No sooner had I posted a piece on the Israeli attack on a top Hezbollah commander in Beirut when the Iranian Revolutionary Guards announced that Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh had met his untimely end a few hours earlier in Tehran. It was during his visit for the inauguration of the new president, Masoud Pezeshkian. The explosion that claimed his life also killed an Iranian guard projecting him.
In a move that surprises no one but pleases everyone on the Israeli side, it was reported that Israel orchestrated both strikes in retaliation for a Hezbollah attack that tragically ended the lives of a dozen children in the Golan Heights last week. Following Haniyeh’s demise, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared that “it is our duty to take revenge.”
In the past 24 hours, Israel has removed two senior leaders in Iran’s so-called “act of resistance.” The message from Israel is clear: ‘We can strike when we want, where we want.’
Tactical success? Check. But the strategic implications hinge on how Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas play their next move. This will determine if this act scared Iran and its proxies into submission or invited further escalation.
Aside from the obvious, which is neither of the leaders are candidates for a national day of mourning, here are a few thoughts while we wait for developments
Cosmopolitics by Elise Labott is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Israel’s assassination of Haniyeh was bold, but hardly a shocker, given Prime Minister Netanyahu's long-standing vow to dismantle Hamas leadership. Hitting Haniyeh in Tehran, though, was likely a target of opportunity rather than a calculated move to strike in Iran. Israel could have taken out Haniyeh months ago but probably held off to avoid ruffling feathers with Qatar or Egypt.
Nevertheless, the attack on Haniyeh on Iranian soil, especially in Tehran during the presidential inauguration, is particularly humiliating for Iran. If the April missile strike and counterstrike threatened to disrupt the uneasy dance between Israel and Iran, this direct strike against Haniyeh on Iranian soil establishes a scary new normal. For a brush up on what happened in April and the increasingly direct conflict between Israel and Iran, here is a piece I wrote at the time: Israel-Iran war comes out of the shadows
US officials worry this could complicate negotiations for a temporary ceasefire and the release of remaining hostages. Haniyeh was a major figure in talks with Qatari and Egyptian mediators. However, Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader in Gaza and the brain behind the October 7 attack, remains alive and likely has the final say over any hostage deal and ceasefire. So while the assassination may note not completely derail the deal, it will certainly delay it. Meanwhile, internal rifts within Hamas may deepen, and complicating a final deal.
These are precisely the types of attacks Washington has been cautioning Israel to avoid. The aim is to secure the hostages' release and avoid a full-scale regional war—admirable, if somewhat optimistic. Today, White House spokesperson John Kirby, with all the reassurance of a soggy biscuit, said an all-out war between Israel and Hezbollah isn’t imminent but acknowledged the attacks could muddy efforts to secure a ceasefire and release hostages. In other words we’re all in for a wild ride. US officials aren’t sure whether Israel made a smart calculation or invited a full-blown escalation.
So, what’s next? Iran is almost certainly plotting revenge, both to reassert deterrence against Israel and to reclaim its bruised prestige in the region. Experts don’t foresee a full-blown confrontation, highlighting the catastrophic potential of a larger war and the strong incentives for all parties to avoid one. Given that Israel has also targeted Hezbollah and Hamas with these strikes, it’s possible Iran will channel its retaliation through proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas, rather than a direct confrontation with Israel. However it plays out, the show is far from over.
Iran's April projectile attack on Israel showed their weakness. Israel's retaliation then and these recent successes show Israel's strength and capabilities. Keeping pressure on Iran, not only their proxies, is the surest way to getting the hostages back and destroying Hamas. The focus must be to convince Iran it's futile to mess with Israel and the United States.
Israel’s position is clear: it will seek to destroy the Hamas leadership and undermine, target, and frustrate Iran’s proxy system.
The assassination of Hamiyeh in Tehran is consistent with known Israeli tactics and policy.
If Iran and Hamas wanted to free the hostages, they would have done so already. Iran and Hamas use the tactic of jerking around the opposition and striking when they can; vacillation is not their way.
A consistent and explicit policy can be a useful tool in international relations. Here’s a surprising, but good, example.
A Russian warplane was doing its business in northern Syria. It violated Turkey’s airspace. The Turkish air defences shot down the warplane.
The world was on tenterhooks. Had a NATO member gone rogue? Had Turkey gone too far? How would the Russians respond?
As it turned out, the Russians made a diplomatic protest, the Turks didn’t apologize, and neither Russia nor Turkey sustained the issue. And the Russians didn’t violate Turkish airspace again.
Iran is going to make a rational calculation about its response — consistent with its tactics and policies. Israel has only “introduced” difficulties into the Middle East tactical and strategic situation that were already there.
Thanks Elise.
Iran's April projectile attack on Israel showed their weakness. Israel's retaliation then and these recent successes show Israel's strength and capabilities. Keeping pressure on Iran, not only their proxies, is the surest way to getting the hostages back and destroying Hamas. The focus must be to convince Iran it's futile to mess with Israel and the United States.
Israel’s position is clear: it will seek to destroy the Hamas leadership and undermine, target, and frustrate Iran’s proxy system.
The assassination of Hamiyeh in Tehran is consistent with known Israeli tactics and policy.
If Iran and Hamas wanted to free the hostages, they would have done so already. Iran and Hamas use the tactic of jerking around the opposition and striking when they can; vacillation is not their way.
A consistent and explicit policy can be a useful tool in international relations. Here’s a surprising, but good, example.
A Russian warplane was doing its business in northern Syria. It violated Turkey’s airspace. The Turkish air defences shot down the warplane.
The world was on tenterhooks. Had a NATO member gone rogue? Had Turkey gone too far? How would the Russians respond?
As it turned out, the Russians made a diplomatic protest, the Turks didn’t apologize, and neither Russia nor Turkey sustained the issue. And the Russians didn’t violate Turkish airspace again.
Iran is going to make a rational calculation about its response — consistent with its tactics and policies. Israel has only “introduced” difficulties into the Middle East tactical and strategic situation that were already there.