Iran did not target Trump in Turkey to preserve neighborly ties, official says

The group’s announcement that it is dissolving the governing body that administered Gaza for nearly two decades has been presented as a significant political concession under a US-backed roadmap for the enclave’s future.

But analysts who spoke to Iran International say the move is largely cosmetic, leaving Hamas’s military structure intact and doing little to alter its long-standing relationship with Iran.

Rather than abandoning Hamas, Iran has simply shifted its priorities, they argue, placing Hezbollah and Lebanon ahead of Gaza while quietly maintaining ties with the group.

"It's not even symbolic, it's a lie," said Beni Sabti, an Iran researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS). "The real thing is not even the disarmament. The ideology is still there."

The announcement dissolves Hamas’s civilian governing body, but leaves unanswered whether the group is willing to surrender its weapons and relinquish control over Gaza’s security apparatus.

For Sabti, that omission is the entire story.

"Iran is acting behind the curtains, also for Hamas," he said.

Recent developments suggest the relationship remains active despite Tehran’s muted public rhetoric.

Before the Iran-US memorandum was signed, a Hamas military spokesman said Iranian officials had pledged to help secure a ceasefire in Gaza.

Hamas representatives also traveled to Tehran for Ali Khamenei’s funeral, where they met senior Iranian officials, including Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

To Sabti, those contacts suggest Tehran has not changed its long-term strategy. Instead, it has temporarily reordered its priorities.

"Hezbollah is the most important," he said, arguing Iran has historically never abandoned its proxy groups.

The timing of Hamas’s announcement also reflects mounting pressure on the group.

It comes amid a US-backed political process for Gaza’s future, sustained pressure from Egypt and Qatar, renewed political competition from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and growing anti-Hamas protests inside Gaza itself.

Dalia Ziada, a Middle East analyst with ISGAP, argues Hamas’s announcement was designed to respond to those pressures without making the one concession demanded by Israel and much of the international community.

"They were forced to say something, not to do something," she said.

According to Ziada, Hamas has not agreed to disarm, dismantle its military wing or remove the network of loyalists embedded throughout Gaza’s civilian institutions.

"The international community is dealing with Hamas as a political entity," she said. "But no. This is a terrorist militia."

Ziada believes Tehran’s current restraint reflects pragmatism rather than a strategic break.

"Hamas is not profitable anymore," she said, arguing the group has become more of a liability than an asset following Israel’s campaign against its leadership. "If Hamas survives this situation... of course Iran will snap back."

Former Israeli intelligence official Avi Melamed agrees Hamas’s announcement should not be mistaken for a genuine transfer of power.

"I don't think that anyone really takes it seriously," he said.

Melamed argues Iran views Hamas primarily as a strategic instrument rather than an ideological partner.

"The relationship has been always clear. Hamas is a useful servant for the Iranian regime."

For Tehran, he says, Hezbollah remains the crown jewel of its regional network, while Hamas occupies a lower place in what he describes as the "food chain."

"Hamas and Islamic Jihad know their place in the food chain," Melamed said.

That hierarchy helps explain why Lebanon featured prominently in the Iran-US memorandum while Gaza did not.

The announcement may ease diplomatic pressure and create space for negotiations over Gaza’s future. But without disarmament, analysts argue, it changes little about the balance of power on the ground.

Hamas may be stepping away from civilian administration. Its military structure remains intact. And despite Tehran’s public silence, few expect Iran’s relationship with Hamas to disappear.

The case stems from protests on January 8 at Alikhani Square in Isfahan, where authorities said four Basij members were killed.

According to the lawyer, 59 people were initially arrested after the incident.

The lawyer said 23 of those detained were sentenced to between five and 10 years in prison, even though they were not accused of directly taking part in the deaths and appeared to have been added to the case to strengthen the prosecution’s broader narrative.

Twelve others were sentenced to death.

The lawyer said the Supreme Court upheld the death sentences on July 5 and the case has now been sent to the sentence enforcement branch of the Isfahan Revolutionary Court, raising fears that the executions could be carried out soon.

The prosecutor in the case is Mohammad Nakhjavan, according to the information received. The judges are Mohammad Barati-Dorcheh and Mohammad Tavakoli, also known as Vakili.

Tavakoli previously served as a judge in the “Khaneh Isfahan” (Isfahan House) case, another protest-linked case in Isfahan that ended with the execution of Saleh Mirhashemi, Majid Kazemi and Saeed Yaghoubi in May 2023.

• 

  Iran Executes Three Political Prisoners After Sham Trial

• 

  Don’t Let Us Die, Plead ‘Esfahan House’ Prisoners Facing Execution

The lawyer said the defendants in the Alikhani Square case were denied access to independent lawyers during the trial stage and were represented by court-appointed attorneys.

The lawyer also said the court blocked defense lawyers from accessing the full case files.

The 12 protesters sentenced to death are mostly very young men. Three were born in 2007 and were around 17 or 18 at the time of the January 2026 protests. Several others were born between 2004 and 2006, and one is an Afghan national. Two brothers are among those facing execution.

The judiciary has not publicly responded to the allegations about denial of access to independent counsel and case files.

The case fits a pattern seen in several protest-linked capital cases in Iran, where the reported deaths of security personnel or pro-government forces have been followed by broad arrests, charges carrying the death penalty and claims by families, lawyers and rights groups that defendants were denied fair trial guarantees.

Rights groups have warned that Iran’s use of death sentences in protest cases has become a tool of intimidation, particularly after periods of unrest, with executions used to send a message far beyond the individual defendants.

• 

  Five more protesters sentenced to death in central Iran

• 

  Iran executes two January protesters as post-war crackdown continues

Amnesty International said in February that at least 30 people were facing the death penalty over alleged offences linked to the January 2026 protests, including eight people sentenced to death after expedited and “grossly unfair” trials.

The Center for Human Rights in Iran said in April that at least 22 political prisoners had been executed in six weeks, including 10 people detained during the January protests, in cases it said were marked by secretive proceedings, torture, forced confessions and lack of due process.

Human Rights Watch said the January unrest was met with mass killings, arbitrary arrests and severe communications restrictions, with thousands of protesters and bystanders believed to have been killed after protests escalated on January 8.

The new Isfahan case raises the number of protest-linked prisoners facing imminent execution and adds to fears that Iran’s judiciary is accelerating capital punishment in cases tied to the January uprising.

The funeral processions in Tehran and Qom were overshadowed by hardline supporters chanting slogans against President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, a sign of growing tensions over the government's diplomatic course.

Videos circulating on social media showed Pezeshkian being escorted through crowds by his security detail as mourners shouted "Death to the compromiser." Another video captured an even more hostile reception for Araghchi, with chants including "Death to the traitor," and "Shameless."

Yousef Pezeshkian, the president’s son and adviser, condemned the incident, writing: "If anger is directed against our own forces, targets Muslim unity and undermines domestic cohesion, it means we have become a tool in the enemy's hands and opened a window of hope for it to inflict further blows."

The attacks prompted strong criticism from reformists as well as some conservatives who support parliamentary speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf's cooperation with the government and negotiations with the United States.

Conservative journalist Mohammad Mohajeri criticized senior officials, particularly Supreme National Security Council Secretary Mohammad-Bagher Zolghadr and some members of the Supreme National Security Council, for remaining silent. "Their silence is itself creating an even greater sedition."

Reformist journalist Ali Asghar Shafieian argued that the slogans damaged Iran's national interests. "On the day of the funeral, when even critics wore black out of respect for Iran and its leader, slogans against the state's decision to end the war and against negotiators seeking sanctions relief dealt a blow to national dignity and security."

Notable absences

The funeral also drew attention for the absence of former presidents Mohammad Khatami and Hassan Rouhani, despite official expectations that the ceremonies would showcase unprecedented national solidarity. Former foreign minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif was also absent, while images showed former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attending the public procession.

Authorities have not explained whether the former officials chose not to attend or were prevented from doing so.

Unlike Pezeshkian, Ghalibaf, and Hassan Khomeini – the grandson of Islamic Republic founder Ruhollah Khomeini – attended only the tightly controlled farewell ceremony at Tehran's Mosalla rather than the public street procession.

Political analyst Ahmad Zeidabadi argued that the hostile atmosphere explained the absences. "[The behaviour of] those who ignored the sanctity of the funeral by insulting the president and foreign minister clearly explains why figures such as Mohammad Khatami and Hassan Rouhani did not attend."

He added: "If they showed no mercy even to Pezeshkian, who enjoyed Khamenei's full trust and respect, it is obvious what they would have done had Khatami or Rouhani appeared."

The reformist-leaning website Rouydad24 described the absence of former presidents as "not merely a ceremonial issue, but the loss of an opportunity to demonstrate political consensus at one of the country's most sensitive moments."

Calls for revenge dominate messaging

During the mourning ceremonies, some participants repeatedly called for retaliation against the United States, Israel, and particularly US President Donald Trump, whom they blamed for Khamenei's death. Many mourners carried red flags symbolizing vengeance.

One supporter wrote: "Officials, do you see these flags of revenge? People will be calmed by revenge against the enemy – not by negotiations."

Hardline journalist Parisa Nasrabadi argued: "Avenging the martyred leader is a decisive step toward restoring lost deterrence, a duty to prevent future assassinations of leaders, and an absolute necessity to protect the position of Iran's young leader."

Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of the hardline Kayhan newspaper, called on the government to officially declare Trump and even the pilots allegedly involved in Khamenei's killing worthy of death wherever they are found, and proposed offering a bounty for anyone who kills Trump.

Another commentary published by Tabnak argued that the massive turnout and chants demonstrated that Iranian authorities had "no option but to exact retribution against the killers of the martyred leader."

Was the funeral a referendum?

Several pro-government figures portrayed the turnout as a public referendum endorsing the Islamic Republic.

Lawmaker Jafar Ghaderi described it as "the revolution's largest popular referendum," arguing that the government should now respond by addressing economic concerns and rewarding public loyalty.

Zeidabadi challenged the analogy, writing: "It would be good to explain exactly what this referendum is about and in which law a 'street referendum' is defined."

A social media user similarly argued that authorities have long portrayed public gatherings as proof of popular endorsement without specifying either the subject of the alleged referendum or its legal basis.

Foreign influencers welcomed

The funeral also featured several foreign journalists and pro-Iran commentators, including American media personality Jackson Hinkle, The Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal, and British journalist and blogger Bushra Sheikh, all of whom are known for criticizing Western policy toward Iran. Their presence was widely celebrated by government supporters online.

A widely shared video showed Hinkle standing on a stage in Tehran’s Enghelab Square, leading mourners in chants of “Death to Zionists,” “Death to Israel” and “Death to America,” with the crowd repeating the slogans after him.

Sources inside Iran told Iran International that Khamenei does not intend to extend Eje'i’s term for another five years, breaking with a practice followed for nearly four decades in which judiciary chiefs have usually served two consecutive five-year terms.

The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the decision is not aimed at judicial reform but is part of a broader reshaping of power after the recent war.

They said the new supreme leader is seeking to replace key officials in major state institutions with figures more closely aligned with him.

Eje'i’s expected removal could mark one of the first major signs of Khamenei’s effort to rebuild control over the Islamic Republic’s judicial, security and political apparatus after the transfer of power.

Hardliners step up pressure on Eje'i

The decision comes amid growing criticism of Eje'i from hardline figures after the names of Supreme National Security Council members who voted in favor of a memorandum of understanding with the United States were disclosed.

Critics say Eje'i’s vote was at odds with Khamenei’s stated position, after the leader said in a letter that he had, in principle, held a different view on the memorandum of understanding.

Signs of dissatisfaction with Eje'i’s five-year record have also appeared in recent official and semi-official commentary close to the power structure.

In a message marking Judiciary Week, Khamenei did not clearly endorse Eje'i’s continuation in office. Instead, he addressed the judiciary as an institution and called for the “actualization” of demands previously made by former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

The message repeated calls for the implementation of the judicial transformation document, fighting corruption inside the judiciary, reviving public rights, blocking the use of recommendations and lobbying, and improving communication with the public.

Eje'i seeks to defend his record

A day later, Eje'i published a letter to Khamenei in deferential language, defending the judiciary’s performance and pledging to continue the path of “judicial transformation.”

“I and all components of the judiciary consider ourselves obliged to carry out Your Excellency’s binding commands precisely, swiftly and without any reduction,” Eje'i wrote.

Media outlets and figures close to the establishment criticized Eje'i for not publishing such a letter before Khamenei’s message. Some also described the new leader’s renewed emphasis on his father’s demands as a negative assessment of Eje'i’s record, arguing that their repetition showed the judiciary had failed to deliver practical results under him.

Rival factions inside the establishment have also stepped up attacks on Eje'i, accusing him of distancing himself from the leadership’s demands.

Media close to Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and President Masoud Pezeshkian have described the attacks as part of an effort by the faction aligned with Saeed Jalili, a member of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, and the Paydari Front to create divisions among senior officials and weaken the postwar political path.

Media close to the judiciary and Eje'i’s supporters have sought to portray his five-year record as successful, citing reduced imprisonment, electronic court proceedings, shorter trials, anti-corruption efforts and public outreach.

Rights groups point to record of repression

Human rights groups and activists say Eje'i is not a reformist figure but a long-standing part of the Islamic Republic’s repressive judicial and security apparatus.

They point to his record in the Special Clerical Court, the Ministry of Intelligence, and later as first deputy and head of the judiciary, saying his tenure has been marked by continued heavy sentences against protesters, political activists, journalists, prisoners of conscience and minorities.

Rights advocates say the judiciary under Eje'i has continued to act as the legal and executive arm of security institutions in political and security cases.

They also argue that replacing Eje'i alone would not bring meaningful change without structural reform, an end to security interference in judicial cases, guaranteed access to lawyers, a halt to forced confessions, the annulment of political verdicts and respect for fair trial standards.