The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, a prominent leader of Hamas, has sent ripples across the region, raising the specter of a broader conflict. The incident occurred in Tehran, where Haniyeh was attending the swearing-in ceremony of new Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. The details of Haniyeh’s assassination are still murky. Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard confirmed his death but provided no specifics on how the attack was carried out.
Haniyeh, who had been living in exile in Qatar since 2019, was a key symbolic figure within Hamas, though real power is believed to reside with Gaza-based leaders Yahya Sinwar and Mohammed Deif. The latter narrowly escaped an Israeli assassination attempt earlier in July, with no official confirmation of his condition since then. This killing comes amidst heightened tensions following Hamas’s deadly attack on Israel on October 7, which left 1,200 Israelis dead and approximately 250 individuals taken hostage. While no entity has officially claimed responsibility, many suspect Israeli involvement due to its history of targetting Hamas leaders.
How has the world reacted to the news? The assassination has drawn immediate and varied reactions from across the globe. Turkey swiftly condemned the killing, insinuating Israeli involvement and criticising the attack as an effort to escalate the war in Gaza to a regional scale. A statement from the Turkish foreign ministry accused the Israeli government of having “no intention of achieving peace.”
US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin, speaking from Manila, Philippines, expressed hope for a diplomatic resolution. “I don’t think that war is inevitable,” he said. “I think there’s always room and opportunity for diplomacy, and I’d like to see parties pursue those opportunities.” He also stated the US’s commitment to Israel’s defence, stating, “If Israel is attacked, we certainly will help defend Israel. You saw us do that in April; you can expect to see us do that again.” Austin reiterated the US’s desire to prevent the situation from escalating into a broader regional conflict, noting that Washington had been monitoring tensions on Israel’s northern border with Lebanon “with concern.”
Also Read | The story of Ismail Haniyeh: From Gaza refugee camp to Hamas chief
Within Israel, reactions have varied. While the government has not officially commented on the assassination, some political figures have voiced their support. Israeli Heritage Minister Amichay Eliyahu, from Israel’s far-right political spectrum, made a controversial statement on X (formerly Twitter), saying, “This is the right way to clean the world from this filth,” referring to Haniyeh’s death. He further stated that “no more imaginary peace/surrender agreements” should be pursued, suggesting a hardline approach to dealing with perceived threats.
Hamas’s Sami Abu Zuhri spoke to Reuters , calling the assassination a “grave escalation” that would not achieve its intended objectives. Meanwhile, Russia’s response, as stated by a deputy foreign minister, labelled the incident as “an absolutely unacceptable political murder.”
Wasn’t the region already simmering? The assassination occurs against a backdrop of recent Israeli actions in the region, including an airstrike in Beirut that targeted a base belonging to Hezbollah, the powerful Iranian-backed Lebanese militia. The Israeli military claimed to have killed Fuad Shukr, a senior Hezbollah commander and close aide to the group’s leader. This attack further heightened fears of a wider regional conflict, especially given Hezbollah’s substantial arsenal of around 150,000 missiles and rockets. Hezbollah has yet to officially confirm Shukr’s death or its response plans, but the assassination of Haniyeh could potentially trigger a chain reaction.
Nader Hashemi, a professor of Middle Eastern Studies at Georgetown University, told BBC that the situation “impacts events in Lebanon” and might push Iran and Hezbollah towards escalation, despite previous indications that they were not interested in a broader conflict.
Is there potential for a wider conflict? The precise circumstances of Haniyeh’s death, reported to have occurred around 1:45 am in Tehran, are critical in determining the next steps. Iran’s handling of this incident will be crucial, especially as it seeks to maintain its standing as a regional power. Tehran has faced similar provocations in the past, such as the assassination of its top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, in 2020, which did not provoke an immediate severe response.
Vali Nasr, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at the University of John Hopkins-SAIS posted on X: Add to this that the timing, the inauguration of a new president, dares Iran to retaliate which forces decision and course of action that Tehran likely didn’t anticipate or want https://t.co/5qWULS9Tle
Iran faces a complex decision matrix; it could respond with a significant military escalation, potentially involving Hezbollah, or it might choose a more calculated, asymmetric response. The latter could include covert operations or cyberattacks, designed to avoid a direct confrontation while still retaliating for the perceived slight.
Also Read : Why timing of Haniyeh’s killing in Iran puts its new president in a big spot
The international community, especially the United States, continues to push for diplomatic solutions. However, with red lines being crossed and provocations mounting, the region is at a critical juncture. As the dust settles from this latest incident, all eyes are on Tehran and its allies, as well as Israel’s next moves. With inputs from agencies, rewrited_content should contains maximum words possible
