Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami has criticised the Islamic Republic’s approach to the Palestinian issue, arguing that Iran should not attempt to determine the political or strategic direction of the Palestinian people.
Khatami’s remarks have renewed debate inside Iran over the country’s longstanding involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the costs associated with Tehran’s regional policies. His comments come at a particularly sensitive moment, as tensions involving Iran, Israel, the United States and several Middle Eastern countries remain high.
Khatami argued that Iran had “no right to interfere” in Palestinian affairs, maintaining that Palestinians themselves should have the authority to decide how they pursue their political objectives and determine their future.
While expressing sympathy for people struggling for freedom, he drew a distinction between offering moral support and directly intervening on another people’s behalf. According to Khatami, Iran could support Palestinians morally and politically, but should not assume their position or make decisions on their behalf, particularly when confrontation with a powerful opponent could result in enormous suffering.
His position reflects a broader argument that foreign policy should be guided not only by ideological commitments but also by the national interests and security of the country pursuing that policy.
Khatami also addressed the question of Israel’s establishment, saying it occurred “through occupation and force” and stressing that “occupation is not a source of legitimacy.” His comments therefore did not amount to an endorsement of Israel or a rejection of Palestinian grievances. Rather, they combined criticism of Israeli occupation with an argument that Palestinians should retain control over their own political choices.
The former president’s comments are significant because Iran has for decades placed the Palestinian cause at the centre of its regional foreign policy. Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Tehran severed diplomatic relations with Israel and established close political relationships with Palestinian groups. Iran has also provided varying forms of support to Palestinian organisations, including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
That policy has made Iran one of the most prominent state actors opposing Israel, while also contributing to Tehran’s wider regional influence. At the same time, Palestinian political leaders have occasionally criticised Iranian involvement, arguing that external powers should not use the Palestinian cause to advance their own strategic interests. In 2024, the Palestinian Fatah movement specifically accused Iran of interfering in Palestinian affairs and said such involvement could deepen internal divisions.
Khatami, who served as Iran’s president from 1997 to 2005, has historically been associated with a more conciliatory approach to international relations. His presidency promoted the idea of a “Dialogue Among Civilizations”, while his government pursued efforts to reduce confrontation with Western countries.
His latest intervention consequently carries particular significance as Iran faces renewed international and regional pressure. Recent diplomatic efforts involving Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey have focused on preventing further escalation between Iran and its adversaries and developing a broader regional security framework.
Khatami’s argument ultimately centres on a question that has long divided Iranian political opinion: whether Tehran’s support for regional causes strengthens Iran’s strategic position or exposes the country to unnecessary confrontation and costs.
For Khatami, Iran can continue to sympathise with Palestinians and oppose occupation without assuming responsibility for deciding how Palestinians should fight for their rights. His remarks therefore represent both a criticism of Israeli occupation and a challenge to the idea that Iran should determine, or militarily pursue, the Palestinian struggle on behalf of Palestinians.
The comments are likely to add another dimension to Iran’s continuing debate over the balance between ideological commitments, regional influence, national security and the welfare of its own people.
0 Comments