Will Ismail Haniyeh’s killing pull the Gulf into a bigger war? 

Following the assassination of Hamas’s political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, there is a reason to fear that Israel’s conflict with Palestinians—wrongly described as the Israel-Hamas war by Western media—might escalate into a war between Israel and Iran.

Haniyeh was killed around 2 am local time in the heart of the Iranian capital where he was attending the swearing-in of Iran’s new President Masoud Pezeshkian. Israel’s choice of the occasion and the site shows its determination to provoke Iran into war.  

The previous day, 30 July, saw the killing of Fuad Shukr, a close adviser to the chief of Hezbollah, when his residential building in Beirut, the capital of Lebanon, was bombed by Israel. 

While Israel boastfully announced that Shukr was killed, the media was unable to verify the death of the Hezbollah commander. The standard Israeli practice is to bomb sites where it suspects a targeted individual might be present, showing little concern for collateral damage, including civilian lives.

This flagrant violation of International Humanitarian Law (including the four Geneva Conventions of 1949) is repeated time and again with impunity, thanks to the diplomatic and military protection provided by the United States.

Hezbollah has now confirmed the death of Fuad Shukr.

The two assassinations occurred within a space of 12 hours.

Obviously, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is hell-bent on escalation, forcing Iran to choose between appearing helpless against Israeli attacks or retaliating in kind. This strategy risks setting fire to an exceptionally inflammable region.

America’s role

Here we see the perilous consequences and implications of President Joe Biden’s policy of extending ‘rock solid’ support to Israel. Referring to the assassination in Tehran, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that Washington had received no warning from Israel. However, he stated, America would assist Israel in defending itself if attacked—meaning if Iran retaliates in kind. He added that America was doing its best to prevent escalation. Obviously, Blinken expects Iran to turn the other cheek.

Israel is killing civilians in Gaza using American weapons supplied for free by the United States. Yet, America seems helpless in stopping the genocide. Meanwhile, America goes through the charade of pretending to put pressure on Israel to agree to a deal for a temporary ceasefire and exchange of hostages and Palestinian detainees.

The New York Times has claimed that the assassination occurred while monthlong talks were ongoing regarding a deal. The newspaper is right. However, it seems to forget that even as the talks were on, the genocidal war continued, and Gaza has been destroyed to such an extent that, according to UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency), it will take 15 years and cost $500 million just to remove the 40-million-ton debris from the enclave. Netanyahu is getting away with pretending to talk without stopping the genocide.

Reaction from the International community

Qatar: “Political assassinations and continued targeting of civilians in Gaza while talks continue leads us to ask, how can mediation succeed when one party assassinates the negotiator on the other side?” Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani wrote on X.

Iran: “The Islamic Republic of Iran will defend its territorial integrity, honor, pride, and dignity, and make the terrorist invaders regret their cowardly action,” President Masoud Pezeshkian said in a post on X.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has pledged to punish Israel.

China: “We are highly concerned about the incident and firmly oppose and condemn the assassination,” foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian said.

“Gaza should achieve a comprehensive and permanent ceasefire as soon as possible,” Lin added. 

Egypt: “The coincidence of this regional escalation with the lack of progress in the ceasefire negotiations in Gaza increases the complexity of the situation and indicates the absence of Israeli political will to calm it down,” a foreign ministry statement said.

“It undercuts the strenuous efforts made by Egypt and its partners to stop the war in the Gaza Strip and put an end to the human suffering of the Palestinian people,” it added. 

Russia: “This is an absolutely unacceptable political murder, and it will lead to further escalation of tensions,” said deputy foreign minister Mikhail Bogdanov.

Turkey: “Once again Israel’s Netanyahu government has shown that it has no intention of achieving peace,” Turkey’s ministry of foreign affairs said in a statement.

“The region will face much larger conflicts if the international community does not take action to stop Israel,” it added.

Sri Lanka: “President Ranil Wickremesinghe expressed his strong condemnation of the assassination of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh and stated unequivocally that he will never condone such actions,” president’s office said in a post on X.

Malaysia: “Malaysia urges for an immediate and thorough investigation into this assassination, and those responsible to be brought to justice,” Malaysia’s ministry of foreign affairs said in a statement. 

“The incident underscores the urgent need for de-escalation and reinforces the necessity for all parties to engage in constructive dialogue and pursue peaceful resolutions,” it added. 

Australia: Apparently approving the killing, defense minister Richard Marles said, “This individual was central to the activities which occurred on 7 October, activities which we have consistently condemned.”

Does not Australia know that Haniyeh based in Doha is the political—not the military—leader of Hamas?

We have not yet come across any criticism of Israel by the West. We are yet to see any response from New Delhi, the voice of the Global South. 

Indian minister Nitin Gadkari was among the 110 foreign delegations that attended the swearing-in of Iran’s president, where the Hamas leader was also present. 

The meeting of the paralyzed UN Security Council 

The council met at the request of Russia, China, and Algeria. The US permanent representative was absent. The deputy permanent representative, Joseph Wood, called upon every member of the council to urge Iran to “stop arming, advising, and financing terrorist groups.” 

In other words, Washington approves of the assassination.

What might happen next

Iran must decide whether to respond militarily and, if so, in what manner. It is particularly disheartening that Haniyeh was assassinated just as a reformist president keen on improving relations with the West has taken office in Iran. 

Clearly, Netanyahu aimed to prevent the Iranian president from making any diplomatic moves. We do not yet know how Iran might respond, but there are reports that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in an emergency meeting, has ordered retaliation.

The key question is whether Iran’s retaliation will be as measured as it was previously. After Israel bombed the Iranian Consulate in Beirut, killing senior IRGC commanders on 1 April, Iran responded with missiles and drones on 13 April, but causing no serious damage. 

It is not widely known that the IRGC and the Pentagon were in touch through Oman. Iran aimed to prevent further escalation, unlike Israel. While there was a subsequent Israeli retaliation, Iran chose not to escalate further, avoiding a tit-for-tat response. Netanyahu, disappointed by Iran’s restraint in April, may have decided to provoke Iran and Hezbollah once again.

If Iran responds militarily, it could trigger a major conflict in the region, allowing Netanyahu to survive politically. Even if Iran refrains from a military response, Netanyahu is likely to continue provoking Tehran, leaving it with little choice but to ultimately respond in kind. Biden is unlikely to fulfill his presidential responsibility to stop the genocide.

Whether or not escalation occurs, the macabre dance of death will persist unless stopped by Biden, whose moral bankruptcy is deplorable. It is an established principle in ethics that if A commits an offense and B, who has the power to stop it, does not act, then both A and B are morally responsible.