Ghalibaf: Iran was not involved in Oct. 7 operation
Tehran - BORNA - Ghalibaf spoke on the program “The Story of the War,” outlining new details of the recent 12-day conflict and offering a broader reading of regional developments.
“Was the Oct. 7 operation wrong?” Ghalibaf asked rhetorically, then answered: “Hamas is undoubtedly a liberation movement rooted in Islamic and Qur’anic culture.” He rejected portrayals of Hamas and similar groups as mere terrorist spoilers, saying they seek to liberate occupied land.
“We were not privy to Oct. 7”
Ghalibaf insisted that Iran was not informed in advance about the Oct. 7 operation. “Hamas decided on Oct. 7 on its own; we were not in the loop — the Leader confirmed this,” he said, adding that even Hezbollah and Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah were not informed. He described the operation as a highly compartmentalized and operationally planned action.
He argued that claims the attack was staged by Israel are mistaken: “If Israel had staged it, the war would have ended within three to six months and Hamas would have been eliminated. Instead, the conflict has continued and inflicted serious reputational damage on Israel — that idea is wrong.”
Asked whether a different Iranian president could have prevented the war, Ghalibaf said it was impossible to state definitively, noting that tactics and leadership styles differ. But he framed Iran’s confrontation with its enemies as existential and rooted in deep strategic considerations that transcend personalities in Tehran. While a president might affect governance effectiveness, the core issue — opposition to foreign designs against Iran — would remain unchanged.
No direct intervention in Israel–Hezbollah fighting, but political support provided
Responding to suggestions that Iran would have approved an Oct. 7 operation had it been coordinated with Hamas or Hezbollah, Ghalibaf said Tehran maintains strong ties with both groups — stronger with Hezbollah — yet denied that Iran intervened directly in battles between Israel and Hezbollah. “We did not intervene in whether they fight or not; they made their own operational decisions based on their political circumstances. We supported their decisions, as we supported Hamas,” he said, stressing that support is different from direct command.
On claims that Hezbollah suffered defeat, Ghalibaf firmly rejected the notion: “If Hezbollah had been defeated, why is the U.S. representative still there daily pushing disarmament issues? We have been damaged in places and could have performed better, but that is not the same as defeat — never. The organization is very much alive.”
He reiterated that despite Gaza’s long-standing siege, weaponry and munitions have nevertheless reached the enclave: “To assume access can be cut off entirely is mistaken.”
“Mercy to Israel is injustice to humanity”
When challenged that his remarks risked sounding rhetorical, Ghalibaf replied by recounting the battlefield dynamic: Israeli forces pushed into southern Lebanon with air, drone and artillery support even after the martyrdom of Sayyid Hassan, yet failed to advance. He noted that while he personally might have favored deeper strikes into Israeli depth, Hezbollah chose to limit operations geographically and act according to its own assessments.
Ghalibaf concluded with a stark formulation of his stance: “Mercy toward Israel is an injustice to humanity — they must be fought firmly.” He argued that despite heavy fighting, Israel failed to achieve its objectives and Hezbollah today is “more alive” and stronger in belief, material capability and cohesion than before.
End Article