Regardless of whether Iran opts for a military response to the killing of the Hamas political bureau chief by Israel, or remains passive, the authority of the Islamic Republic is now under scrutiny. This situation highlights the erosion of the regime’s prestige, which has been compromised by a series of violations, starting with the killings of its scientists and the appropriation of its nuclear documents, followed by cyberattacks that have impacted nearly all governmental bodies, and culminating in the recent assassination in Tehran. This event has raised questions about how such a significant figure could be targeted during the inauguration of the new Iranian president.
This mystery continues to raise numerous inquiries that demand answers and elucidations, further complicated by the contradictory accounts concerning the approach and assassination of Haniyeh. On one side, Iran puts forth its assertions, while on the other, the “New York Times” has disclosed that Haniyeh was killed by an explosive device that had been hidden in his residence for two months. Iran disputes this narrative, claiming instead that the assassination was carried out through a projectile launched from the air, targeting the Hamas leader’s quarters. The debate surrounding statements from certain Iranian media outlets, which reported claims from analysts affiliated with the government suggesting that the Israeli Mossad was able to reach Haniyeh due to weaknesses in the Palestinian security apparatus, has elicited a response from Hamas representative in Iran, Khaled Qaddumi. He denounced these claims as “strange and unethical,” stressing the importance of awaiting investigations from security agencies rather than making premature judgments. Furthermore, the absence of Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal from the ceremonies in Tehran has sparked speculation, with some positing that he may have received a warning about potential threats, prompting him to decline attendance despite Haniyeh’s efforts to strengthen ties with Tehran’s leaders due to his backing of armed factions opposing Bashar al-Assad’s regime.
The theory suggesting that Haniyeh was killed by an explosive device seems more credible, notwithstanding Iran’s denial and the claim that the assassination was executed via a missile launched from outside the premises, a method that could be deemed impractical as it might draw attention to other regional players. Conversely, the employment of an explosive device reveals critical weaknesses in Iranian security and intelligence services, a matter that Iran would likely prefer to downplay. Additionally, this event calls into question the statements made by the intelligence minister during the administration of the late Mohammad Raisi, who claimed that Mossad agents had been eradicated from the security framework, thereby intensifying the predicament.
The killing of Haniyeh on the inaugural day of Masoud Bezhakian’s administration, occurring even before the formal announcement of its cabinet, subjects this government to intense examination concerning its capability to handle unexpected and intricate crises. The situation facing the new administration is undeniably difficult; it may find it hard to address this crisis adequately due to the repercussions of this act on both regional and global scales. Therefore, Iranian officials must thoughtfully assess these consequences before formulating a response, as an impulsive reaction could lead to negative repercussions for Iran.
A crucial dimension of this event is that Israel possessed the means to eliminate Haniyeh in either Qatar or Turkey, yet it chose to strike in Iran, intending to inflict a “humiliation” on Tehran and showcase its dominance within the region. Secondly, the timing of Haniyeh’s assassination in Tehran is noteworthy; he was present at the inauguration of the new Iranian president, Masoud Bezhkishan. Analysts suggest that Israel’s objective was to disrupt the new administration’s attempts to connect with the international community and pursue a fresh diplomatic strategy through this bold action.
A third dimension is Israel’s deliberate exposure of the security vulnerabilities within Iranian security, not only at the domestic level but also concerning the “unity of theatres” that Tehran advocates. The assassination of Haniyeh in Tehran and the prominent military leader of Hezbollah, Fouad Shukr, in Lebanon on the same night serves as evidence that the “deterrent measures” taken by the “Resistance Axis” in response to Israel’s prior actions were entirely ineffective. On the contrary, these measures encouraged Israel to pursue further operations and assassinations.
Iran is presently the most impacted entity in this situation; nevertheless, it has failed to implement strategies to avert the repetition of similar incidents. It is crucial to note that Iran should not simply repeat the phrase “hard revenge.” Genuine retaliation involves addressing the presence of infiltrators within Iran’s security and intelligence sectors, as well as safeguarding the stability of key leaders and individuals within Iran and the resistance axis.
All accounts, despite their inconsistencies, highlight a critical vulnerability within Iranian intelligence agencies. Tehran must confront the issue of infiltrators and agents rather than merely focusing on suppressing dissent and protests. Engaging in regional hostilities could result in additional severe human and economic repercussions, alongside inflicting strategic harm. The evident susceptibility of the security apparatus raises concerns about its integrity. The assassination of Haniyeh serves as a stark reminder that infiltrators have breached the inner workings of the Iranian system. Moreover, Tehran’s new administration appears hesitant to make significant regressions, understanding that an Israeli retaliation to their expected manoeuvres could be harsh, particularly given the current American military presence in the area. This context has led them to contemplate targeting military or intelligence installations in Kazakhstan, for example, as a means of indirect action against Tel Aviv.
It is commonly thought that Tel Aviv played a role in the assassination of Haniyeh; however, Israel has not officially confirmed this, and there is a lack of compelling evidence from Tehran linking Israeli intelligence to the incident. As a result, any Iranian retaliation or expected offensive against Israel would likely be viewed as an act of aggression towards the Israeli state by the international community.
Dr Hatem Sadek – Professor at Helwan University
