.
Meanwhile, Tasnim News Agency, affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), expressed doubt that the ceasefire would hold. It claimed that Israel’s acceptance of the deal stemmed not from U.S. diplomatic influence or Western protests, but from internal rifts between the Israeli government and military regarding the viability of continued occupation in Gaza.
According to Tasnim, the Israeli military considered further operations unsustainable, while the government insisted on remaining in Gaza. Trump allegedly capitalised on this divide, presenting himself as “a man of peace seeking a Nobel Prize.”
Absence of a Clear Withdrawal Timeline
Both IRNA and Mashregh News (linked to the IRGC) highlighted the absence of a defined timetable for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, arguing that a complete and immediate pullout after two years of war was unlikely. Such a move, they contended, would be perceived domestically and internationally as an Israeli defeat.
Social Media Reactions: Discontent Over Hamas’ Statement
On Iranian social media, Hamas’s public thanks to the United States in its final statement — without mentioning Iran’s support — triggered frustration among some Iranians. Many saw it as an act of ingratitude, given Tehran’s consistent political and logistical backing for the Palestinian cause.
Iranian journalist Ahmad Zeidabadi, an expert on Palestinian affairs, commented that “Tehran cannot openly oppose the agreement” but will approach it “with caution.” He suggested it might even open a window for improved U.S.-Iran relations, provided Tehran avoids turning the situation into “a new confrontation with the West at the expense of the Palestinian cause.”
Conversely, Iranian journalist Nafiseh Kouhnord, a correspondent for BBC Persian, argued that the deal might have involved “a major concession to Israel”, potentially linked to renewed threats against Iran.
Strategic Caution Going Forward
Analysts quoted by Iranian outlets concluded that the Islamic Republic would continue handling the ceasefire cautiously — avoiding any stance that could be seen as opposing Palestinian aspirations or international consensus, while maintaining scepticism toward U.S. mediation.
This calculated approach allows Tehran to preserve its pro-resistance image and retain political leverage in case Israel violates the agreement — a scenario that would, once again, vindicate Iran’s long-held warnings about the false promises of American diplomacy.
