Even if they are not yet clear the details of it, the elimination of Ismail Hania is a blow with immediate results. One time, in relation to the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas, whose head of the political bureau was the Haniya in question. The second time, against Iran, given that the country in question has a commitment to ensure the security of foreign delegations, such as the one led by the Palestinian leader on the occasion of the inauguration of the new Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian.
The elimination of Ismail Haniyeh is primarily symbolic, stemming from his status as the highest-ranking political leader of Hamas (as well as an anointed one of the organization's founder, Ahmed Hassan Yassin). Accordingly, the attack on him is a symbolic attack on the entire organization. The latter is important, as it is often commented that Hamas is also an idea that cannot be destroyed like the group's military infrastructure and battalions. In this case, however, the attack on the political leader of the organization demonstrates that not only the body, but also the head of the group is sanctioned. Yes, ideas die hard. Unlike their bringers.
On the other hand, however, eliminating Haniya will not cause organizational damage to Hamas, nor will it bring about a positive change in its behavior. The latter stems from an important circumstance: in recent years, especially intensively after the start of the war between the terrorist organization in question and Israel since October of last year, Haniya's influence has decreased, at the expense of the head of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Yahya Sinwar. In a comparative parallel to the latter, Hania was more of a pragmatist, involved mostly in the organization's diplomatic activities, led primarily from his office in Qatar. There is no evidence at this stage that Haniya was even aware of the Sinouar-orchestrated attack on Israel late last year that started the war between the terrorist group and Tel Aviv. But there are indications that Haniya, in contrast to Sinuar, was more in favor of conducting peace negotiations with Israel, the goal of which was the cessation of hostilities.
In this sense, his assassination will strengthen the position of the "hard elements" in Hamas, represented by Sinuar. It is the latter, together with the main commander of the Hamas military wing, Mohammed Deif, who was targeted in southern Gaza two weeks ago, but in a strike with unclear results, who are the leaders in the "target-list" of Israel (both Sinauar and Deif are on the European Union's terrorist list). The reason Haniya was eliminated before Sinuar and Deif was because his GPS coordinates were more visible than those of the other two hiding under the Gaza tunnels. Compared to them, Ismail Haniya - precisely because of his limited opportunities to influence the military-operational leadership of Hamas in the Palestinian enclave and the reduction of his "burden" in relation to the group's affairs in the Gaza Strip - failed to guide the actions of Hamas, and hence to give direction to the development of the conflict between the group and Israel. Now it remains to be seen what effect his death will have on them.
The strike carried out on the territory of Iran, in the northern outskirts of the capital (according to current information), is also a challenge to the country in question. This action, for example, again raises the question of the extent of the infiltration of the Ayatollahs' regime by Israel. A series of events in recent years have exposed Iran's weaknesses in its primary function of ensuring its own security: from the leaking of classified documents relating to the country's nuclear program to the targeting of its nuclear physicists (the most prominent of which was the 2020 assassination of . Mohsen Fakhrizadeh), to the periodic sabotage of Iran's nuclear and missile facilities.
And the ongoing surgical strike on Ismail Haniya, although there is still much uncertainty about its technology (whether it was carried out by a fighter jet, drone or quadcopter; whether the strike came from Iran's own airspace or from of any of the neighboring countries), is another example of the vulnerability of the regime, which puts the ayatollahs in an extremely uncomfortable position both in front of their own countrymen and in front of their regional friends. However, a basic philosophy of the mullahs' rule, launched before the Iranian people, is that in the name of security, sacrifices and compromises concerning the economic development and public freedom of the state are permissible. But if the Iranians pay with their sacrifice, why don't they get the security they were promised? After such a breach in security, Tehran's image in front of the country's partners in the region also suffers: if Iran cannot protect its own interests and territory, how will it protect theirs?
In a state of urgent urgency and a shaken ego, Iran's voiced threats become easily explained. Therefore, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared that "the criminal terrorist Zionist regime made a martyr on our territory of one of our dear guests and brought us sadness, but he (note - Israel) also prepared the ground for harsh punishment". In fact, in this case, the Supreme Leader of the Middle Eastern country speaks first of all to his fellow citizens and to his allies, to whom he wants to demonstrate his position. And only after that, Khamenei's words are a warning for Tel Aviv.
The neutralization of Ismail Hania, however, has additional significance when it is placed in the context of the dynamics in the region.
First, it comes after the escalation between Hezbollah and Israel after a rocket by the Lebanese Shiite organization landed in the Druze village of Majdal Shams, killing 12 children and teenagers. Tel Aviv's opening was not long in coming: one of Hezbollah's most important military commanders, Fouad Shukr, was eliminated in southern Beirut, but expectations are that this is the beginning, not the end, of Israel's response. However, it should also be taken into account that Netanyahu, unlike some ministers from his cabinet, is generally opposed to the idea of opening a second front, this time a northern one, against Hezbollah.
Secondly, Haniya's neutralization comes at a time when the US had expectations that negotiations for at least a temporary cessation of hostilities between Hamas and Israel might finally yield results. Now this becomes more difficult, given the situation in which Hamas will in turn feel obliged to respond to Israel, closing the cycle of violence (whether this group still has the ability to mount a serious counterstrike is another question. On the other hand, already reports of mass shootings organized by Hamas in the West Bank appear). Hence, the prospect of progress in peace talks between the terrorist organization and Tel Aviv automatically diminishes, and progress in diplomacy can easily be "erased".
Dissatisfaction in Washington with such developing circumstances is logical. First, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken stated that the US was neither involved nor informed of this action that eliminated Ismail Haniya. And then John Kirby, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council, said the events of the past two days "certainly don't help lower the temperature." The removal of one of the stalwarts of the negotiations with Israel, such as Haniya, and providing a new occasion for escalating tensions along the Hamas/Iran-Israel axis further complicates US diplomatic efforts to end the conflict (and puts another cog in the wheel of US-Iranian negotiations , concerning the nuclear program of the latter). Therefore, the effect of the rocket that fell in North Tehran was actually felt in Washington. Especially given that the American side was not warned about the prepared action by Netanyahu (an action whose effect is exploding the efforts and interests of the USA), who last week was in the USA, where he saw Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump consecutively. And that's awkward: it's like visiting your best friend and then having a "happening" without telling him.
In fact, Benjamin Netanyahu has long tested not only Tehran's patience, but Washington's as well. And that is the main risk he faces: not rising levels of Iranian hatred, but falling levels of American affection. As different as Joe Biden and Donald Trump are, Netanyahu hears the same thing from both: namely, that this conflict must stop.
However, the projectile that hit the northern outskirts of Tehran is more like a flare, lighting the way for war.