Iran’s Regime Is Now Paying the Price for Its Strategic Mistake in Backing Hamas’s October 7 Attack

Statement by the DAAM Party

The war between the United States and Israel on the one hand and Iran on the other, which has been underway since February 28, has shaken the Middle East and reverberated throughout the world. As missiles strike across the region and drones explode in the skies above its cities—while Israeli civilians repeatedly run to bomb shelters—a fierce debate has emerged in Israel and internationally regarding the nature of this war: what caused it, and what consequences it may bring.

The statement of the DAAM Party presented here seeks to clarify the sequence of developments that led to this war. It challenges several widely accepted assumptions that have become entrenched within liberal and progressive discourse and points toward the direction that the forces of peace and democratic progress in Israel must adopt in order to defeat the far-right government in the upcoming elections.

DAAM is a joint Jewish-Arab political movement whose members are citizens of Israel committed to Israeli-Palestinian peace based on equality and mutual recognition of rights. Founded in 1995 by Jewish and Palestinian activists, the party promotes social justice, and Jewish-Arab cooperation as the foundation for a democratic future. For peace to rise, mutual recognition is a fundamental principle.

From the early 1980s onward, the founders of DAAM were active participants in the struggle against the occupation, a struggle that reached its historic peak with the outbreak of the First Intifada in December 1987. The party’s position regarding Hamas’s attack on October 7, 2023, and the regional war that followed is grounded in the same principles that have guided its activity from the beginning: opposition to oppression and reactionary forces on all sides, defense of democratic values, and commitment to a political future based on equality between peoples.

The War Against Iran Is a Direct Continuation of October 7

The war that erupted on Saturday, February 28, 2026, began with a coordinated American-Israeli strike against Iran. This confrontation cannot be understood in isolation. It represents the direct continuation of the events set in motion by Hamas’s terrorist attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.

For many years Iran systematically cultivated Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad as key components of a broader regional network of militias and proxy organizations. Through these forces Tehran expanded its influence across the Middle East while avoiding direct military confrontation with Israel.

This network included Hezbollah in Lebanon; the Assad regime in Syria; Shiite militias in Iraq; the Houthi movement in Yemen; and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian territories. Together these forces formed what Iran calls the “Axis of Resistance.”

Through this system of proxies—most of them non-state actors—Iran sought to destabilize its rivals while steadily building strategic leverage across the region. The aim of this alliance was never aimed at reaching a long lasting peace in the Middle East.  Ultimately, Tehran aimed to ignite a broader confrontation that would destroy Israel from several fronts and establish the regime of the ayatollahs as the dominant power in the Middle East.

For years the Iranian regime succeeded in pursuing this strategy with relatively little resistance. Its regional standing grew considerably during the past two decades, particularly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, which had served as a major obstacle to Tehran’s expansionist ambitions.

The failure of the American project in Iraq left a deep trauma in U.S. public opinion. A broad political consensus gradually emerged in Washington that large-scale military confrontation in the Middle East should be avoided whenever possible. This approach was reflected most clearly in the Obama administration’s policy of containment toward Iran, culminating in the nuclear agreement signed in 2015.

Under the diplomatic cover provided by that agreement, the Iranian regime strengthened its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza and encouraged a growing belief among its allies that a decisive confrontation was approaching—a final “day of judgment” aimed at destroying the State of Israel.

When Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad launched their coordinated assault on Israeli communities near Gaza on October 7, they were implementing a broader regional strategy whose objective extended far beyond the Palestinian arena.

The immediate participation of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi movement in Yemen in attacks on Israel—what they described as a “war of support”—demonstrated that the assault was not an isolated operation but part of a wider strategic plan. The war that has unfolded since then, reshaping the lives of millions across the Middle East, is therefore the direct consequence of the murderous gamble undertaken by Hamas in the service of Tehran’s strategic ambitions.

The Iranian Regime Refused to Recognize the New Balance of Power

Over the following two years Israel worked to repel the assault launched by Hamas and Hezbollah, targeting the leadership of both organizations and destroying much of their military capacity.  Days after the agreement on a cease fire in Lebanon the Assad Regime in Syria collapsed like a card castle. A central pillar of the “Axis of Resistance” where Iran invested Billions was gone. 

A joint American-Israeli operation in June 2025 severely damaged Iran’s military capabilities and its nuclear program. Two and a half months later, in October 2025, a ceasefire agreement was signed in Gaza and all Israeli hostages were released. The war that had begun on October 7 appeared to have reached its conclusion.

The results of the war in Gaza were clear and decisive, and neither side had a clear interest in renewing the fighting. Yet the Iranian regime refused to acknowledge this reality. Since the June 2025 operation it promoted a narrative claiming that the “Axis of Resistance” had actually won the war and that Israel had been defeated—arguing that Israel itself had requested the ceasefire after suffering heavy damage to economic, medical, and military infrastructure in its major cities.

The leadership in Tehran refused to draw the strategic conclusions required by its defeat and the defeat of its proxies. It ignored the historic significance of the United States joining— for the first time—an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

At the end of December 2025 the regime’s weakness became dramatically visible when a massive popular uprising erupted in Iran. New social groups joined the protests, including merchants from the traditional bazaar.

Demonstrators chanted “Death to Khamenei” and demanded the overthrow of the regime that had ruled Iran through repression for nearly half a century and driven the country into poverty, hunger, and stagnation.

More than thirty thousand citizens were massacred by the repressive machine within a matter of days in a desperate attempt by the regime to crush the uprising.

Against this backdrop, U.S. President Donald Trump demanded that Iran enter negotiations, backing his demand with the deployment of significant military forces to the region. In February 2026 negotiations between representatives of the United States and Iran opened in the Sultanate of Oman, with the goal of reaching an agreement that might prevent a military confrontation. There was hope that such an agreement could also stabilize the situations in Gaza and Lebanon.

Many observers expected the Iranian regime to recognize the new balance of power and to abandon its megalomanic  strategic ambitions, including its nuclear project. Trump repeatedly stated that he preferred a negotiated settlement to military confrontation. Yet the leaders in Tehran chose to ignore what had become evident. The destructive arrogance that had characterized Hamas’s leadership and led Yahya Sinwar to launch the disastrous October 7 attack, also shaped the position of the Iranian regime. Its negotiators rejected American demands. The message quickly spread to Iran’s allies. Both Hamas and Hezbollah adopted similarly uncompromising positions.

Hezbollah declared that it would not surrender its weapons to the sovereign Lebanese government and would not allow the ceasefire with Israel to be implemented. Hamas rejected the United Nations Security Council resolution calling for its disarmament and continued to obstruct progress toward implementing the reconstruction plan for Gaza.

American Isolationism Allowed Iran to Grow Stronger

All available indications suggest that the Iranian leadership believed it could prevent an attack and secure a favorable agreement without making major concessions. Tehran’s calculation relied on widespread public opposition to war within the United States, including strong opposition from the Democratic Party as well as from segments of the isolationist wing of Trump’s MAGA supporters within the Republican Party.

Iran also assumed that the Gulf states—concerned that war could threaten their oil infrastructure—would exert pressure on Washington to avoid military confrontation. Tehran’s strategic gamble was that the United States would continue its traditional policy of containment, which had dominated American policy for more than a decade.

Indeed, for years Iran succeeded in maneuvering Western governments by exploiting Washington’s reluctance to enter into direct confrontation.

The nuclear agreement signed in 2015 lifted many of the sanctions imposed on Iran and opened economic opportunities that had previously been unavailable. But, under the international legitimacy granted by that agreement, the Iranian regime expanded its ballistic missile program, developed deadly drone technologies (aimed against Ukraine as well), and provided massive financial and military support to militant groups in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Gaza, and the Palestinian territories.

Even the October 7 attack did not prompt the Biden administration to abandon this flawed policy of containment. In April 2024, after Iran launched hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles at Israel for the first time, the Biden administration sought to restrain Israel’s response, arguing that a regional war had to be avoided at all costs.

In reality, however, the regional war that Washington sought to prevent had already begun.

The aggression of Iran and its proxies against Israel—combined with the brutal massacre of tens of thousands of Iranian citizens during the recent uprising—cannot simply be ignored. Such passivity risks sending a dangerous signal to the world that the use of force is sufficient to deter the United States.

In February 2022 Russia invaded Ukraine and is threatening Europe. China is preparing for a possible invasion of Taiwan. Both are watching developments in the Middle East closely, waiting to see how the United States responds to Iranian aggression. Saudi Arabia’s behavior provides a clear example. In 2019 Iran attacked Saudi oil facilities in Ras Tanura during Trump’s first presidential term. The United States chose not to respond and offered little meaningful assistance to its ally.

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states concluded that Washington might not defend them and began signing agreements with Iran and strengthening ties with China and Russia.

Even during the negotiations between Washington and Tehran in February 2026, the impression remained that the American administration was eager to reach an agreement and avoid military confrontation.

Yet Iran apparently believed that any concession regarding the foundations of the “Axis of Resistance” would undermine the regime itself. Consequently, Iranian negotiators arrived at the negotiating table in Muscat and Geneva with a rigid and defiant position.

Under those circumstances, Trump ultimately chose the military option.

The Objectives of the United States and Israel

As the war continues, an important question remains:
Will Israel and the United States succeed in bringing down the Iranian regime? Will the Iranian people take to the streets again?

Will Iran eventually become a democratic state capable of peaceful relations with its neighbors? At this stage of the war, any definitive answer would be premature.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its affiliated networks function as a powerful military-economic structure dedicated to advancing Iran’s expansionist ambitions while enforcing domestic repression.

This organization possesses enormous economic interests inside and outside Iran and has little intention of relinquishing them. In many ways it operates as a violent, mafia-like structure—a state within a state.

These forces are currently driving the continuation of the war and refusing to acknowledge the emerging balance of power.

Although Israel and the United States have stated that they would welcome the fall of the regime, regime change was not among the official war aims. The declared objectives were more limited:
the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program, severe damage to its ballistic missile and drone capabilities, and the neutralization of its regional proxies.

A fourth objective involves weakening the regime’s internal repression mechanisms—particularly the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij militia.

If these goals are achieved, it may create conditions under which the Iranian people could again rise against the regime.

The American Public Struggles to Confront Global Changes

The attack launched on Saturday morning, February 28, came as a complete surprise to the American public. War with Iran had not been part of the national debate. In Israel, by contrast, the public had been preparing for such a possibility for months, as the government repeatedly warned about the growing likelihood of war.

When Trump delivered his State of the Union address to Congress on February 24—only four days before the attack—he devoted only a few minutes of a two-hour speech to Iran. It is therefore unsurprising that American public opinion was shocked and unprepared when the war began. Domestic concerns dominate American political life: economic challenges, rising costs of living, immigration issues, and political scandals.

Polls conducted after the attack revealed widespread skepticism about the war and deep concern about another prolonged American involvement in the Middle East. Many Americans do not view Iran’s efforts to destabilize the region as a direct threat to U.S. national security.

Yet from a geopolitical perspective it is difficult to deny that the United States—as the leading power of the democratic world—cannot remain indifferent to Iran’s attempt to impose a fundamentalist regional order and eliminate Israel, one of Washington’s closest allies.

The failure of the American administration to explain clearly to its own public the reasons and objectives of the war represents a serious leadership failure.

Israeli Public Opinion Supports the War but Will Not Forget October 7

Some small forces on the Israeli left—including the Communist Party, Hadash, Ahmad Tibi, and Balad—oppose the war and appear disconnected from the prevailing mood of Israeli society. Like segments of the left in Europe and the United States, they call for an immediate ceasefire and effectively align themselves with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran.

By contrast, the major opposition parties in Israel support the government’s military actions, recognizing that Iran represents an existential threat not only to Israel but to the entire region.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has attempted to transform the war into a political asset and to gain electoral points. He is presenting his close relationship with Trump as proof that he is the only Israeli leader capable of persuading the United States to cooperate militarily with Israel at such an unprecedented level.

The evidence of polls conducted after the attack on Iran was launched suggest that Bibi’s cards have not changed. Israeli political camps remain largely unchanged: Netanyahu’s supporters continue to support him, while his opponents remain firmly opposed. This is largely because a majority of Israelis strongly oppose Netanyahu’s domestic policies and his ongoing attacks on democratic institutions, particularly the judiciary and the free press.

Trump’s public attack on President Isaac Herzog and his call for Netanyahu to receive a pardon provoked widespread anger among Israelis, many of whom saw it as an attempt by Netanyahu to use the war and his relationship with Trump to escape his corruption trial.

Even if the war with Iran ends in a clear military victory, Israel’s political landscape is unlikely to change dramatically. Many Israelis fear that Netanyahu will attempt to use electoral success to further weaken democratic institutions while advancing the agenda of the far-right, the settler movement, and ultra-Orthodox parties.

The Political Task Ahead

The task facing supporters of peace and democracy in Israel after the war—regardless of its outcome—is to unite all opposition forces in order to replace the dangerous right-wing government led by Netanyahu.

The broad civic movement that filled Israel’s streets for nearly a year prior to  October 7 in defense of democracy continues today to oppose Netanyahu and his extremist partners. At the same time, the opposition camp still struggles to present a coherent political alternative.

It remains divided and lacks unified leadership as well as a clear policy toward both the Arab world and the unresolved Palestinian question.

Despite these difficulties, the democratic camp must unite and bring about the defeat of Netanyahu’s government.

Partnership with MK Mansour Abbas and the broad political forces he represents in the Arab community in Israel, is essential to securing a democratic majority and preventing Netanyahu from returning to power for another destructive term.

DAAM Party calls upon all its members and supporters to mobilize politically to end Netanyahu’s rule and bring about a political transformation in Israel.

Even if the government that replaces him does not fully adopt the peace program envisioned by DAAM, it would nevertheless represent a crucial change—one that safeguards Israeli democracy and creates the conditions for deeper processes that could eventually open the way to a just Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Print Friendly