Hamas Between Iran and Qatar: The Delicate Balance Equation in Times of War

Today, Hamas is going through one of its most complicated and critical political moments since its establishment, amid the ongoing Israeli-American war and its repercussions that necessitate a comprehensive redrawing of the alliance map in the Middle East.

The movement, which has not yet emerged from the flames of a devastating war in Gaza that has left catastrophic impacts still affecting Palestinians and the infrastructure, now finds itself facing an extremely sensitive political test. This challenge is not limited to managing its contradictory regional alliances but extends to fulfilling the agreements and obligations imposed on it, which include commitments to specific and strict measures, such as disarmament and exiting the governance of Gaza. Otherwise, the commencement of the second phase of any agreement, which entails a full Israeli withdrawal and extensive reconstruction operations, would be at risk of collapse. This bitter reality makes the internal pressure on the movement just as significant as the regional pressures, adding to the difficulty of the traditional balance between Tehran and Doha.

In recent days, the movement has expressed positions that may seem divergent at first glance. On one hand, Hamas hastened to condemn the war on Iran and clearly announced its solidarity with it, a stance that cannot be seen as merely a passing political expression but reflects a deep understanding within the corridors of the movement that the relationship with Iran represents a fundamental and existential pillar in its ability to survive as a military and political force, especially in light of the ongoing confrontation with Israel in Gaza and the West Bank.

For many years, Iran has played a central role in supporting the movement through advanced military training, qualitative armament, and generous financial support, which has contributed to building military capabilities enabling it to confront Israel and formulate deterrent equations. From this perspective, Hamas views the war on Iran as a direct threat to a regional entity and axis it considers itself an essential part of, convinced that any strategic weakening of Iran would inevitably reflect on its own capabilities and the future of what is termed the "Axis of Resistance."

However, in the same temporal context, another striking position emerged from the movement, calling for avoiding targeting the Gulf Arab states and emphasizing the "sacredness of Arab blood." This statement cannot be read in isolation from the vital strategic relationship that binds the movement to Qatar, which has become the primary political and safe haven for Hamas's leadership abroad over the past years.
Qatar has provided the movement with what other countries have been unable to offer: a secure political space, a high capacity for communication with various regional and international parties, in addition to its crucial role as the only option in mediations related to Gaza. Therefore, losing this Qatari embrace is seen by Hamas as a risky venture with uncertain consequences.

While Turkey has provided various facilities for the movement's leaders, it still remains for Hamas a politically less stable and reliable environment compared to Qatar, which has succeeded in maintaining a delicate and sustainable balance in its regional international relations. These two contrasting positions illustrate the immense pressure Hamas is experiencing amid differing viewpoints within it, between what is known as the "external current," represented by one of its prominent leaders, Khaled Mashal, who seeks balances with Arab states, and the "internal current" linked to the leadership in Gaza that directly faces the war's aftermath and battlefield pressures while clinging to the alliance with Iran as a military survival option.

This divergence does not necessarily indicate a sharp organizational split, but it reveals a genuine political dilemma: how can a besieged and depleted movement maintain its contradictory network of alliances at a time when power balances are changing at lightning speed? Especially since the war that erupted after October 7 has opened a new phase in the conflict, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has exploited to talk about reshaping what he calls a "new Middle East," a vision supported by Donald Trump that aims to eliminate the powers opposing this path.

In this complex context, all of Hamas's options appear costly and expensive; abandoning Iran means losing the most important sources of military and logistical support, while distancing itself from Qatar may plunge the movement into a suffocating political and diplomatic isolation. Between these two options, the movement tries to tread a very thin line of anxious balance, sticking to its choices despite the heavy costs and changing regional climate, relying on a historical "pragmatism" that always seeks to find middle ground between conflicting positions.

Conversely, Israel is monitoring Hamas's recent positions as concrete evidence of the political pressure encircling the movement. Some Israeli analysts believe that Hamas is attempting to maintain a policy of "multiple allies" between Iran, which provided the bullets and rockets, and Qatar, which provides the political umbrella. However, the current war makes this balance more difficult than ever, as Israel bets that continued field and political pressure will ultimately weaken the movement's ability to reconcile these relationships, and may push it to face sharp internal contradictions between the ambitions of external leaders and the realities of internal leaders.

The compelling question today is: How long can this balance withstand in a region with rapidly shifting alliances? Will Hamas succeed in maintaining its intertwined relationships, or will the ongoing transformations ultimately force it to make a bitter choice between these opposing paths?

Recent positions have clearly reflected an attempt to maintain a thread of connection between its regional relations, alongside attempts to contain the internal pressure demanding the movement fulfill its commitments and ensure Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, continued reconstruction, and the ongoing truce. However, the success of this equation will remain linked to the movement's capacity to maneuver in a highly volatile environment, where fixed alliances are no longer guaranteed, and maintaining the balance between Tehran and Doha may turn from a feasible policy to one of the most difficult existential challenges facing the movement in the upcoming phase.

In a region where its political and security balances are being reshaped with force, Hamas may find itself compelled to redefine its position, not merely as a political option but as a strategic dilemma that will determine its maneuvering margin and ability to survive in the coming years, just as it initially seemed with the internal pressure to maintain calm and ensure the start of rebuilding what the war had destroyed.