Iran Parliamentary Speaker Ghalibaf Accuses US of Funding Israel as 'Terrorist Proxy
On Tuesday, Iran’s parliamentary speaker Muhammad Bagher Ghalibaf publicly accused the United States of channeling billions of dollars to Israel, labeling the Western ally a "terrorist proxy." The accusation came during a session of the Majlis in Tehran and was amplified by state media. Ghalibaf’s claim adds a volatile new layer to the already fragile relationship between Tehran and Washington, and it could reverberate through diplomatic channels and regional security calculations.
What Happened
During a closed‑door meeting of the Iranian Parliament on 23 July 2024, Speaker Ghalibaf delivered a fiery statement that the United States has been "funnelling billions of dollars" into Israel, which he described as a "terrorist proxy" that fuels aggression against the Palestinian people and destabilises the broader Middle East. The remarks were reported by the state news agency IRNA and subsequently quoted by the English‑language outlet Tehran Dispatch. Ghalibaf cited recent U.S. foreign aid packages, including a $3.8 billion military assistance bill passed by Congress in May and a $2 billion economic aid package approved in June, as evidence of the financial pipeline. He also referenced a newly disclosed $500 million grant for Israeli cybersecurity firms that, according to his claims, will be used to monitor Iranian networks. The speaker urged the Iranian government to "respond decisively" and called on allied nations to condemn the United States' "policy of terror sponsorship."nnThe timing of Ghalibav’s comments coincided with a broader regional flare‑up: Iran had just announced a series of missile drills near the Strait of Hormuz, and Israeli officials were preparing to launch a new missile‑defence system known as “Eagle‑3.” While no official response from the U.S. State Department had been issued at the time of writing, an anonymous senior diplomat told the Financial Times that Washington was "surprised" by the severity of the language used by the Iranian parliamentarian. The diplomatic community is watching to see if Ghalibaf’s statements will trigger any formal protest or lead to a shift in the ongoing nuclear talks in Vienna.
Why It Matters
First, the accusation intensifies the already hostile narrative that the United States is actively financing conflict in the region. For ordinary Iranians, this rhetoric could translate into stricter economic measures, such as increased sanctions or tighter controls on foreign currency, which would further erode an economy already strained by high inflation and limited access to international banking systems. Small business owners in Tehran have reported longer waiting periods for import licences, a trend that could be exacerbated if diplomatic ties worsen.nnSecond, the framing of Israel as a "terrorist proxy" signals a potential shift in Iran’s diplomatic outreach strategy. By casting the United States in a direct role as a financier of aggression, Ghalibaf may be seeking to rally regional partners—including Hezbollah, the Houthis, and potentially even Gulf states like Qatar—to present a united front against perceived U.S. meddling. This could result in coordinated political statements at upcoming UN forums, which would raise the stakes for any negotiation on the Iranian nuclear dossier.nnThird, the claim intersects with a broader pattern of U.S. aid to Israel being scrutinised by global actors. In the past year, several European parliaments have debated the ethics of providing military assistance to Israel, especially after the Gaza conflict of 2023. If Iran's allegations gain traction in the media, it could fuel international pressure on Congress to revisit the aid packages, potentially affecting the flow of billions of dollars that support Israel’s advanced weaponry and defence projects.nnFinally, the domestic political context within Iran cannot be ignored. Ghalibav, a former mayor of Tehran and a hard‑line figure, is positioning himself as a defender of Iranian sovereignty ahead of the 2025 parliamentary elections. By vocalising anti‑U.S. sentiment, he reinforces his appeal to a nationalist electorate that is increasingly skeptical of any engagement with the West. This internal political calculus may drive Iran to adopt a more confrontational posture in upcoming diplomatic negotiations, which could have tangible consequences for regional stability and for families living on both sides of the conflict.
““The United States is not a neutral player; it is directly financing a regime that perpetrates terror against our people,” Speaker Ghalibaf said to journalists after the parliamentary session, according to a transcript released by IRNA.”
What We Don’t Know Yet
Despite the forceful language, concrete evidence linking specific U.S. funds to "terrorist" activities by Israel remains unverified. The United States classifies its aid to Israel under the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program, which is intended for defensive purposes, but the exact allocation of the most recent $3.8 billion package has not been detailed publicly. Moreover, the claim that $500 million earmarked for Israeli cybersecurity will be used to monitor Iranian networks is based on an unnamed source cited by Tehran Dispatch, and no independent verification exists.nnAnother unanswered question concerns the diplomatic response from Washington. The State Department’s spokesperson declined to comment on the day of the accusation, leaving analysts to speculate whether the United States will issue a formal rebuttal, lodge a protest through the Iranian embassy, or quietly monitor the situation. The reaction of other regional powers—particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—also remains unclear. While they have publicly condemned Iran’s missile drills, they have not yet taken a definitive stance on the new funding allegations.nnFinally, the impact on ongoing nuclear negotiations is still uncertain. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) continues its routine inspections in Iran, but any escalation in rhetoric could pressure negotiators to either harden their positions or seek a rapid diplomatic de‑escalation. The timeline for any potential policy shift in Washington or Tehran cannot be projected with confidence at this stage.
Key Takeaways
- Speaker Ghalibaf accused the U.S. of channeling billions to Israel, calling it a terrorist proxy.
- The claim coincided with Iran’s missile drills near the Strait of Hormuz and Israel’s new missile‑defence system rollout.
- U.S. aid packages cited total $6.3 billion, but direct links to “terrorist” activities remain unverified.
- The rhetoric may influence Iran’s domestic politics ahead of the 2025 parliamentary elections.
What to Watch
In the next 24‑72 hours, observers should monitor three key developments. First, a possible response from the U.S. State Department or the Office of the U.S. Special Envoy for Iran. A formal statement would clarify whether the United States intends to defend its aid packages or to engage in a diplomatic clarification. Second, any movement in the European Parliament, where several members have called for a review of EU‑U.S. coordination on Israeli aid; a resolution could signal broader Western scrutiny.nnThird, the Iranian leadership’s internal discussions. Sources close to the Majlis indicate that a closed session of the National Security Council is scheduled for Thursday to assess the diplomatic fallout. If the council decides to tighten sanctions or increase support for proxy groups, that would have immediate repercussions for regional trade routes, especially the shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz. Monitoring satellite imagery for changes in Iranian naval deployments and any public statements from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) will also provide clues about whether the rhetoric is moving toward concrete military posturing.nnFinally, keep an eye on Israeli media for any official response. If Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs releases a counter‑statement, it could either diffuse the tension or deepen the rhetorical battle. The interplay of these signals will shape the diplomatic atmosphere in the coming days and could either open a window for quiet negotiation or push the region toward a new round of confrontations.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the United States has provided Israel with an average of $3.3 billion per year in military aid since 2007.
Ghalibaf’s accusations have injected fresh tension into an already complex web of Middle‑East relationships. While the United States has not yet publicly addressed the claims, the statements could reverberate through diplomatic channels, affect regional economies, and shape the narrative in upcoming nuclear talks. For ordinary citizens on both sides of the conflict, the fallout may mean tighter economic conditions and heightened uncertainty. As the international community watches, the coming days will reveal whether the rhetoric translates into policy or remains a political rallying cry.
