Follow us on social

Assassination of Hamas leader in Iran puts new president in a trap

Assassination of Hamas leader in Iran puts new president in a trap

Depending on how Pezeshkian responds, it may force the US to get directly involved in defense of Israel

Analysis | Middle East

Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas, was assassinated in Tehran, widely believed by Israel. He was in Tehran to attend the ceremonies marking inauguration of Iran’s new President, Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian. The two men met before Haniyeh was killed.

As of this writing, Israel has not commented on the killing or the allegations that it was behind it.

In assassinating Haniyeh, Israel would have struck at two targets, not one. The second one is the new Pezeshkian administration. On the day the reformist President was taking office, a foreign leader and an ally of Iran is assassinated, and as the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, he must address a security crisis with international dimensions and implications.

If Saeed Jalili, Pezeshkian’s opponent in the second round of Iran’s presidential elections, had won, given his radical and extremist positions, and his bombastic style, it would have helped Israel in its attempts to convince the international community that engaging Iran diplomatically will not be fruitful, and the country must be put under maximum pressure.

But Pezeshkian is a moderate, and although he has repeatedly condemned the United States for its support of Israel in its war in Gaza, for imposing harsh economic sanctions on Iran, and exiting the nuclear treaty with Iran known officially as JCPOA, he is also pragmatic in seeking a dialogue with the U.S. During his campaign, Pezeshkian stated repeatedly that he would pursue negotiations with the United States, a position apparently supported by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in order to get the economic sanctions lifted.

Dialogue between Iran and the United States is, however, the last thing that Israel, and particularly Benjamin Netanyahu, wants at this stage. If anything, Netanyahu would expand the war to Lebanon in hopes that Iran will react strongly and enter the war directly. Neither Hezbollah nor Iran wants a war with Israel at this stage, but no one should be under the illusion that if Israel begins a full-scale war with Lebanon and Hezbollah, Iran will sit it out.

Unlike Hamas, a Sunni group that has had differences with Iran over the past twenty years, particularly when it refused to support Bashar al-Assad in Syria during the war there that angered Tehran, Hezbollah is a Shiite organization and Iran’s most important asset in the Middle East. If Israel starts waging a full-scale war against Lebanon, and the Islamic Republic does not intervene to defend Hezbollah, it will lose all credibility with its allies throughout the Middle East. Iran has already been criticized by the Houthis in Yemen for not defending Hamas in Gaza.

Since Iran has not shown any inclination towards starting a direct war with Israel, the next best scenario for Israel is to trap it in an untenable position. Assassinating the leader of an ally, particularly in Tehran in the evening of the day in which a new administration took the oath of office, is that trap. It has put President Pezeshkian and his allies in an extremely difficult situation.

If Iran does nothing, it will be mocked throughout the region. Tehran’s radicals will also relentlessly attack Pezeshkian for supposedly being “soft” or a “sell-out,” trying to cripple, if not topple, his administration and his programs before they have even been started. He is already under attacks by the extremists for seeking negotiations with the United States.

If Iran does react strongly, it will add to the mountain of problems that it is facing. This is not what Pezeshkian and his lieutenants want or had hoped for, but they may be forced to act, knowing that, depending on how they respond, it may force the United States to get directly involved in defense of Israel, at the time when the Pezeshkian administration is hoping to re-start the negotiations with it. Either way, Israel would be temporarily a “winner.”

Khamenei has issued a statement, condemning the assassination, and promising revenge: “The brave and prominent Palestinian mujahideen leader Ismail Haniyeh joined Allah at dawn last night and the great resistance front is in mourning. The criminal and terrorist Zionist regime martyred our dear guest in our house and made us bereaved, but it also prepared the ground for a harsh punishment for itself.”

In his own statement, Pezeshkian said, “The Islamic Republic of Iran will defend its territorial integrity, honor, dignity and pride, and make the terrorist occupiers regret their cowardly action.”

Meanwhile this morning, the U.S. carried out a strike in Iraq, attacking a base south of Baghdad that is controlled by the pro-Iran Shiite group, Popular Mobilization Forces. It killed four members of the group and wounded four others. This comes after U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria came under attack last week. Israel also attacked Beirut and killed Fuad Shukr, Hezbollah's most senior military commander.

The repercussions of the assassination, if it leads to a wider war in the region, for the U.S. presidential elections will also be important. If a wider war involving Iran, Israel, and Hezbollah is started, the Biden administration will surely take Israel’s side. But this will create severe problems for Vice President Kamala Harris who is trying to distinguish herself from Biden and his unconditional support for Israel that has caused deep fissures within the Democratic Party.

Given that, according to many reports, last week’s meeting between Netanyahu and Harris did not go as Netanyahu wanted, which had irked him since Harris had called for an immediate ceasefire, a new war is also the last thing that Harris would or should want.

Thus, the assassination will undoubtedly increase tensions in the region, even if it does not lead to a wider war, because it will give rise to a precarious situation whereby the most minor mistake by any side may create a huge explosion. The tensions may weaken the rejuvenated moderates and Reformists in Iran, and setback what Pezeshkian has planned to do for both the domestic and regional affairs. This will not bode well for the region.


An Iranian man holds a picture of Palestinian group Hamas' top leader Ismail Haniyeh, during a gathering following Haniyeh's killing, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, in Tehran, Iran July 31, 2024. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS

Analysis | Middle East
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.