Hamas leader Haniyeh assassinated in Tehran: What this means for Iran

The assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran has further complicated the already tense dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and regional geopolitics. This event raises questions about Iran’s ability to protect its allies and the broader implications for Middle Eastern diplomacy.

To gain insights into these developments, Türkiye Today asked Oral Toga, an expert at the Center for Iranian Studies (IRAM), and Nail Elhan, associate professor at Hitit University for expert analysis.

Iran’s failure in security?

Reports indicate the assassination might have been executed with a ballistic missile. However, some experts suggest it could have been a kamikaze drone attack. If it was a ballistic missile, Iran might blame the incident on technological limitations. But if it was a drone attack, this would highlight a significant intelligence failure, suggests Toga.

The idea that a foreign intelligence agency could infiltrate Tehran and carry out a drone strike is alarming, raising concerns about the safety of Iranian leadership, including Ayatollah Khamenei.

Oral Toga

Israel has previously conducted operations within Iran, sending clear messages through drone strikes, assassinations of high-profile figures like Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, and sabotage. The killing of Haniyeh within Iran is undoubtedly a warning to groups seeking cooperation with Tehran.

Meanwhile, Elhan believes that the assassinations of Fakhrizadeh in Iran, Qassem Soleimani in Iraq, and the recent killing of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran undeniably point to significant intelligence failures. Critics highlight these failures as evidence of Iran’s vulnerability.

Yet, supporters often urge us to ‘look at the bigger picture,’ suggesting that Iran’s intelligence and security apparatus is robust. This viewpoint, however, often delves into the realm of conspiracy theories, which lack substantiating data and cannot be easily refuted. A telling sign of Iran’s security concerns is the absence of Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Lebanese Hezbollah, from the event attended by Haniyeh. His absence was attributed to security concerns, with Iran stating it could not guarantee his safety. This decision underscores the serious security risks associated with such high-profile gatherings. However, it raises questions about why similar precautions were not extended to Haniyeh. If Nasrallah’s safety was in doubt, the same insecurities should have applied to Haniyeh, prompting a reassessment of his participation.

Nail Elhan

It is imprudent to draw definitive conclusions about the long-term consequences of these events, Elhan says. Nonetheless, the likelihood of Israeli involvement in Haniyeh’s assassination is high, marking a profound intelligence and security lapse for Iran. While perspectives on Iran’s intelligence capabilities may vary, the recent assassination has undeniably placed Iran in a precarious position on the global stage, casting doubt on its claims of regional dominance and security prowess, emphasizes Elhan.

Will Iran’s influence in Middle East dwindle?

This attack sends a direct message to groups considering alliances with Iran: ‘Iran cannot protect you.’ Some Israeli figures even commented on social media, saying, ‘Haniyeh wouldn’t have been targeted if he were in Saudi Arabia.’ This underscores the notion that the message is intended for regional actors, signaling that cooperation with Iran comes with significant risks.

Oral Toga

The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh highlights significant security and intelligence weaknesses in Iran, believes Elhan. This situation may negatively impact Iran’s influence in the Middle East, particularly regarding its support for the Palestinian resistance with several critical points emerging from the incident.

Firstly, Iran’s credibility and image have taken a hit. The assassination of a prominent leader like Haniyeh in Tehran raises serious questions about Iran’s ability to provide security to its allies. If the Palestinian resistance believes that Iran cannot protect them, Iran’s influence over these groups may weaken.

Furthermore, Iran’s reputation on the international stage and within the Middle East is likely to suffer. Losing its status as a safe haven could invite criticism and skepticism from other actors in the region. This could result in increased scrutiny and questioning of Iran’s policies and its ability to safeguard its allies. In response, Iran must learn and implement reforms in its intelligence and security systems to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

Could Iran leverage the assassination for its own ends?

Toga says this incident will severely damage Iran’s image and regional influence as the assassination reveals vulnerabilities and undermines Iran’s ability to project strength and security.

Meanwhile, Elhan on the contrary believes that Iran can leverage the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh to bolster its legitimacy in the fight against external threats. By attributing the attack to countries such as the United States and Israel, Iran can rally both domestic public opinion and the international community to adopt a more united and determined stance against these perceived adversaries. Iran has a proven track record of turning such incidents into powerful propaganda tools.

While the assassination might initially raise doubts about Iran’s security and intelligence capabilities among its regional allies, it also presents an opportunity. Iran can respond by offering more robust support and security guarantees to its allies, thereby increasing solidarity and reinforcing its leadership role in the region. By demonstrating a commitment to enhancing security measures, Iran can strengthen its alliances and showcase its resolve to protect its interests and those of its partners.

Nail Elhan

Despite the potential complications the assassination poses for Iran’s influence, it also offers a chance to galvanize support, both domestically and internationally. By effectively managing the narrative and providing tangible security assurances, Iran can turn this challenge into an opportunity to solidify its position and leadership in the Middle East.

Iran’s lack condemnation

It’s not surprising that there was no explicit condemnation in the first statement released by Iranian foreign ministry after the assassination, according to Toga, as the details of the event were still unclear, and it seems Iran has not yet decided on a strategic response.

Given the sensitive nature of the situation, the current statements focus on martyrdom, reflecting the early stages of Iran’s public narrative. In the coming days, we can expect Iran to clarify its stance and develop a more definitive rhetoric.

Oral Toga

In the wake of the strike that killed Haniyeh in Tehran, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Nasser Kanaani focused on strengthening the bond between Iran and the Palestinian resistance. By emphasizing shared struggle and unity, Iran aimed to project a narrative of solidarity and resilience rather than one of victimhood and blame.

Kanaani’s remarks highlighted the deep and unbreakable bond between Iran and Palestine, suggesting that Haniyeh’s martyrdom would further unify their cause. This strategic messaging was intended to bolster Iran’s influence over the Palestinian resistance and underscore its commitment to their mutual goals.

By not issuing a formal condemnation, Iran might have aimed to avoid immediate escalation with Israel. Formal condemnations can lead to heightened tensions and retaliatory actions, which Iran might have wanted to circumvent at that moment.

Nail Elhan

The lack of a formal condemnation sparked significant criticism on social media, with some users accusing Iranian officials of negligence or even collusion. However, Iran’s leadership may have calculated that emphasizing their ongoing commitment to the Palestinian cause would outweigh the backlash from the absence of a direct condemnation, Elhan says.