TRT World – July 31, 2024
What does Ismail Haniyeh’s assassination mean for the wider conflict?
Ismail Haniyeh’s assassination in Tehran raises fears of a regional war
Murat Sofuoglu
Israel has continued to increase its provocations with its latest attack on the Hamas political bureau leader, Ismail Haniyeh, assassinating him in Iran in a violation of the country’s territorial integrity, and raising the prospects of spreading its war on Gaza into a regional conflict.
Haniyeh, who had been the chairman of Hamas political bureau since 2017 and the prime minister of the Palestinian National Authority between 2006 and 2014, was a widely recognised moderate figure in the resistance group. Haniyeh was also a top Palestinian negotiator in both Qatar and Egypt-led ceasefire talks with Israel. His assassination could delay the ceasefire.
“Since Ismail Haniyeh was internationally negotiating and he was considered, according to manyﾠincluding the BBC, as a moderate leader (while other countries may have a different view of him), we all have to understand that this is not a single incident,” says Muhammad Athar Javed, an independent security and defence analyst, who was a former International Security Program fellow at New America.
Javed believes that Haniyeh’s assassination in Tehran could be part of “a larger scheme of a design” which may lead “to integrate all the sub-conventional warfare in different regions” from Lebanon to Yemen, Syria and Iraq, where Iran has anti-Israeli proxies, “impacting internal security of different countries.”
Considering the ongoing Ukraine war and tensions between the US and non-Western states such as China in the Pacific and other regions (Africa, South America), Haniyeh’s assassination might signal “a global appetite for war”, which can be “very detrimental”, particularly, for regional economies in the Middle East, the analyst tells TRT World.
In the Israel-Palestine conflict, there are “so many actors involved with a wide range of motivations, making predictions hazardous,” says Richard Falk, a leading international relations expert. “If a wider war occurs, it will likely be a matter of Israel’s initiative, and possibly reflecting Netanyahu’s personal animus,” Falk tells TRT World.
“If Iran succeeds in inflicting heavy symbolic or substantive damage in executing its revenge attack, Israel may treat such an event as a suitable pretext for launching a wider war that, I believe, it would come to regret,” Falk adds.
Iranian leaders have already signaled to Israel that they will retaliate. “The Islamic Republic of Iran will defend its territorial integrity and honor, and make the terrorist invaders regret their cowardly action,” wrote Masoud Pezekshkian, Iran’s new president, on X. His predecessor Ebrahim Raisi was killed in a helicopter crashﾠin May.
The country’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei also warnedﾠthat Israel will receive a ‘harsh punishment’ from Iran, which is ‘duty-bound’ to ‘avenge’ the assassination.
‘UN’s territorial integrity concept in danger’
Javed draws attention to the fact that Israel has carried out the assassination “on another country’s land” with which it has tensions on various fronts from the Lebanese group Hezbollah to Syria, and Yemen’s Houthis.
These two states have “multi-party conflicts” not only in Gaza but also in other parts of the Middle East and the ongoing Israeli war on the Palestinian enclave is just making things worse between them, he adds.
“There are so many parties involved, so many foreign lands involved that this territorial integrity or sovereignty concept of the United Nations has diminished,” says Javed. He further states that this sets “a dangerous precedent”, undermining the political base of nation-states.
“If the violation of the sovereignty of other countries become so frequent, this would create a set of sub-nonconventional wars,” which could essentially, at some point, trigger “the big war”, according to the analyst.
“Iran must be embarrassed about what happened because he (Haniyeh) was attending the country’s new president’s oath-taking ceremony,” the analyst says. But he also calls to attention “the vulnerable security situation in Iran”, noting that during Haniyeh’s stay in Qatar, nothing untoward had happened.
Killing a ‘moderate’
By killing Haniyeh, the top Palestinian negotiator, and alsoﾠtargeting a top Hezbollah leader in Beirut, Israel sends a message of aggression to the region, ringing war bells, according to experts.
“For months, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has done everything in his power to impede all diplomatic efforts aimed at ending the war. By killing the top Palestinian negotiator, Israel has delivered a final and decisive message that Israel remains invested in violence, and in nothing else,” says Ramzy Baroud, an author and a Palestinian political analyst.
“While Israel is, once more, accelerating its push for a wider conflict after ten months of a failed war on Gaza and a military stalemate against Hezbollah in Lebanon, this time around, it is engaging in a high-stakes game, the most dangerous of its previous gambles,” Baroud tells TRT World.
Haniyeh’s assassination came after Fatah, the leading group in the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), and Hamas, the party that governs Gaza, which are the two opposing Palestinian factionsﾠsigned a China-sponsored reconciliation deal in Beijing, late July.
“Haniyeh has succeeded in forging and strengthening ties with Russia, China, and other countries beyond the US-western political domain,” says Baroud.
“This assassination may also be seen as a warning to Iran and Hamas in the aftermath of the Unity Deal between Hamas and Fatah that Israel may find threatening,” says Falk. Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas made a gesture of this new unity attempt by condemning Haniyehﾒs assassination.
How will Iran respond?
Fatima Karimkhan, a Tehran-based journalist. assesses that Israel is “not happy” with a moderate government in Tehran because Israel has been against the US-led nuclear negotiations. The dealﾠthat was brokered during Obama’s presidency promised a kind of normalization between the West and Iran.
“They do whatever they can to pull Iran into a regional conflict so they can put more pressure on the international community to resist Iran,” she tells TRT World.
Falk also believes that Israel pushes Iran into a regional war with Haniyeh’s assassination, which is “a major such provocation, because of the location, the occasion, and the status of the targeted individual.”
“The scale of the Israeli provocations poses a great challenge to the pro-Palestinian camp in the Middle East, namely, how to respond with equally strong messages without granting Israel its wish of embroiling the whole region in a destructive war,” says Baroud.
But he still believes that pro-Palestinian forces in the region from Iran-led ‘Axis of Resistance’ to others are “certainly capable of managing this challenge despite the risk factors involved.”
Karimkhan believes that Iran has shown restraint in face of several Israeli provocations, and will avoid getting lured into war.
“This assassination is an act of state terrorism, and the international community should take a stand against it, not Iran itself. I don't see room for head-to-head conflict between Iran and Israel in this case,” she says.
“Israel is doing whatever it takes to put a shadow on what they are doing in Gaza. They are willing to start a regional conflict in hope for people to forget about all that has happened, and is still happening in Gaza.”
The real reason Israel is assassinating Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, and why it won’t stop the resistance
Israel’s assassination of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders doesn’t aim to weaken the resistance. Israel’s real motive is to restore the image of military and intelligence superiority in the eyes of the Israeli public.
BY ABDALJAWAD OMAR
On the night of July 30, Israel escalated its military operations, targeting its adversaries across multiple fronts, including Lebanon, Iran, and Palestine. The Israeli government claimed a significant success with the assassination of a Hezbollah commander in the densely populated neighborhood of southern Beirut. Simultaneously, Israel launched a bold strike in the heart of Tehran, killing Ismail Haniyeh, the current politburo chief of Hamas.
After ten months of slowly but steadily losing the escalation dominance it had maintained for decades, Israel is now attempting to reclaim the initiative and reestablish the upper hand by targeting both Beirut and Tehran in under 24 hours.
Israel’s actions are not merely about projecting strength; they are also designed to increase pressure on the axis of resistance. The strategic objective here is to fracture the unity of this coalition by leveraging its military capabilities to flirt with the prospect of an all-out war — an outcome that neither Israel nor Hezbollah, and by extension Iran, truly desire. This calculated brinkmanship aims to unsettle the adversaries, forcing them to reconsider their unified stance and possibly leading to concessions in Israel’s favor.
Israel is banking on the notion that fear of further escalation will push Hezbollah and Iran to exert pressure on Hamas to meet some of Israel’s demands during ceasefire negotiations. Additionally, Israel anticipates that any real escalation — particularly one provoked by its targeted actions — would compel the United States and its allies to offer military and diplomatic support. While Washington may not actively seek a major conflict, Israel is confident that the U.S. will not hesitate to come to its aid if the situation escalates. In other words, Israel is pursuing a policy of entanglement and in doing so is taking calculated risks, knowing that if things go awry, the American military will rush to its defense in another war in the Middle East.
For some time now, Israel has been gauging the reactions of its adversaries, particularly noting the subdued Palestinian response to its proclamations that it had successfully assassinated Hamas’s military commander in Gaza, Muhammad al-Deif. This observation has led Israeli strategic planners to conclude that while a diplomatic deal remains a priority, such targeted assassinations are unlikely to derail these efforts.
Additionally, Israel’s calculations suggest that although Hezbollah and Iran might view incursions into Beirut or Tehran as significant escalations requiring a response, both actors are likely to avoid triggering an all-out conflict that could lead to open warfare. This belief underscores Israel’s confidence in its ability to carry out targeted actions without provoking a broader regional conflict.
These maneuvers would likely have taken place regardless of the incident in Majdal Shams. The current operations and series of escalations are occurring at a moment when Israel stands to benefit strategically, even if it ultimately signs an agreement. By accumulating tactical successes, Israel aims to reassert its escalation dominance in its ongoing conflicts with adversaries. This approach reflects a calculated effort to strengthen its negotiating position while ensuring it maintains a decisive upper hand in any potential confrontation. It also seeks to showcase its resilience and will to fight even though the war has dragged on for months on end, with signs of fractures within Israeli society and the loss of trust in the military. This has most recently culminated in mutinous and insurrectionary riots outside the notorious prison of Sde Teiman protesting the detainment of nine Israeli soldiers accused of gang-raping a Palestinian prisoner.
Israel’s history and policy of assassinating Palestinian leaders
The notion of assassination is deeply embedded in the history of the Arab region, with the term itself originating from the region. During the 11th to 13th centuries, amid the turmoil of the Crusades, the Nizari Ismailis — commonly known as the “Hashashin” — employed assassination as a strategic tool to eliminate leaders who opposed their cause. Yet, the significance of assassination in the region extends far beyond mere etymology. This region, long subjected to colonial encroachment and artificially induced disunity, has become a theater where the conventional rules of war can be suspended. In this context, political actors who do not align with Western hegemonic interests are often rendered exceptions, making their leaders legitimate targets in ways that violate rules and norms upheld elsewhere.
Israel has refined the practice of targeted assassinations, often coupled with the arrest of key leaders, to eliminate influential political and military figures. This strategy is not merely about neutralizing immediate threats; it is also about shaping the composition and character of the resistance it faces in the region.
In the past century, Israel has refined the practice of targeted assassinations, often coupled with the arrest of key leaders, to eliminate influential political and military figures. This strategy is not merely about neutralizing immediate threats; it is also about shaping the composition and character of the resistance it faces in the region. Through these lethal interventions, Israel seeks to cultivate a leadership class within Palestine and the broader Arab world that aligns more closely U.S. and Israeli interests, thereby manipulating the dynamics of resistance against its policies of land appropriation, ethnic cleansing, and colonization.
These tactics have proven effective in removing key Palestinian leaders at critical junctures of the struggle. For instance, during the pre-Oslo years, the assassinations of pivotal figures such as Yasser Arafat’s second and third in command — Abu Iyad (Salah Khalaf) and Abu Jihad (Khalil al-Wazir) — cleared the way for the emergence of a more pliant leadership, which now has been ultimately epitomized by Mahmoud Abbas.
During the Second Intifada, Israel arrested popualr Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti and PFLP General Secretary Ahmad Saadat. It also possibly poisoned Yasser Arafat, and it assassinated the PFLP’s military commander, Abu Ali Mustafa, along with key figures within Hamas such as Abdul Aziz Rantisi and Hamas’s founder, Ahmad Yassin, ensuring that no real opposition to the entrenchment of Palestine’s own comprador class could gain dominance in Palestinian politics. Through such operations, Israel sought to remold the consciousness of the very leadership class that opposed it. After all, if Palestinians, Arabs, or their leaders give up on the cause, then there would be no cause to speak of. New leaders would not only fear for their lives but would also be more amenable to Israeli goals and objectives.
This policy has served Israel well in the past but has also created unintended consequences.
This policy has served Israel well in the past but has also created unintended consequences. Today, Palestinian disunity is not within a specific coalition or political group; it is disunity marked by a pragmatic comprador class ruling the West Bank, while more homogenous resistance groups operate from places like Gaza. While the PLO once incorporated various currents, like the stance of Mahmoud Abbas, into its organizational fabric, the current disposition of resistance groups contains fewer disagreements about its strategies vis-à-vis Israel. What differences do exist among the resistance are largely tactical or tied to choices of alliance systems. In other words, assassinating Ismail Haniyeh does not automatically lead to more compliant leadership emerging in his place, because the movement from which Haniyeh descends remains united around the framework of resistance.
Moreover, Israel’s rejectionism and refusal to accommodate figures like Mahmoud Abbas, or to grant Palestinians even a bantustan state, have shaped Palestinian consciousness in a way that reinforces the belief that only resistance can bring about strategic shifts. This attitude has been bolstered by the fact that negotiations are futile with an Israeli society that is both arrogant and supremacist, epitomized recently by the riots in the Sde Teiman protests for the right to rape Palestinian prisoners.
The declining efficacy of Israeli assassinations
Israel’s fear of peace, coupled with its insistence on maintaining dominance through force and the ironic presence of figures like Mahmoud Abbas, who, by enabling Israel’s colonization in the West Bank without resistance, have led Palestinians and Palestinian resistance groups to dismiss any serious approach towards negotiated solutions. These dynamics have deepened the conviction that meaningful change cannot be achieved through dialogue with a state that continues to prioritize force and hegemony over genuine peace efforts.
Moreover, Palestinians have both reframed their resistance and institutionalized its organizational structures. The character of these organizations has evolved, becoming less dependent on a cult of personality or deep emotional ties with individual leaders, and more focused on organizational roles and operational efficacy. Gone are the days when resistance groups would collapse into disarray following the loss of a key figure.
Today, Palestinian and Lebanese resistance movements have adapted to the reality that the assassination of a prominent leader may cause a tactical setback, but it does not lead to the disintegration of their operations. In fact, in many instances, these groups have demonstrated resilience, using such incidents as a catalyst for the further consolidation and strengthening of their organizational frameworks. This shift reflects a maturing of the resistance movements, where the focus is on sustainability and continuity rather than on the influence of individual leaders or specific clientelist networks bent on building influence within a specific political formation.
So, beyond the immediate tactical impact, what do these assassinations achieve? In some cases, they can backfire, as seen with the assassination of Hezbollah leader Abbas Musawi, which paved the way for the rise of Hasan Nasrallah. In other instances, these actions may even facilitate the emergence of more innovative and adaptable commanders who can take on key positions. By removing one leader, Israel may inadvertently create space for another often more formidable leader to emerge. One only needs to look at the development of both Hamas and Hezbollah in the wake of various assassinations at various historical stages to realize that these operations lost much of their power.
These assassinations reinforce the bond between political-military organizations and the broader society within which they are enmeshed. . . Instead of weakening their opponents, such tactics can unintentionally solidify unity and resolve.
These assassinations reinforce the bond between political-military organizations and the broader society within which they are enmeshed, making it much harder for any real schism to develop. Instead of weakening their opponents, such tactics can unintentionally solidify unity and resolve, bridging the gap between militant factions and the larger population. The killing of Hamas leaders such as Ismail Haniyeh, who left Gaza, loosens internal dissent.
The real reason for Israel’s current policy of assassinations serves more as a mechanism to galvanize its own society rather than genuinely altering the political or military stance of its adversaries. The efficacy of such tactics in destabilizing Israel’s enemies has severely diminished, revealing a shift in the purpose of these operations. Instead of crippling opposition forces, these targeted killings now function primarily as a tool for internal cohesion, rallying Israeli national sentiment, and showing Israel’s intelligence and operational capabilities. It also permits Israel to claim that it gained the upper hand in the moves to dominate the escalation ladder with its adversaries.
The real reason for Israel’s current policy of assassinations serves more as a mechanism to galvanize its own society rather than genuinely altering the political or military stance of its adversaries.
Ultimately, these acts are displays of tactical prowess designed to enshrine the supremacy of Israeli power, largely aimed at impressing Israelis themselves at a time when Israelis feel that their army and intelligence apparatus failed them. When Israel talks about a “loss of deterrence,” it is not so much concerned with how its enemies perceive it but rather with how it perceives itself. The rhetoric of deterrence is less about external threats and more about maintaining an internal narrative of strength and invincibility, ensuring that the image of Israeli power remains intact in the collective psyche of its own society.
https://mondoweiss.net/2024/07/the-real-reason-israel-is-assassinating-hamas-and-hezbollah-leaders-and-why-it-wont-stop-the-resistance/
Hezbollah confirms Israeli strike in Beirut assassinates senior commander
The group says that its leader Hassan Nasrallah, will make an address on the occasion of Fuad Shukr's funeral.
Hezbollah has confirmed that Israel assassinated Fuad Shukr, a top commander, after a strike in Beirut.
The Lebanese group's announcement on Wednesday came after an overnight Israeli strike in Tehran that assassinated Hamas political bureau leader Ismail Haniyeh.
The group said earlier that Shukr was in the building during the attack on Tuesday, and they were searching for him in the rubble to determine his fate.
Israel said late on Tuesday that it had assassinated Shukr, who it said blamed for the weekend rocket attack in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights that killed 12 youths.
The Lebanese Health Ministry said at least five civilians — two children and three women — died in the Israeli strike in a busy neighbourhood where Hezbollah has political and security operations.
The two sides have exchanged near-daily strikes for the past 10 months against the backdrop of Israel's war in Gaza, but they have previously kept the conflict at a low level that was unlikely to escalate into full-on war.
Israeli enemy to 'pay a price'
Lebanon's public health ministry said Tuesday's strike in a southern suburb of Beirut wounded 74 people, some of them seriously.
The wounded were taken to nearby hospitals. Bahman Hospital near the site of the blast called for blood donations.
Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency reported that the strike was carried out with a drone that launched three rockets.
“The Israeli enemy has committed a great stupid act in size, timing and circumstances by targeting an entirely civilian area,” Hezbollah official Ali Ammar told Al Manar TV.
"The Israeli enemy will pay a price for this sooner or later.”
Lebanese caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati condemned the Israeli attack, saying it hit a few meters from one of the largest hospitals in the capital.
The office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not immediately release a statement, but minutes after the strike sent a photo of the prime minister with his national security adviser and other officials.
The airstrike on Beirut’s southern suburb of Haret Hreik — a crowded urban neighborhood where Hezbollah has political and security operations but which is also full of small shops and apartment buildings — damaged several buildings.
The strike hit an apartment building near to a hospital, collapsing half of the targeted building and severely damaging one next to it. The hospital sustained minor damages, while the surrounding streets were littered with debris and broken glass.
Paramedics could be seen carrying several wounded people out of the damaged buildings.
Sayyed Al-Houthi vows Resistance Axis will avenge martyred leaders
Ansar Allah chief declares that victory against "Israel" is inevitable and the regime's demise is a definite outcome.
The leader of the Ansar Allah movement mourned on Wednesday the martyrdom of one of Hezbollah's top military commanders, who was assassinated by "Israel" in an airstrike on a residential building in the southern suburbs of Beirut, Lebanon, on Tuesday.
The Israeli aggression also resulted in the martyrdom of at least three civilians: a woman and two children, a brother and sister, Hassan (10) and Amira (6) Fadlallah.
Lebanese Civil Defense, in a final toll, said that the total number was 7 martyrs and 78 wounded as a result of the occupation's aggression on the southern suburb of Beirut yesterday.
Sayyed Abdul Malik al-Houthi said that martyred leader Sayyed Fouad Shokor (Sayyed Mohsen) devoted his life to al-Quds, extending his condolences to his family, the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon and its Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, in addition to the Lebanese people, the Resistance Axis and the Islamic Nation.
The Yemeni leader emphasized that no matter the sacrifices, "the inevitable outcome is victory and the demise of the Israeli enemy and its temporary entity."
He also condemned the "crime of targeting the dear brother and great" Resistance leader Ismail Haniyeh," affirming that it will serve as "a greater incentive for resilience, steadfastness, and dedication ... in dealing severe blows to the criminal enemy."
The Ansar Allah chief emphasized that "Israel" will not achieve any of its goals "in breaking the Resistance or extinguishing the spirit and iron will of the ... brothers in Palestine and all support fronts."
"The criminal enemy's involvement in targeting the martyr (Haniyeh) has elevated the battle to a wider scope and greater dimensions, the consequences of which will be dire for the enemy, God willing," he said, assuring that "we will spare no effort, with God's permission and in cooperation with our brothers in the Resistance Axis in avenging the martyr and all the martyrs and the injustice suffered by the Palestinian people."
|
Published since July 2008 |
Your donation
is tax deductable.
The Journal of America Team:
Editor in chief:
Abdus Sattar Ghazali
Senior Editor:
Prof. Arthur Scott
Special Correspondent
Maryam Turab
