This is Why Hamas Launched October 7th

The Media Hides this Truth from You Through their Blame-Game

Image by Chaim Goldberg/Flash90

Abstract

October 7th was a day that will live forever in the collective consciousness of Israelis and Palestinians. It marks a date so influential that it rivals the groundbreaking Iranian Revolution of 1979 in its regional implications. On October 7th, Hamas militants launched between 2500 and 5000 missiles in a coordinated assault into Israel, killing around 1139 people and capturing 251 hostages

from a plethora of nationalities. The attacks represent the most devastating singular terrorist strikes in modern Israeli history, with former President Biden labelling them as “the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust”.

However, despite October 7th’s significance, the reasoning behind the bombings often flies under the media’s radar for more radical and sensationalist arguments. Many media companies gain increased wealth and influence by propagating this sensationalised content. Concurrently, this article contends that it was not Hamas’s hatred of Jews, nor an undercover Israeli operation, that prompted the attacks, instead, it was a long-coordinated effort between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Hamas. October 7th marks Iran’s attempts (which have proven wildly successful) to disrupt the growing Israeli-Saudi normalisation and assert their regional hegemony. 

Background

October 7th was not a spontaneous strike, as with all similar attacks, it was a culmination of months of planning and coordination. 

For example, the date was picked due to the Jewish holiday of Shemini Atzeret, which meant that the usual concentration of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) that would have been present was on leave. In a manner nearly identical to that of the 1973 War, which unfolded on Yom Kippur, Hamas exploited this vulnerability of Israel in an attempt to maximise the impact of the attack and fulfil their objectives. 

One of Hamas’s goals was simply to kill Israelis—many of them. The Washington Post reported that instructions found on dead Hamas fighters included, “Kill as many people and take as many hostages as possible.”

However, while it may be simple to discern these two objectives of Hamas, they covered up the deeper reasons behind their atrocities. While Hamas may have desired the October 7th attacks for their domestic objectives, it was ultimately linked to Iranian regional interests.

Before October 7th, Israeli and Saudi officials negotiated for an Israeli-Saudi normalisation deal. The deal featured a joint civilian nuclear deal, Israeli concessions to the Palestinians and a joint US-Saudi Defensive Pact. In September 2023, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told Fox News that a deal was imminent, calling it the “biggest historical deal since the Cold War.”  Netanyahu similarly touted it at the UN. If successful, the deal would have forever transformed Middle Eastern geopolitics, smashing the multipolar system that has reigned supreme since the end of the Cold War. 

For context, the foundations for the Middle East’s current geopolitical landscape were shaped by 2 key events, including the 1979 Revolution and the fall of the Soviet Union. In 1979, a revolution rocked Iran’s Western system. Overnight, decades of modernism, religious pluralism and Westernism were shattered and replaced with a more extremist, Islamist approach to governance. This revolution overthrew Western prominence over Iran and transformed the tentative Israeli-Iranian-American coalition into a bitter rivalry. Similarly, the collapse of the USSR in 1991 gave America unparalleled historical hegemony; much of this acquired influence was utilised in the Middle East, as seen in the invasions of Iraq. Similarly, October 7th marked a critical turning point culminating the years of diplomatic advancements made by the Biden and Trump administrations.

The Saudi-Israeli normalisation deal was shattered, and hopes of a renewed Abraham Accords faded instantly. This was advantageous for Iranian geopolitical posturing. 

After 1991, the Middle East was roughly divided into several spheres of influence. Prominently, there exists a Western bloc involving Israel, the USA, and to some extent Jordan, the Saudi-led Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and the Iranian Axis of Resistance. While this may provide a simplification, it crucially uncovers the geopolitical environment in which October 7th unfolded. 

It is not a coincidence that October 7th unfolded at the height of the Israeli-Saudi normalisation deal; it was an attempt by the Islamic Republic to destroy what was perhaps the biggest threat to its regional standing since the Revolution. If Saudi Arabia and Israel were to align closer, under the auspices of the United States, the previously multipolar Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape would transform into a bipolar system, to the disadvantage of the Republic. Iran’s three biggest geopolitical rivals (Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States) would be united against the Axis of Resistance, wherein the regime would be effectively cut off from its proxies across the region. 

An Israeli-Saudi agreement would unite Jordan closer with Israel, blocking Iranian influence in Palestine and cutting their access to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). Likewise, a closer Saudi-US Partnership would critically surround the Houthis (formerly الأنصار) with US forces in bases in Djibouti and Saudi-Omanese forces surrounding Yemen by land.

Conclusively, it was in Iran’s interest to either initiate October 7th directly or provide Hamas with their approval and additional funding if necessary. 

Why October 7th Was Launched

October 7th was launched in alignment with Iran to disrupt the normalisation deal and coordinate Iranian influence across the Middle East. 

Specifically, the attacks were not an effort by Hamas alone, instead, they were part of a more substantive operation of the Iranian Axis of Resistance. The Axis presents the primary opposition to Western and Saudi influence throughout the Middle East. It encompasses groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and a plethora of Syrian and Iraqi groups. While the media portrays the attack as ‘Hamas’s’ attack, it represents a much larger anti-Israeli movement. 

Inside Gaza, Hamas worked in close collaboration with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) alongside other militant groups to launch the attacks. From 2020 to 2023, Hamas and PIJ conducted at least four large-scale military exercises simulating raids, hostage-taking, and breaching Israeli defenses, with the final drill occurring just 25 days before the attack. These drills involved 10 factions, including secular groups like the Al-Nasser Salah al-Deen Brigades.

Moreover, the day after the attacks, Hezbollah, the most powerful and influential of the Iranian proxies, launched strikes across their border into Northern Israel in an attempt to present solidarity with the Palestinian cause and resistance towards Israel. 

“Hezbollah will continue supporting Palestinians in Gaza no matter what the consequences are, what the sacrifices are.” – Hassan Nasrallah, September 2024.

Additionally, the Houthis would launch similar strikes upon Israel, despite being thousands of kilometres distant. The group relies on Iranian-supplied ballistic missiles (e.g., Qiam-class) and drones, often claiming strikes on “military targets” or symbolic sites like Ben Gurion Airport. Their slogan—“Death to America, death to Israel, a curse upon the Jews”—reflects ideological alignment with Hamas and Hezbollah.

The involvement of these major groups, all of whom identify as members of the Axis of Resistance, suggests at least significant Iranian support and coordination if not more direct involvement. Nevertheless, Iran’s solidarity with the attacks has been unarguably delineated by its dangerous direct exchanges with the IDF, which put the region on the brink of a much greater war. For example, the April direct Israeli-Iranian exchanges demonstrated this solidarity. 

On April 1, an Israeli airstrike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus killed 7 IRGC members, including Brig. General. Mohammad Reza Zahedi (Quds Force commander). In response, on April 13–14, Iran retaliated with 350+ missiles/drones launched at Israel, wherein  99% were intercepted by the U.S.-Israel coalition. Responding to this escalation, Israel struck the Isfahan nuclear site and IRGC bases in Iran, using stealth jets and drones, with minimal damage reported.

October 7th was not merely a coincidental attack; it was coordinated with the Iranian-led Axis. There is little doubt that the IRGC was at least informed and refused to object to the planning. 

Recent intelligence—bolstered by documents seized by the IDF and reported by The Wall Street Journal—irrefutably demonstrates that Iran played at least a significant role in orchestrating the October 7 attack. These documents reveal that, as early as 2021, Hamas leadership was in active dialogue with Iran’s Quds Force, with Tehran initially allocating $10 million to Hamas’s armed wing before later being pressed for a $500 million commitment to sustain their operations. Further, additional documents uncovered in a Hamas bunker—as detailed in a Bild article—confirm that Iranian support was not merely rhetorical but involved concrete financial and logistical backing, proving Iran’s central role in fueling Hamas’s militant agenda.

October 7th Achieved Its Goals

When Hamas launched their attacks, they undeniably knew that alone they could not hope to topple Israel; they were aware of the force with which the IDF would respond. 

Hence, if Hamas’s attacks are to be viewed in isolation, as a spontaneous act planned internally, they make no strategic sense. Hamas leadership knew that alone, Hamas could not combat the vastly superior IDF; alone, they would have been destroyed. 

Hamas relied on two critical aspects to ensure its survival and the Palestinian cause. Firstly, Hamas relied upon the Iranian Axis to launch strikes in collaboration with them – they succeeded in this, with Hezbollah, the Houthis, and eventually Iran all directly attacking Israel. Secondly, Hamas relies on, and continues to rely on, international support to prevent a more devastating Israeli operation, of which the IDF is capable. Hamas’s Ministry of Health (MoH) continues to post questionable death tolls, with the number passing 50,000 dead recently. The MoH presents one of Hamas’s most significant assets, more than their military forces. Through the MoH, Hamas has been able to publish, relatively uncontested, casualty reports to the world’s media, portraying the Palestinian cause as dire and shifting responsibility for October 7th to Israel. This outpouring of international support for the Palestinian cause has proved Hamas’s most successful asset.

Nevertheless, while Hamas may have succeeded in some aspects of their goals, the true beneficiary of the attacks, in the immediate aftermath, was Iran. Days after the attacks, the Saudi-Israeli normalisation deal was decisively halted and reversed, with both parties hardening their stances.

The near complete collapse of the Israeli-Saudi normalisation deal reflects a substantial victory for Iranian foreign policy and their regional standing. Simply, their two greatest enemies are unlikely to pursue any negotiations in the foreseeable future. This victory facilitates Iranian influence to continue expanding throughout Iraq and Syria while they continue to pressure Saudi Arabia and Israel separately. With proxies in Yemen and Gaza, respectively, degrading the state’s conventional military force via an unconventional fighting force.

Conclusion

In international relations, little happens in isolation; this is true for the October 7th bombings. Undoubtedly, the attacks were a culmination of a multitude of factors that came together to encourage Hamas to launch the attacks and usher the Middle East into a new era of geopolitical struggle. However, popular culture heavily favours simplified approaches, for example, claiming the attacks were solely out of a desire for Hamas to kill the Jews. A critical, yet understated, reason for the attacks was to advance Iranian regional standing and deny the West a crucial alliance. The attacks have succeeded in this goal; the premise of an Israeli-Saudi normalisation deal seems highly unlikely, and the attacks have tied together the Axis of Resistance more tightly. With great sacrifice and calamity, Iran has prevented the threat to its regional standing and emerged with a bruised but still dangerous alliance, more closely knit than before. While we may never know for sure whether Iran was behind the attacks, there is no doubt that they were aware of and benefited from them.