Iran’s response to assassination of Ismail Haniyeh
From diplomacy to battlefield
The cowardly assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran marks a significant point in the hybrid warfare of Israel against Iran and the Axis of Resistance. This incident, occurring on the night of Masoud Pezeshkian’s inauguration as the new president of Iran, is by no means coincidental. It aligns with the strategic objectives of Israel against the Axis of Resistance, which is led by the Islamic Republic of Iran. As the positions taken by Western and Israeli think tanks and research institutes indicate, one of the main objectives of this terrorist act was to pose political and security challenges for the new Iranian government, disrupting the government’s ability to focus on priority political and economic issues and hindering it from fulfilling its promises. Therefore, this assassination has several dimensions that must be addressed with an intelligent response, leveraging various capacities of the Resistance Front.
By Navid Kamali
Foreign affairs expert
Analyzing this terrorist incident requires first examining its timing. Executing this operation on the night of the new president’s inauguration allowed Israel to exploit potential security and political vulnerabilities. However, the prudent reaction of Tehran, including the measured messages from the Leader and Pezeshkian, demonstrated that this expectation was naive. The government wisely refrained from making hasty reactions to this crime, stabilizing the country.
Nevertheless, the primary aim of this terrorist act was to preoccupy Pezeshkian and his government with the repercussions of this assassination, thereby preventing them from focusing on other crucial issues. This would have perpetuated the economic and social challenges, creating public dissatisfaction and labeling the government as ineffective. It is evident that the Zionists and their overt and covert allies are determined to foil the new Iranian government’s plans, viewing any potential setbacks and failures in fulfilling Pezeshkian’s promises as valuable achievements.
Moreover, Israel’s new gamble is rooted in the heavy blows it received in the Gaza war. The Zionist regime’s cabinet, engaged in a prolonged and attritional war, attempts to directly involve Iran in this war and use global platforms to garner European and American support to end its own political isolation. The Israelis are aware that the Islamic Republic of Iran cannot ignore a terrorist attack on a foreign official on its soil, as it constitutes an assault on the country’s sovereignty and security. According to international rules, a proportionate response to this crime is legitimate. Therefore, it seems the Zionist regime aims to force Iran into a predictable stance, enabling it to shape subsequent conditions and reactions to its advantage. Hence, in response to the Zionists’ crime, including the assassination of Martyr Ismail Haniyeh, Iran must employ a calculated strategy, utilizing the country’s capacities.
The international dimensions of this terrorist incident and its connection to the US elections should also be noted, as this assassination is not unrelated to the fate of the White House. Kamala Harris, the vice president of the United States and the Democratic presidential candidate, has so far taken positions against the current Israeli cabinet led by Benjamin Netanyahu, especially regarding the Gaza war. However, in the American election atmosphere and under the influence of Zionist lobbies, any escalation in West Asia may compel her and her party to support Netanyahu’s warlike policies. That is because not decisively supporting the Zionists in a war against a power like Iran could weaken her political position against her Republican rival, Donald Trump. Consequently, Israel can create political unity in Washington in support of Netanyahu’s warlike policies. This scenario creates a win-win situation for Netanyahu, linking US domestic politics with regional dynamics and ensuring continued domestic and international support for himself and his cabinet.
Given the above, the assassination of Haniyeh was a strategic maneuver by Netanyahu to drum up internal and international support and navigate his current dire political predicament. It pressures American politicians like Harris to align with his interests, strengthening his warlike stance. This clearly demonstrates the connection between a regional security incident and US domestic politics as an example of hybrid warfare, where actions are designed to impact multiple fronts simultaneously.
Therefore, the new Iranian government, led by Pezeshkian, faces the challenging task of formulating an appropriate and effective response to the Zionists in the early days of his presidency. In this context, the new government must leverage field capacities and its hybrid powers. It is also essential for Pezeshkian to expedite the introduction of ministers to Parliament and quickly form a new cabinet. With the formation of the new government, the Islamic Republic of Iran, backed by the hard power of the armed forces, will be able to fully confront the forthcoming threats.
As the Leader stated in his message regarding the martyrdom of Ismail Haniyeh, Iran’s response to this crime is certain. However, it is clear that this response will not be purely diplomatic; it will smartly utilize hybrid capacities because a purely diplomatic response to a crime might weaken the country’s deterrence. Therefore, Iran’s strategy in responding to this crime must be precise and use a combination of military, intelligence, and diplomatic assets. This approach could include targeted operations against valuable enemy interests and resources, along with strong media and diplomatic campaigns to highlight the regime’s crime and isolate it internationally. Additionally, strengthening internal security to prevent similar breaches and demonstrating resilience against external threats is crucial.
In the long term, our country must review its security infrastructure and regional alliances. Reinforcing relations with regional partners and utilizing international platforms to condemn the aggressive and inhumane policies of Israel can help contain this regime on the international stage. Furthermore, strengthening the link between diplomacy and the field and increasing investment in asymmetric warfare capabilities will allow our country to effectively respond to enemy threats without resorting to costly and ineffective confrontations.
We must remember that in all countries, intelligence and security agencies are responsible for predicting and neutralizing enemy threats. In Iran, too, improving coordination between intelligence and security agencies and using advanced surveillance technologies can fortify the country’s defense line against hybrid warfare tactics. Simultaneously, the various dimensions of Martyr Haniyeh’s assassination must be especially examined, as this assassination highlights the complexities of modern hybrid wars where psychological, political, and security operations are interconnected and intertwined.
Finally, it must be emphasized that the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh is a calculated effort by an enemy whose aim is to weaken Iran and alter regional dynamics in favor of its expansionist ambitions. The type and quality of Iran’s response to this incident will be a critical test for the system and the new government.
Therefore, the government must mobilize the country’s capacities and, under the wise guidance of the Leader, adopt a multifaceted approach that combines military preparedness with intelligent diplomacy to confront the enemy and demonstrate Iran’s ability to respond to threats while maintaining internal stability.