Why did Iran snub Trump's peace summit?

Absence from Sharm El Sheikh talks raises fears of isolation in Middle East

Iran is under sanctions by the US and its allies over its secretive nuclear programme. EPA

Donald Trump's Gaza peace summit was missing a major player in Middle East politics – Hamas's foremost ally, Iran.

The Iranian government confirmed it received a formal invitation to the summit in Sharm El Sheikh, where mediators Egypt, the US, Qatar and Turkey led pledges to open a new chapter of peace in the Middle East. But Iran chose not to attend.

Tehran’s empty chair has ignited fierce debate inside and outside Iran: Was skipping the summit a diplomatic blunder, or a deliberate stand on principle?

EditorialHamas guns should not derail the Gaza peace plan

Read More

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi thanked Egypt for the invitation, but set out Tehran’s limits. “Iran welcomes any initiative to end the Gaza war, but neither President [Masoud] Pezeshkian nor I can engage with counterparts who have attacked the Iranian people and continue to threaten and sanction us.”

Mr Araghchi was referring to the US. The summit took place only months after the 12-day Iran-Israel war in June, in which US and Israeli strikes hammered Iranian nuclear facilities. For Tehran, sharing a table with Washington so soon after those hostilities felt untenable.

US President Donald Trump used the Sharm El Sheikh summit to savour his Gaza ceasefire deal. AP

Within Iranian foreign policy circles, many viewed Mr Trump’s invitation as a trap, or a test of whether Tehran is desperate for diplomacy. “Participation in US-led forums not only fails to promote peace and stability, but offers fresh platforms for political and media pressure on Iran,” Ashkan Mombeini, a commentator in Iran, told The National. “Sometimes a meaningful absence carries more diplomatic weight than a costly presence.”

Mr Trump also cast the summit as a springboard to expand the Abraham Accords. At one recent press conference with the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu he suggested: “Who knows, maybe even Iran can get in there.”

Iran’s leadership, however, rejects any move towards establishing relations with Israel. Mr Araghchi deemed it “wishful thinking”. The supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has gone as far as hailing the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel for “disrupting attempts at normalisation”.

In such a climate, attending the Sharm El Sheikh summit could have been read – at home and abroad – as a tacit endorsement of the idea. “Iran rejects even the two-state solution, let alone the Accords. Tehran insists on a single state for Palestinians, believing that the concept of two states is tantamount to recognising Israel as a state,” Mr Mombeini said.

Declining influence?

Since the Gaza war erupted, Iran's network of proxies, known as the "Axis of Resistance", waged a battle on several fronts against Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon, allied militias in Iraq, Syrian forces and the Houthis in Yemen have all played parts in assisting Hamas.

However, that axis has begun to look thin. Hezbollah has suffered heavy losses, Iraqi militias remain quiet, Bashar Al Assad’s dictatorship has fallen in Syria, and aside from the Houthis, only Hamas remains a force that nurtures Iran’s regional posture.

Domestic critics argue Iran must now adapt to the new realities of the region. Reformist commentator Amir-Hossein Mosalla called Iran’s absence in Sharm El Sheikh “a missed opportunity” that would only isolate Iran from regional power-sharing.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei denied claims of isolation. “Iran’s influence is not limited to attending or skipping a single event,” he said.

Iran is wary of American intentions after the US bombed its nuclear sites in June. Reuters

Conservative voices believe critics miss the bigger picture. With nuclear tensions unresolved, attendance in Egypt “might be interpreted as weakness or capitulation to US pressure”, said Mr Mombeini, who framed the boycott not as retreat but as “an assertion of independence”.

In his Monday address to the Israeli Knesset, Mr Trump said the US was ready for a deal with Iran “whenever Tehran is willing”. He also spoke of offering a “hand of friendship and co-operation” to Iran.

Tehran, however, has given that the cold shoulder, doubting Mr Trump’s sincerity. It believes Mr Trump's approval for the June strikes, which it described as a “betrayal to diplomacy”, was a case in point.

Ceasefire calculus

Iran has cautioned Hamas about potential Israeli violations of the ceasefire, drawing on a history of past truce-breaking. However, it has also cast the deal as a triumph for Palestinian resilience. “Hamas has not been eliminated; rather, it is now imposing its own demands on Israel,” Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf said last week.

Hamas's public posture, however, has noticeably mellowed in recent days. Its Tehran envoy, Khaled Qoddoumi, has dialled back the fiery rhetoric that once dominated his statements, including vows to retain Israeli captives and unleash a postwar media offensive against the occupation.

The National sought his views on Iran's reservations about the Trump-brokered plan – particularly disarmament clauses. “We've moved past these subjects,” he responded, signalling a pragmatic pivot towards implementation.

Mr Qoddoumi had taken a firmer line before the deal, dismissing disarmament talks as “illogical” in an Iranian state TV interview. It is not known if Iran had anticipated such a shift when opting to boycott the Sharm El Sheikh summit.