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
Diplomacy Watch Donald Trump Putin Zelensky
Top Photo Credit: Diplomacy Watch (Khody Akhavi)

Diplomacy Watch: ‘Coalition of willing’ takes shape, without the US

QiOSK

Without Americans’ help, the European “coalition of the willing” is striving to assist Ukraine — to mixed reviews.

Europeans met on Thursday to hash out how European peacekeepers could be sent to Ukraine to enforce an eventual peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. But only Britain, France, Sweden, Denmark and Australia have said they would actually put boots on the ground.

keep readingShow less
Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarine
Top image credit: The Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarine USS Tennessee (SSBN 734) gold crew returns to its homeport at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia, following a strategic deterrence patrol. The boat is one of five ballistic-missile submarines stationed at the base and is capable of carrying up to 20 submarine-launched ballistic missiles with multiple warheads. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication 2nd Class Bryan Tomforde)

More nukes = more problems

Military Industrial Complex

These have been tough years for advocates of arms control and nuclear disarmament. The world’s two leading nuclear powers — the United States and Russia — have only one treaty left that puts limits on their nuclear weapons stockpiles and deployments, the New START Treaty. That treaty limits deployments of nuclear weapons to 1,550 on each side, and includes verification procedures to hold them to their commitments.

But in the context of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the idea of extending New START when it expires in 2026 has been all but abandoned, leaving the prospect of a brave new world in which the United States and Russia can develop their nuclear weapons programs unconstrained by any enforceable rules.

keep readingShow less
 Netanyahu Ben Gvir
Top image credit: Israel Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Itamar Ben Gvir shake hands as the Israeli government approve Netanyahu's proposal to reappoint Itamar Ben-Gvir as minister of National Security, in the Knesset, Israeli parliament in Jerusaelm, March 19, 2025 REUTERS/Oren Ben Hakoon

Ceasefire collapse expands Israel's endless and boundary-less war

Middle East

The resumption of Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip and collapse of the ceasefire agreement reached in January were predictable and in fact predicted at that time by Responsible Statecraft. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, driven by personal and domestic political motives, never intended to continue implementation of the agreement through to the declared goal of a permanent ceasefire.

Hamas, the other principal party to the agreement, had abided by its terms and consistently favored full implementation, which would have seen the release of all remaining Israeli hostages in addition to a full cessation of hostilities. Israel, possibly in a failed attempt to goad Hamas into doing something that would be an excuse for abandoning the agreement, committed numerous violations even before this week’s renewed assault. These included armed attacks that killed 155 Palestinians, continued occupation of areas from which Israel had promised to withdraw, and a blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza that more than two weeks ago.

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

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.