Tweet

By Garfield L. Angus

      The future of the Palestinian question has long depended not only on Palestinian resistance or Israeli policy, but also on the shifting balance of regional power in the Middle East. For decades, external state actors have shaped the diplomatic, financial, and military environment surrounding Palestinian aspirations for statehood. Among these actors, the Islamic Republic of Iran has emerged as one of the few regional powers consistently positioning the Palestinian cause as central to its foreign policy.

An argument increasingly raised in geopolitical discourse is that the destruction or strategic collapse of Iran would profoundly weaken Palestinian leverage, potentially deepening Palestinian statelessness in ways not seen since the late twentieth century.

This argument does not rest on moral endorsement of any state’s methods, but rather on political reality. In a fragmented Middle East marked by competing national interests, the Palestinian issue has gradually ceased to be a unifying Arab priority. If Iran were removed as a counterbalancing force, the regional structure supporting Palestinian resistance, diplomatic, financial, and symbolic, could significantly erode.

Historically, the Palestinian struggle was framed as a collective Arab responsibility. During the era of Arab nationalism in the 1950s through the 1970s, leaders across the region portrayed Palestine as inseparable from Arab identity itself. However, successive military defeats, internal political crises, and economic pressures gradually transformed national priorities.

The turning point came with peace agreements between Israel and key Arab states, beginning with Egypt’s normalisation in 1979, and later followed by Jordan. More recently, normalisation initiatives between Israel and several Gulf states signaled a decisive shift, economic modernisation, security cooperation, and relations with Washington increasingly outweighed confrontation over Palestine.

Iran’s Entry into the Palestinian Equation

As Arab Governments recalibrated their national interests, Palestinians found themselves increasingly isolated diplomatically. While rhetorical support remained common, sustained strategic commitment diminished. It was within this vacuum that post-1979 Iran positioned itself as a champion of Palestinian resistance. Unlike many Arab Governments constrained by alliances with the United States or domestic economic concerns, Iran adopted Palestine as a central pillar of its revolutionary foreign policy.

Following the 2003 overthrow of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein who had previously portrayed himself as a defender of Palestinian resistance, Iran became arguably the most consistent state actor opposing Israeli regional dominance. Tehran’s support extended to political advocacy, funding networks, and backing for non-state actors aligned with Palestinian resistance movements. Whether viewed as ideological solidarity or strategic rivalry with Israel and the United States, Iran’s involvement ensured that the Palestinian issue remained embedded within broader regional power competition rather than fading entirely from geopolitical relevance.

International politics often functions through balance rather than consensus. Iran’s regional influence has served as a counterweight that complicates unilateral military or political outcomes in the Middle East. Its presence forced regional and global powers to consider escalation risks across multiple fronts. If Iran were militarily neutralised or politically destabilised, this balance could disappear. The consequences would likely be Israelis/Zionist domination over the entire Arab states.

Without a powerful opposing axis, military operations involving Palestinian territories or neighbouring states may encounter fewer strategic constraints. Palestinian leadership historically gains diplomatic leverage when great or regional powers compete for influence. The absence of such competition weakens negotiation capacity

Normalisation Without Conditions

Arab-Israeli normalisation processes could accelerate without meaningful concessions tied to Palestinian statehood. In such a scenario, Palestinian aspirations risk becoming a humanitarian concern rather than a geopolitical priority. A major factor shaping the region today is not simply ideological disagreement but divergent security calculations among Arab states themselves. Gulf monarchies, North African Governments, and Levantine states increasingly perceive threats differently, ranging from economic instability to political Islam and regional rivalry.

      These divisions have produced a Middle East where cooperation with the United States and even quiet coordination with Israel is often viewed as necessary for regime stability and technological advancement. Consequently, Palestine no longer functions as the organising principle of Arab unity. Instead, national survival, economic diversification, and internal security dominate policymaking. Critics argue that this fragmentation has unintentionally weakened collective advocacy for Palestinian self-determination.

      The result is a paradox, and while public opinion across Arab societies remains strongly sympathetic to Palestinians, state policy frequently reflects pragmatic alliances rather than ideological solidarity. The large-scale military confrontation involving Iran will likely impose immense costs across the region. Analysts widely agree that this  conflict would not resemble previous short wars in the Middle East.

      Potential consequences include heavy military casualties among combatants, severe economic disruption affecting global energy markets. Damage to infrastructure across multiple states. Regional refugee flows and humanitarian crises, and Israel itself will face unprecedented security and economic pressures during the ongoing confrontation, while American forces could experience significant operational losses. Yet even amid these costs, the long-term political outcome might still reshape regional power dynamics in ways that indirectly affect Palestinians most profoundly.

Palestinian Movements

      If Iran’s regional networks collapse, Palestinian movements could lose one of their last major external sponsors capable of influencing strategic calculations beyond diplomatic protest. Israeli policy toward Palestinian territories has long been shaped by internal political debates. Leaders such as Benjamin Netanyahu have emphasised security-first approaches, arguing that regional threats justify stringent military and territorial control measures.

      In a Middle East absent strong opposition powers, hardline policy frameworks could gain greater freedom of action. Critics fear that without external pressure, whether diplomatic or strategic, prospects for negotiations toward a two-state solution may diminish further. Supporters of Israel’s security posture, however, contend that reducing hostile regional actors could create stability necessary for eventual peace. The disagreement highlights a central dilemma, whether regional dominance produces reconciliation or entrenches asymmetry.

      Palestinian statelessness already represents one of the longest unresolved political conditions in modern international relations. Millions remain without sovereign citizenship, divided geographically between Gaza, the West Bank, refugee camps, and diaspora communities. The weakening of international attention compounds this reality. Global crises from Ukraine to economic instability, compete for diplomatic focus. Without powerful regional actors elevating the Palestinian issue, it risks gradual marginalisation within global policymaking institutions.

Statelessness in this sense, is not merely the absence of territory but the erosion of political urgency. While geopolitical rivalry has kept Palestine visible, reliance on proxy competition carries its own dangers. Long-term Palestinian self-determination ultimately requires diplomatic frameworks, economic viability, and international legitimacy rather than perpetual militarisation.

A sustainable future would likely depend on renewed multilateral negotiations involving regional powers. Arab states reintegrating Palestinian statehood into normalisation frameworks. International guarantees addressing both Israeli security concerns and Palestinian sovereignty, and internal Palestinian political unity. The argument that Iran’s destruction would deepen Palestinian statelessness reflects broader anxieties about shifting power structures in the Middle East.

As traditional Arab solidarity has weakened and normalisation trends accelerate, Iran has remained one of the few states framing Palestine as a central geopolitical cause. Removing that pillar could fundamentally alter regional calculations, potentially reducing strategic pressure for meaningful progress toward Palestinian statehood. Yet such an outcome would emerge not simply from military victory or defeat, but from decades of fragmentation, competing national interests, and evolving security priorities across the region.

Ultimately, the Palestinian question survives not because of any single state’s sponsorship, but because it remains unresolved at the core of Middle Eastern politics. Whether the region moves toward reconciliation or deeper polarisation will determine whether Palestinians move closer to sovereignty or remain indefinitely without a state in an increasingly divided geopolitical order.

The collapse of any major regional actor, whether Iran or another power, does not automatically resolve underlying conflicts. Instead, it risks reshaping them in ways that may further disadvantage already vulnerable populations. The destruction of Iran will benefit Benjamin Netanyahu and his Zionist clan, which is akin to the Nazis, enabling Irael to rule the Middle East through brutal bombing like what we have witnessed in Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, and Syria.

-30-