Document Type : Original Independent Original Article
Highlights
Introduction
The Palestinian question has consistently constituted one of the principal pillars of the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and has been framed within the discourse of resistance against the Israeli occupation. However, the Oslo Accords and the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in the 1990s transformed the Palestinian political structure and reshaped the interaction of regional actors with the Palestinian question. From the outset, Iran adopted a critical stance toward the Oslo process, considering it inconsistent with the historical rights of the Palestinian people. Consequently, Iran’s policy focused less on formal engagement with the Palestinian Authority and more on supporting Palestinian resistance movements, while the Palestinian Authority based its strategy on the two-state solution and reliance on international support.
This fundamental divergence in defining the nature of the Palestinian question and the means of realizing Palestinian rights became a major source of distance between Iran and the Palestinian Authority. Nevertheless, relations between the two sides have not remained in a state of complete confrontation, and in certain periods limited forms of convergence emerged under the influence of regional and domestic Palestinian developments. Therefore, relations between Iran and the Palestinian Authority cannot be understood within a fixed framework; rather, they have continuously fluctuated in response to domestic, regional, and international factors.
Accordingly, this study examines the trajectory of the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran toward the Palestinian Authority and its implications for the Palestinian question. The study argues that Iran’s policy has followed a fluctuating and dynamic path shaped by both domestic and systemic factors and that this approach has significantly affected Palestine's political and institutional capacities.
Methodology
This study employs a descriptive-analytical approach. Data were collected through library resources, official documents, international reports, and relevant academic studies. The theoretical framework is based on constructivism, particularly holistic constructivism. According to this approach, foreign policy is shaped not only by material considerations but also by identities, norms, and mutual perceptions. Within this framework, relations between Iran and the Palestinian Authority are analyzed as the interaction between two different understandings of resistance, legitimacy, and the future of the Palestinian question.
Results and Discussion
The findings indicate that the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran toward the Palestinian Authority has not followed a fixed pattern since the establishment of this institution and has continuously evolved under the influence of Palestinian internal developments and regional conditions. Following the Oslo Accords, Iran distanced itself from the Palestinian Authority, criticizing both the peace process and the recognition of Israel while focusing its support on Palestinian resistance groups. Nevertheless, during certain periods, particularly during the Second Intifada and some regional developments, limited convergence emerged between the two sides. This trend shifted again toward tension after the death of Yasser Arafat and the intensification of divisions between Fatah and Hamas.
One of the most important factors shaping relations between Iran and the Palestinian Authority is the divergence in defining the Palestinian question itself. The Palestinian Authority largely perceives the conflict with Israel as a territorial dispute that can be resolved through the establishment of two independent states based on the 1967 borders. In contrast, Iran views the issue as part of a broader project of colonialism and occupation and emphasizes resistance and a comprehensive referendum as the appropriate solution. This discursive divergence has produced two different understandings of political legitimacy in Palestine: the Palestinian Authority derives legitimacy from international recognition and legal processes, whereas Iran defines legitimacy through resistance and opposition to domination.
Another important factor is the internal Palestinian political divide. The separation between Gaza and the West Bank and the absence of a unified Palestinian authority have given Iran’s policy toward Palestinian actors a multilayered character. Iran’s support for resistance groups has strengthened these movements but has simultaneously contributed to political fragmentation within the Palestinian structure. Consequently, a dual governance structure has become entrenched, complicating the establishment of a unified Palestinian state and weakening institutional cohesion within the national movement.
At the systemic level, external pressure from the United States, the European Union, and Israel has significantly influenced relations between Iran and the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority’s financial dependence on foreign assistance has restricted its ability to pursue an independent foreign policy and has made rapprochement with Iran costly. Moreover, the dominance of the two-state solution within the international system has marginalized Iran from official peace processes, while the Palestinian Authority has remained committed to this framework to preserve its international legitimacy.
At the same time, the findings suggest that Iran’s policy has not produced solely negative consequences. Iran’s support for resistance movements has contributed to preserving Palestinian deterrent capabilities, maintaining the Palestinian question as a regional concern, and preventing the marginalization of the discourse of resistance. Furthermore, such support enabled resistance groups to remain influential actors in Palestinian politics and regional security dynamics. However, excessive emphasis on confrontation and distancing from the Palestinian Authority has reduced attention to Palestine’s legal, institutional, and diplomatic capacities and limited the use of both resistance and diplomacy in advancing national interests.
The findings therefore demonstrate that relations between Iran and the Palestinian Authority should not be interpreted merely through a binary framework of alliance or hostility. Rather, these relations reflect competing political identities, regional power dynamics, and differing conceptions of legitimacy and statehood. The fluctuating nature of these relations reveals the extent to which both domestic Palestinian fragmentation and broader regional transformations have shaped the foreign policy behavior of the two sides.
Conclusion
Relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Palestinian Authority from 1994 to 2026 have been shaped by the continuous redefinition of identities, regional developments, international pressures, and internal Palestinian divisions. The fundamental divergence between the two sides regarding the nature of the Palestinian question and the means of realizing Palestinian rights has been the primary source of tension in their relations. While Iran has emphasized the discourse of resistance, the Palestinian Authority has pursued negotiation, state-building, and the use of international legal mechanisms.
Despite these differences, relations between the two sides have never reached a complete rupture, and limited forms of cooperation have occasionally emerged. In this context, cooperation in low-politics areas such as cultural, educational, academic, and developmental fields could contribute to confidence-building and the reduction of political tensions. Overall, although the continuing distance between Iran and the Palestinian Authority has helped preserve the discourse of resistance, it has simultaneously constrained Palestine’s institutional and diplomatic capacities. Therefore, a limited yet functional interaction between the two sides could provide an opportunity to integrate resistance and diplomacy in support of Palestinian rights.
