Hamas issued an official statement condemning the joint U.S.-Israel military operation against Iran on February 28, 2026, calling the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei a “heinous” act of “blatant aggression” against Iranian sovereignty. The Palestinian militant group mourned Khamenei publicly, crediting him with providing “all forms of political, diplomatic and military support to our people, our cause, and our resistance,” and warned that Washington and Tel Aviv “bear full responsibility” for what it described as grave repercussions to regional security and stability.
The statement placed Hamas squarely alongside China, Russia, and North Korea in the chorus of international condemnation following Operation Epic Fury, as the Pentagon dubbed the strikes, or Operation Roaring Lion, as Israel called it. Yet for all the rhetorical fire, Hamas has not launched any retaliatory attacks on Israeli forces, a fact that speaks volumes about the group’s severely diminished military capacity after more than two years of war in Gaza. This article examines the full text and implications of Hamas’s response, the strategic context behind the statement, why the group stopped short of action, and what the fallout means for the broader Middle East.
Table of Contents
- What Did Hamas Say After the Joint U.S.-Israel Operation Against Iran?
- Why Hamas Condemned the Strikes but Took No Military Action
- Iran’s Role as Hamas’s Patron and What Khamenei’s Death Changes
- How the International Response Shaped Hamas’s Strategic Position
- The Risk of Escalation Across the Region
- What Hamas’s Statement Reveals About Internal Politics
- What Comes Next for Hamas and the Shifting Middle East
- Conclusion
- Frequently Asked Questions
What Did Hamas Say After the Joint U.S.-Israel Operation Against Iran?
Hamas’s statement hit several deliberate notes. First, it framed the killing of Khamenei not as a military operation but as a “heinous crime against the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” language designed to invoke international law and state sovereignty norms rather than the battlefield logic the U.S. and Israel used to justify the strikes. Second, Hamas explicitly acknowledged Iran’s role as a patron, stating Khamenei had backed “our people, our cause, and our resistance” with political, diplomatic, and military support. That level of open acknowledgment is notable. Hamas has historically tried to maintain some rhetorical distance from Tehran, particularly when courting Gulf Arab support. The statement also included a direct call to action aimed at Arab and Muslim governments.
Hamas said these nations bear “political, legal, and historical responsibility” to take “immediate and decisive action” in response. The phrasing was carefully chosen to put pressure on states like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, countries that have largely stayed on the sidelines or quietly coordinated with Washington during the crisis. Hamas called for unity across the Muslim world and reaffirmed its solidarity with Iran, a move that risks further alienating Sunni Arab governments already skeptical of the group’s ties to Tehran. The tone of the statement was grief mixed with defiance, but notably absent was any specific threat. There was no promise of retaliation, no declaration of a new phase of resistance. Compare that to Hamas’s rhetoric in the months before October 7, 2023, when the group’s public messaging was far more operationally charged. The gap between words and capability has rarely been wider.
Why Hamas Condemned the Strikes but Took No Military Action
The most revealing part of Hamas’s response is what it did not do. Despite mourning the death of its most important state sponsor, Hamas has launched no attacks on Israeli forces in the aftermath of the strikes. This is not a strategic choice born of restraint. It is a reflection of reality on the ground. Since October 2023, Israel’s military campaign in Gaza has inflicted catastrophic losses on Hamas’s fighting capacity.
Command structures have been dismantled, tunnel networks have been destroyed or compromised, and thousands of fighters have been killed. The group faces ongoing disarmament pressures from multiple directions, including ceasefire frameworks that require it to give up weapons. In practical terms, Hamas does not currently have the ability to open a meaningful second front against Israel, even if the political will existed. The statement’s call for other Muslim nations to act can be read, in part, as an admission that Hamas itself cannot. However, if Hamas’s military wing manages to reconstitute even partially, or if Iranian-aligned militias in Lebanon, Iraq, or Yemen escalate in response to Khamenei’s killing, the calculus could shift. The statement keeps the rhetorical door open for future action without committing to a timeline or specific response, a hedge that allows Hamas to claim solidarity without exposing its current weakness.
Iran’s Role as Hamas’s Patron and What Khamenei’s Death Changes
Khamenei’s relationship with Hamas was one of the more unusual alliances in Middle Eastern geopolitics. Iran is a Shia theocracy; Hamas is a Sunni Islamist movement rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood tradition. The partnership was built almost entirely on shared opposition to Israel rather than ideological alignment. Tehran provided weapons, funding, training, and diplomatic cover. In return, Hamas gave Iran a foothold in the Palestinian cause, a powerful symbolic asset across the Muslim world.
With Khamenei dead, the question is whether Iran’s next leadership will maintain the same level of commitment to Hamas. Iran’s support for proxy groups has always been a strategic calculation, not a sentimental one. A successor regime dealing with the aftermath of massive U.S.-Israeli strikes on its own territory may prioritize domestic survival over maintaining expensive relationships with groups in Gaza. Hamas’s public mourning of Khamenei can be read partly as an attempt to lock in that support, to make it politically costly for any Iranian successor to abandon the relationship. The Israeli military explicitly connected the operation to Iran’s sponsorship of the October 7 attacks, stating that Israel “will not forget.” That framing turns the strikes into a direct message to any future Iranian leader considering support for Hamas: the cost of backing attacks on Israel now includes the potential destruction of your own government.
How the International Response Shaped Hamas’s Strategic Position
Hamas’s statement was released into an international environment that was deeply fractured. China and Russia condemned the strikes as violations of sovereignty and international law. North Korea issued similar denunciations. Western governments largely supported or tacitly accepted the operation, framing it as a legitimate response to Iranian aggression and nuclear threats. For Hamas, being grouped with Beijing, Moscow, and Pyongyang is a double-edged reality.
On one hand, these are powerful states whose opposition to U.S.-Israeli military action carries weight in international forums. On the other hand, the association reinforces the narrative that Hamas exists within an anti-Western axis, making it harder for the group to present itself as a legitimate national liberation movement to European governments or international institutions that might otherwise be sympathetic to Palestinian statehood. Compare this to the Palestinian Authority’s more measured response, which condemned civilian casualties without explicitly aligning with Iran, an approach designed to preserve Western diplomatic ties. The tradeoff for Hamas is clear. Aligning with Iran and its allies provides material support and rhetorical backing, but it costs credibility with the exact international actors who would need to support any future Palestinian state. With Khamenei dead and Iran’s proxy network under severe pressure, that tradeoff looks worse than it did a year ago.
The Risk of Escalation Across the Region
Hamas’s call for “immediate and decisive action” from Arab and Muslim nations is, in one reading, a plea for others to do what Hamas cannot. But it also carries real escalation risk. Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria all have their own reasons to respond to Khamenei’s killing, reasons that go beyond Hamas’s interests. The danger is that Hamas’s rhetoric, combined with similar statements from other Iranian-aligned groups, creates a permission structure for escalation even if no single actor is directing it. A Houthi missile strike on a U.S. naval vessel, a Hezbollah rocket barrage into northern Israel, or a militia attack on American forces in Iraq could each spiral independently.
Hamas’s statement contributes to this environment by framing the operation as an attack on the entire Muslim world, not just Iran. There is also a domestic dimension. President Trump described the operation using words like “annihilation” and “elimination,” and said strikes would continue until peace was secured. That language signals an open-ended commitment that could draw the U.S. deeper into regional conflict if proxy groups respond. Hamas may be too weakened to act, but its statement is calibrated to encourage others who are not.
What Hamas’s Statement Reveals About Internal Politics
The speed and tone of Hamas’s response suggests the statement was prepared, at least in draft form, before the strikes occurred. Hamas leadership, now scattered between Qatar, Turkey, and underground locations in Gaza, has limited ability to coordinate in real time. The fact that a coherent, carefully worded statement emerged quickly indicates contingency planning for exactly this scenario.
It also reveals an internal consensus, or at least the appearance of one, around maintaining the Iran relationship. Some Hamas leaders, particularly those based in Gulf states, have privately pushed for a more pragmatic approach that would distance the group from Tehran. The public mourning of Khamenei and the explicit acknowledgment of Iranian military support shut down that internal debate, at least for now. Whether that consensus holds as Iran’s future leadership takes shape remains an open question.
What Comes Next for Hamas and the Shifting Middle East
The weeks following Operation Epic Fury will test whether Hamas’s statement was a final act of loyalty to a fallen patron or the beginning of a genuine realignment. If Iran’s successor government pulls back from proxy warfare to focus on reconstruction and regime survival, Hamas will need new sponsors. Turkey and Qatar are possibilities, but neither has shown willingness to provide the kind of military support Tehran offered. A Hamas that is both militarily degraded and financially cut off from Iran would be a fundamentally different organization than the one that launched the October 7 attacks.
The broader picture is one of a Middle East in rapid flux. The U.S.-Israel operation has reshaped the balance of power in ways that will take months or years to fully play out. Hamas’s statement is a snapshot of a group caught between its ideological commitments and its material reality, defiant in rhetoric but unable to act on its own words. The question going forward is whether that gap between words and action narrows or widens.
Conclusion
Hamas’s condemnation of the joint U.S.-Israel strikes that killed Ayatollah Khamenei was forceful in language but hollow in capability. The group mourned its most important state sponsor, called on the Muslim world to unite, and warned of grave consequences, all while being unable to launch a single retaliatory attack of its own. The statement revealed both Hamas’s ideological commitments and its operational limits after years of devastating losses in Gaza.
For observers tracking Middle Eastern security, the key indicators to watch are whether Iran’s successor leadership maintains support for Hamas, whether other proxy groups escalate independently, and whether Hamas’s call for Arab and Muslim unity gains any traction with governments that have largely avoided direct confrontation with Washington. The rhetoric is hot. The reality, for now, is one of a weakened group issuing statements from the sidelines of a conflict it helped ignite but can no longer meaningfully shape.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Hamas launch any attacks after the U.S.-Israel operation against Iran?
No. Despite condemning the strikes and mourning Khamenei, Hamas has not launched any military attacks on Israeli forces in response. The group’s severely diminished capacity after years of war in Gaza is the most likely explanation.
What was the joint U.S.-Israel operation called?
The Pentagon codenamed it “Epic Fury,” while Israel called it “Operation Roaring Lion.” The strikes took place on February 28, 2026, and resulted in the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei along with other senior security officials.
Why does Hamas support Iran despite being a Sunni group?
The alliance is strategic, not ideological. Iran provided Hamas with weapons, funding, training, and diplomatic support based on shared opposition to Israel, not shared religious doctrine. Hamas publicly acknowledged this support in its statement mourning Khamenei.
Which countries joined Hamas in condemning the strikes?
China, Russia, and North Korea all issued condemnations alongside Hamas. Western governments largely supported or accepted the operation as a response to Iranian threats.
Could Hamas’s statement lead to broader regional escalation?
Hamas itself lacks the military capacity to escalate, but its call for “immediate and decisive action” from Arab and Muslim nations could contribute to a broader environment where Iranian-aligned groups in Lebanon, Yemen, or Iraq feel pressure to respond independently.