A curious claim indeed, followed by an even more curious rebuttal. The US killed Qassem Soleimani, a commander in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, almost exactly four years ago in Iraq. Donald Trump ordered the operation in part as a reprisal for IRGC-proxy attacks on Americans and in part because US intel indicated that Soleimani was plotting an “imminent” larger-scale terror attack. At the time, Iran retaliated with a series of reprisals, which came to a screeching halt when they mistakenly destroyed a Ukrainian passenger jet and killed 176 civilians.

All of this took place within a space of a couple of weeks in January 2020. It had nothing at all to do with the Palestinian cause, and Israel had no part in the operation. Donald Trump made clear that the US conducted the strike over US security concerns in Iraq, as well as for American diplomatic facilities elsewhere. So it came as a surprise this morning when an Iranian official resurrected the Soleimani strike in a claim to al-Jazeera that Hamas’ October 7 massacres in Israel were meant as a retaliation for his death:

عاجل | الحرس الثوري الإيراني: عملية طوفان الأقصى كانت إحدى الردود على اغتيال قاسم سليماني

— الجزيرة – عاجل (@AJABreaking) December 27, 2023

The Google translation: “Urgent | Iranian Revolutionary Guard: Operation Al-Aqsa Flood was one of the responses to the assassination of Qasem Soleimani”.  Ha’aretz also covered the declaration, along with Iran’s new grievance over the killing of another IRGC commander in Syria this past week:

“Operation Al-Aqsa Flood was one of the responses to the assassination of Soleimani,” the statement claimed.

The statement also referred to the recent assassination attributed to Israel of senior Revolutionary Guards advisor Razi Mousavi – a key figure in the mechanism of transferring weapons from Iran to Hezbollah through Syria.

‘The assassination of one of our advisors will not hinder the ongoing struggle against Zionist arrogance. We are well aware of the reasons for the assassination and will respond to it directly and indirectly through the resistance axis. Assassination is a terrorist act, and the response will be resolute at the right time and place.

It’s not a terrorist act if one military strikes another military target, especially a target that runs arms to actual terrorists that started a war with the kind of barbarity not seen since the Dark Ages. But put that aside for a moment, and ponder Iran’s pledge to respond “at the right time and place.” How in the world would that apply to October 7 as a reprisal for Soleimani? It’s neither the right time nor the right place, and it’s not even close.

If you find yourself confused, you’re not alone. Hamas issued a statement within hours repudiating Iran’s contention. The October 7 operation intended to destroy Israel for Hamas’ own purposes, they emphasized, and it had nothing to do with Soleimani:

“Hamas denies the validity of the remarks given by the spokesperson of the Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Brigadier General Ramadan Sharif, regarding the operation of the Flood of al-Aqsa and its motives.

“Hamas denies the validity of the remarks given by the spokesperson of the Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Brigadier General Ramadan Sharif, regarding the operation of the Flood of al-Aqsa and its motives.

“We also confirm that all acts of Palestinian resistance come in response to the Zionist occupation and its ongoing aggression against our people and our holy sites.”

On its face, the claim from the IRGC seems absurd, almost like an attempt to steal some of Hamas’ PR for its own purposes. Why would the IRGC go that far out on a limb to make this ridiculous and non-sequitur claim, especially without checking first with its own proxy terror network to coordinate?

Duane Patterson and I batted this question around a bit on today’s Hugh Hewitt Show. Duane suggested that this could be Tehran’s attempt to influence the Biden administration and Democrats by putting the blame for the October 7 massacres on Donald Trump. That does make some sense; if Democrats swallowed that line, it could put more pressure on Joe Biden to distance himself from Israel. Progressives (including Kamala Harris) are already applying pressure on Biden to force a cease-fire on Benjamin Netanyahu, especially The Squad and its allies. Blaming the war on Trump would make a handy rationalization — or so the theory goes.

The problem with this scenario is that it’s so absurd as to negate itself. Even those progressives rabidly fomenting a split from Israel and an alignment with the Palestinians can’t argue that a four-year-old incident that had nothing to do with either the Israelis or Palestinians could possibly be a catalyst for what happened in southern Israel on October 7. The hard Left is ignoring the massacres at the moment, but they can’t get away with denying them or pretending that they have any legitimacy as either acts of liberation or reprisal for the military-on-military strike on Soleimani.

So if that’s not the reason, what is? The Iranian involvement in this campaign against Israel is likely not making the mullahs any more popular at home. The Iranians have been courageously agitating against the regime for well over a decade now, and the Palestinian cause is deeply unpopular among them. The IRGC’s oppression and enforcement of morality laws have caused riots and weeks of demonstrations and near-rebellions, even in Tehran itself, over the last year or so. Watching even more resources get sucked out of the Iran for Palestinian terrorism won’t make the mullahs any more popular — so the mullahs and IRGC need to connect this to their own grievances, at least for popular consumption at home.

That seems pretty thin too, but perhaps the patriotism card is the only card the mullahs have to play. If even Hamas won’t buy it, though …