Follow us on social

This new Hamas chief signals more war, not less for Gaza

This new Hamas chief signals more war, not less for Gaza

Perhaps this is what Israel wants, as Yahya Sinwar is much more hardline and less likely to support a ceasefire deal than his predecessor.

Analysis | Middle East

While the entire Middle East remains in suspense over how the Iranian-led “axis of resistance” will respond to the July 31 assassination in Tehran, presumably by Israel, of Hamas Political Bureau Chairman Ismail Haniyeh, the group’s decision to make Yahya Sinwar its new chief raises questions about its future strategy.

Unlike Haniyeh, who was based in Qatar, and acted as Hamas’s chief representative abroad, Sinwar has been based in Gaza since his release from an Israeli prison in 2011 as part of a prisoner exchange. In Gaza, Sinwar, whom the U.S. designated a terrorist in 2015, served as Hamas’s politburo from 2013 until 2017, when he became the movement’s leader in Gaza. Sinwar is one of Hamas’s longtime military commanders. Israel regards him as the ultimate mastermind of Operation al-Aqsa Flood.

Given the very different circumstances in which Haniyeh and Sinwar have operated, it seems reasonable to ask whether the formal change of leadership will bring changes in the way it carries out its struggle against Israel, its engagement with other Palestinian factions, and its relations with foreign powers.

Hamas is not monolithic. Different figures in Hamas have approached issues in divergent ways, underscoring divisions within the organization which Haniyeh and Sinwar’s differences highlight.

Haniyeh was known more for moderation and pragmatism. Within Hamas, he was an influential voice advocating for diplomacy when needed with Israel and a willingness to compromise. On the other hand, Sinwar is considered a hardliner. As the new Hamas chief, he will probably prove less open to compromise with the Israelis.

Prior to Haniyeh’s assassination late last month, Sinwar had already had much say in Hamas’s negotiations with Israel. Yet, some experts assess that without Haniyeh to balance Sinwar’s hardline stances, Hamas will probably take increasingly maximalist positions in this war. On August 11, Reuters reported that Hamas “hinted it may stay out of the new round of talks”, which the U.S., Egypt, and Qatar have been attempting to facilitate. Perhaps this speaks to the hardened positions that Hamas will probably take with Sinwar as chief.

Khaled Elgindy, who directs the Palestine program at the Washington-based Middle East Institute, expects Sinwar to adopt a defiant stance: “At a minimum, we can expect Hamas decision-making to become more hardline,” he told RS.

“There is no doubt that a ceasefire will be harder to achieve … For Sinwar’s appointment is also an act of defiance designed to send a message to Israel that not only has Hamas not been defeated, but is prepared to fight on,” Elgindy added.

Hamas’s Commitment to Unity with Fatah

Whether Sinwar will approach critical unity talks with other Palestinian factions, most importantly between Hamas and Fatah, differently from his predecessor is uncertain.

Eight days before his assassination in the Iranian capital, Haniyeh signed a declaration of reconciliation in Beijing where Hamas, Fatah, and twelve other Palestinian groups agreed to “ending division and strengthening Palestinian unity.”

Some experts maintain that Sinwar’s elevation will not necessarily change Hamas’s calculus on reconciliation talks with Fatah and other Palestinian factions.

“The main obstacle to the success of such initiatives is neither Hamas nor Fatah, but with [Palestine Authority President] Mahmoud Abbas,” said Mouin Rabbani, a Palestinian political analyst and editor at Jadaliyya.com, a publication of the Arab Studies Institute, in an interview with RS. “As long as Abbas remains, the successful implementation of any initiative remains zero,” he added.

Yet, Elgindy believes that Sinwar’s replacement of Haniyeh “complicates the already dim prospects for national reconciliation going forward” because of the extent to which Sinwar has been “more skeptical of making concessions to Abbas and Fatah.” He also told RS that undermining the potential for Palestinian unity was likely one of Israel’s motivations for assassinating Haniyeh last month.

Foreign Support for Hamas

Over the years, there have also been disagreements among high-ranking Hamas figures about the group’s relationship with foreign powers. For example, when the Arab Spring uprising erupted in Syria in 2011, Hamas leaders failed to reach a consensus on how to approach President Bashar al-Assad’s government.

Some within Hamas saw Damascus as an important sponsor and believed that maintaining a positive relationship with the Syrian regime was necessary while others believed that supporting the Muslim Brotherhood-linked elements in the anti-Ba’athist uprising was both a strategic and moral imperative. This is important to note, given that Hamas spawned from the Muslim Brotherhood before officially forming in Gaza during the first Intifada in 1987.

Whereas Sinwar has long advocated maintaining Hamas’s relationships with Iran, Syria, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Doha-based Khaled Meshaal, who served as Haniyeh’s predecessor from 1996 to 2017, believed in distancing the Palestinian group from the Iranian-led “axis of resistance” and moving Hamas closer to Turkey, Qatar, and, to some extent, Saudi Arabia.

Ten months into Israel’s war on Gaza, Sinwar will be a voice in favor of building good relations between Hamas and practically any government or organization in the world that is willing to assist the Palestinian group in one way or another. Put simply, Sinwar believes that decisions about Hamas’s foreign relationships must be based on practical considerations and interests, not ideological factors.

Unlike Haniyeh, of course, Sinwar will be unable to travel outside Gaza, at least so long as Israel’s current war on the enclave continues. By all accounts, Sinwar has been Israel’s top target for assassination and has been mainly confined to tunnels deep underground since October 7, although Haniyeh and other Hamas officials outside Gaza have apparently been able to communicate with him.

“Since Sinwar is bunkered somewhere inside Gaza, his elevation is not going to significantly alter the way other countries deal with Hamas, who will continue to deal with the Hamas leadership outside like Meshaal, [Khalil] Al-Hayya, [Mousa] Abu-Marzouq, etc.,” Elgindy told RS.

Given that Israel carried out this assassination in Iran, and would be far less likely to do so in Qatar or Turkey, it is probably true that it will be harder to imagine Hamas agreeing to relocate its political leadership outside of Qatar. “With its formal leader now in Gaza, Hamas will be less responsive to potential threats, constantly urged on Doha by the U.S. and Israel, to threaten Hamas leaders based in Qatar with expulsion,” offered Rabbani.

Ultimately, by assassinating Haniyeh, Israel decided to eliminate a moderate figure in Hamas and will now be fighting its war against Hamas with a military commander who is less compromising. Hamas’s new leadership will likely make armed resistance its top priority and see it as the only realistic path toward liberation as the group’s political and military wings become increasingly blurred.

For Israel, such a change is useful in terms of trying to sell its narrative that Hamas is the main reason why there is no peace in Gaza. This message may sit well with most lawmakers and much of the foreign policy establishment in Washington. But in terms of bringing about an end to the gruesome warfare in the enclave, probably nothing positive will come from Sinwar’s ascension.


Hamas Gaza Chief Yehya Al-Sinwar gestures during an anti-Israel rally in Gaza City, May 24, 2021. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem/File Photo

Analysis | Middle East
Starmer Macron Merz
Top image credit: France's President Emmanuel Macron, Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz arrive at Kyiv railway station on May 10, 2025, ahead of a gathering of European leaders in the Ukrainian capital. LUDOVIC MARIN/Pool via REUTERS

Europe's snapback gamble risks killing diplomacy with Iran

Middle East

Europe appears set to move from threats to action. According to reports, the E3 — Britain, France, and Germany — will likely trigger the United Nations “snapback” process this week. Created under the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), this mechanism allows any participant to restore pre-2015 U.N. sanctions if Iran is judged to be in violation of its commitments.

The mechanism contains a twist that makes it so potent. Normally, the Security Council operates on the assumption that sanctions need affirmative consensus to pass. But under snapback, the logic is reversed. Once invoked, a 30-day clock begins. Sanctions automatically return unless the Security Council votes to keep them suspended, meaning any permanent member can force their reimposition with a single veto.

keep readingShow less
Vladimir Putin
Top photo credit: President of Russia Vladimir Putin, during the World Cup Champion Trophy Award Ceremony in 2018 (shutterstock/A.RICARDO)

Why Putin is winning

Europe

After a furious week of diplomacy in Alaska and Washington D.C., U.S. President Donald Trump signaled on Friday that he would be pausing his intensive push to end war in Ukraine. His frustration was obvious. “I’m not happy about anything about that war. Nothing. Not happy at all,” he told reporters in the Oval Office.

To be sure, Trump’s high-profile engagements fell short of his own promises. But almost two weeks after Trump met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska and European leaders in Washington, it is clear that there were real winners and losers from Trump’s back-to-back summits, and while neither meeting resolved the conflict, they offered important insights into where things may be headed in the months ahead.

keep readingShow less
US Marines
Top image credit: U.S. Marines with Force Reconnaissance Platoon, Maritime Raid Force, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, prepare to clear a room during a limited scale raid exercise at Sam Hill Airfield, Queensland, Australia, June 21, 2025. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alora Finigan)

Cartels are bad but they're not 'terrorists.' This is mission creep.

Military Industrial Complex

There is a dangerous pattern on display by the Trump administration. The president and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seem to hold the threat and use of military force as their go-to method of solving America’s problems and asserting state power.

The president’s reported authorization for the Pentagon to use U.S. military warfighting capacity to combat drug cartels — a domain that should remain within the realm of law enforcement — represents a significant escalation. This presents a concerning evolution and has serious implications for civil liberties — especially given the administration’s parallel moves with the deployment of troops to the southern border, the use of federal forces to quell protests in California, and the recent deployment of armed National Guard to the streets of our nation’s capital.

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.