Ismail Haniyeh, a prominent leader of the terrorist Palestinian group Hamas, was assassinated in Tehran the night after he attended the inauguration of the new Iranian president. The day before, Haniyeh had been welcomed by Iran’s Supreme Leader, who promised him continued support for Hamas’ war on Israel. Although Israeli authorities did not officially take responsibility for Haniyeh’s elimination, both Iranian authorities and international experts strongly suspect that Israel orchestrated the audacious operation.
Whatever the circumstances of the event, Haniyeh’s assassination in Tehran was a significant tactical and propaganda victory for Israel. This operation not only removed the head of a terrorist organization closely aligned with the Iranian regime, but also showcased Israel’s ability to infiltrate Iranian territory during a major international political event when security control is naturally much tighter. The message was clear: Israel can strike any Iranian leader at will.
Israel sees a direct confrontation with the Iranian regime as essential for its long-term survival. Tehran continually wounds Israel through its proxy forces, while Israel lacks equivalent means of retaliation. Countering these proxies outside Iran has proven to have limited deterrent effect. Consequently, Israel feels compelled to strike directly at what it perceives as the “octopus’ head” in Tehran, a strategy the Netanyahu government has pursued since the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7, 2023. This approach has garnered broad support within Israel, including from political opponents of Netanyahu such as Naftali Bennett.
Since October 7, Israel has been working to restore its deterrent power in the face of increasing incursions by adversaries. Its new policy underscores the use of overwhelming force, elimination of high-profile enemies, and direct attacks on Iranian territory. This marks a departure from the previous strategy of the “War Between the Wars,” which focused on striking Tehran’s proxy forces and low-ranking IRGC officers outside of Iran. Concurrently, Israel has escalated its attacks on Iran’s proxies, crippling the Houthi-controlled port of Hodeidah in Yemen and taking out the key leaders of Hezbollah and Hamas in Beirut, Gaza, and Tehran. Israel’s insistence on continuing the Gaza war until its objectives are achieved is part of its broader effort to reestablish deterrence.
Israel’s deeper concern, however, is that the Iranian regime’s longstanding strategy to encircle it might have succeeded. By strengthening the Shia Crescent, Tehran has surrounded Israel from the east via Syria, from the north via Lebanon, from the south via the Sinai, and from within via the 'West Bank'. Iran’s proxies in Iraq and Yemen have also contributed to tightening the noose on Israel from a distance.
Israel sees the October 7 attack as evidence of Hamas’s confidence in Tehran’s growing power and influence in the region. This makes a confrontation between Israel and the Iranian regime inevitable, especially as Tehran’s potential nuclearization could significantly enhance its deterrent power and prevent such a face-off in the future.
A few hours after Haniyeh’s assassination, Iran’s Supreme Leader vowed retaliation, saying that the Islamic Republic would “retaliate for our dear guest’s blood.” Since then, Iran’s military, political, judicial, and religious leaders have consistently promised a “teeth-breaking response,” “retaliation in kind,” and “severe revenge.” Despite this fiery rhetoric, the regime has acted with caution and calculation. Any sharp retaliation risks provoking an overwhelming esponse from Israel and its Western allies, potentially leading to catastrophic consequences for Iran’s infrastructure and threatening the regime’s stability, which could fuel popular uprisings that aim to topple the Islamic regime.
Haniyeh’s assassination also highlighted the Iranian regime’s security and intelligence vulnerabilities, exposing its inability to prevent Israeli operations within its borders. For decades, Khamenei and his supporters had touted their ability to keep war away from Iranian soil and skies as a major achievement. However, Haniyeh’s elimination undermined that claim, damaging the regime’s deterrence credibility.
This incident could also negatively impact Tehran’s relationship with its proxy forces, revealing its inability to protect them from enemies. This could reduce the effectiveness of these groups and weaken Tehran’s command over them, potentially leading them to seek accommodations with their adversaries for survival.
All these factors will adversely affect Iran’s influence in the region and can tip the overall balance of power in the Middle East. A weak response from the Iranian regime to Haniyeh’s assassination will diminish the Islamic Republic’s stature and sway over its proxies in the region. In such a case, Tehran’s rivals are likely to seize the opportunity to expand their influence, altering the power dynamics in the region over the long term.
Ironically, Tehran seems to be drawn into a direct confrontation with Israel by factors that lie beyond its control. With Yahya Sinwar now leading Hamas, the Iranian-aligned faction has gained ground at the expense of its Brotherhood-linked branch. This shift is likely to marginalize Hamas’ so-called political leadership, which is backed by Qatar and more open to Western initiatives, while the military wing, closely tied to the IRGC, assumes center stage.
According to Al-Arabiya, Sinwar, believed to be hiding somewhere in the tunnels under the Gaza Strip, opposed the nomination of former Hamas leader Khaled Mashal who is stationed in Qatar, and preferred a successor to Haniyeh with strong ties to Iran and Syria, reflecting the increasing Iranian influence over the terrorist group.
Israel and Iran are caught in an ever-escalating cycle of hostilities that intensifies as it moves forward. Israel’s recent strategic shift signals that the conflict with Iran is bound to grow out of the gray zone. For decades, Khamenei squeezed Israel from afar through a network of proxies. Now Netanyahu wants to deny Tehran plausible deniability. He seems determined to draw the Islamofascist regime into direct conflict. Even if the regime manages to weather the current crisis with minimal harm to itself and its proxies, similar showdowns are likely to recur as part of Bibi’s bold strategy.
Israel’s repeated attacks on Iran could spell the definitive end of the shadow war between the two, pulling in global actors and escalating into a full-scale war with far-reaching consequences for the world, and perhaps bringing an end to pernicious Iranian influence and power.
Dr. Reza Parchizadeh is a political theorist, security analyst and cultural expert with a BA and an MA in English from University of Tehran and a PhD in English from Indiana University of Pennsylvania. He currently serves on the editorial board of the international news agency Al-Arabiya Farsi and is a Ginsburg/Milstein Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
No comments:
Post a Comment