The Assassination of Haniyeh in Tehran and the Difficulty of the Iranian Response Decision
Aram Saeed – Researcher at Al-Furat Center for Studies
The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the political bureau of Hamas, in the heart of the Iranian capital, Tehran, is considered one of the most painful blows to the Iranian regime, following the increase of the escalation between Iran and Israel after Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7th. There are several reasons why the fallout of this event is severe on the Iranian regime and the “Axis of Resistance” equally. The timing of this event is foremost among these reasons, occurring on the first days of the new Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian officially taking office, after the swearing-in ceremony attended by Iran’s “dear guest” Ismail Haniyeh.
The second reason is that it came less than twenty-four hours after the assassination of senior Hezbollah leader Fouad Shukr and the military advisor in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Milad Beidi in an Israeli raid on the southern suburb. Shukr is considered one of the most important founders of Hezbollah, the military advisor to the party’s leader Hassan Nasrallah, and responsible for the accuracy of the party’s missile arsenal. Israel considers him responsible for the attack on Majdal Shams and the architect of military operations against it since the October 7 attack.
The third reason is the strength of this intelligence operation and its penetration of the tight security circle of the regime. These combined reasons made the event a big shock that Iran received in its own home, much like the shock of the assassination of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani by an American drone in Baghdad in 2020.
Although this operation attributed to the Israeli Mossad is within a series of similar operations inside Iranian lands, it surpasses all previous operations, including the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the architect of the Iranian nuclear program, in 2020.
The reason is the place where Haniyeh was assassinated a security compound for guests of the Revolutionary Guard guests in northern Tehran, near the place where the guided missile was launched, an adjacent building to Haniyeh’s residence, according to Israeli media. Recent reports speak of his death due to a bomb secretly planted in the same compound.
Despite Israel not officially claiming responsibility for the assassination, the Israeli government spokesman David Menser hinted at Israel’s responsibility for the operation when he said that Israel had achieved two major victories in the last 24 hours. He also indicated that Israel is in a state of high alert.
It is clear from this operation that Israel is determined to draw Iran directly into the cycle of conflict between Israel and Iran’s proxies in the region in the form of a war of attrition against Israeli capabilities. This is aimed at breaking the hesitation and reluctance shown by the United States and Western countries towards the idea of direct confrontation with Iran. Israel is fully convinced that these parties would side with it in the event of such a comprehensive confrontation. Israel sees this as the only way to eliminate the entrenched Iranian threat and escape the ring of fire that Iran has increasingly tightened around it.
Additionally, Israel’s goal with this strike and its timing was to undermine the Iranian strategy that began to emerge with the appointment of the reformist President Pezeshkian, which showed signs of leniency towards the United States and the West. Iran finds itself in a bigger predicament now more than ever, and Israel has thus undermined this approach, which would not be in its favor in the event of any form of agreement between Iran and Western parties regarding the regional situation and the nuclear file. Israel believes that this rapprochement would only be another maneuver by Iran to buy more time, allowing it to further arm itself and develop more complex future strategies.
The size and impact of this strike, which caught the Iranian regime off guard and significantly confused it, puts Iran in a very critical position, compelling it to respond and attempt to impose a new form of deterrence in its conflict with Israel. The missile and drone attacks in April did not achieve the desired deterrence for Iran. After those attacks, which caused negligible damage inside Israel, the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, Hossein Salami, announced that any future Israeli targeting of Iranian forces and sites outside its borders would be met with a response from inside Iranian territory. However, this did not happen, and Israel continued to carry out numerous operations against Iran and the “Axis of Resistance” in Lebanon and Syria, and now inside Iran itself.
Therefore, Iran will be forced to make a decision regarding retaliation, which now seems more difficult and requires more precise calculations to avoid its severe repercussions. The features of Khamenei’s face during his performance of the funeral prayer for Haniyeh’s body in Tehran reflected his confusion and hesitation in making what could be one of the toughest decisions of his life. The response must be greater than the “Honest Promise” response that followed the targeting of the Iranian consulate in Damascus. Consequently, this response—if it occurs—must demonstrate greater strength and may include a complex attack from Iranian territory using drones and missiles, this time in conjunction with a similar attack from multiple fronts, such as Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Syria. This response must have a clear impact beyond mere demonstration, restoring some respect for Iran and its allied groups. Hezbollah has reasons to respond after the killing of Shukr, and the Houthis have reasons after Israel imposed a new deterrent force on them by bombing the port of Hodeidah, causing significant damage to the Houthi group in Yemen. However, the pressing question is how to balance such a substantial strike without causing major damage to Israel, thus avoiding the formation of an international coalition led by the United States and potentially sparking a full-scale war against it.
In Iran’s previous response, the new equation was to show strength by bombing Israeli territory without causing damage and without forcing Israel into a major response. The current equation should show greater strength in bombing Israeli territories with resulting damage but without forcing Israel to retaliate. This equation might seem impossible. Because Israel and its allied countries, which helped it repel Iranian missiles and drones, might not be able to repel the same percentage as before if Hezbollah and other Iranian militias in the region participate in this operation, there will inevitably be damage inside Israel.
If this response occurs, especially since Khamenei explicitly suggested it, it will entail significant risk. If it causes substantial damage to Israel, it will prompt Israel to retaliate by bombing sites within Iranian territory, primarily targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, while opening other fronts, including Lebanon and other regions where Iranian proxies are based.
Even if this happens, the United States and Western countries will attempt by all possible means to prevent this war from turning into an all-out open war. If they fail, events could take a more complex course that is difficult to control, especially as the United States would find itself compelled to join the war alongside Israel, leading everyone to unpredictable and uncertain outcomes. Therefore, the recent news published by The New York Times about Haniyeh’s death by a bomb may be an American-Iranian attempt to extricate Iran from the inevitable retaliation against Israel, which would escalate the situation in the region and spiral out of control. Adding the Haniyeh assassination case to the file of Raisi and Foreign Minister Abdullahian and keeping it under wraps confines the conflict between Israel and Iran to the current rules of the game, preserving a glimmer of hope for reaching an agreement with Iran without having to engage in a comprehensive war amid the charged and complex regional and international conditions.
Israel would be the winner in this scenario, having achieved a significant objective, which is Haniyeh’s assassination, without an Iranian response and leaving the Iranian regime in a spiral of internal decay due to the major internal purges that will occur because of this significant security breach.