The recent assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran has ignited a flurry of speculation and debate over the possible motives and execution of the attack, further intensifying tensions in the Middle East.
Haniyeh was in Tehran for the inauguration of Iran’s new president when he was killed by what reports suggest was a “short-range projectile” targeting the guesthouse where he was staying.
The killing has been widely attributed to Israel, though the Israeli government has neither confirmed nor denied involvement.
The timing of the assassination, just hours after Haniyeh attended a high-profile event in Tehran, is seen as a major embarrassment for Iran, exposing significant security lapses within the country. Over two dozen people, including intelligence and military officials, have reportedly been arrested in connection with the breach, underscoring the severity of the situation.
Given the sensitive and high-stakes nature of this event and its execution with surgical precision, several theories have emerged, each with varying degrees of plausibility.
Here’s a rundown of the four primary theories circulating about the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran:
1. Bomb Planted in the Building
Theory: One of the initial theories was that a bomb had been planted in the guesthouse where Haniyeh was staying. The idea is that the bomb was strategically placed in advance and detonated when Haniyeh was confirmed to be inside.
Plausibility: This theory is now widely considered to be less plausible for several reasons:
- Logistical Challenges: Planting a bomb in such a high-security location like a state guesthouse in Tehran would be extraordinarily difficult even with insider help. This would require detailed intelligence on Haniyeh’s movements and the ability to bypass or neutralize Iranian security measures.
- Timing Issues: The timing of the bomb’s detonation would need to be incredibly precise, which is challenging given the fluid nature of high-profile guests' movements. The risk of mistiming or targeting the wrong individual is significant.
- Risk of Exposure: This theory allows for plausible deniability on multiple fronts. If it were an inside job, Iran could still publicly blame Israel, maintaining its stance against its traditional enemy while addressing internal conflicts. Likewise, a third-party actor could calculate that Israel would be the natural suspect, allowing them to achieve their objectives without direct blame.
Overall, the complexities involved make this theory less credible as a means of execution.
2. Cross-Border Missile Strike
Theory: This theory proposes that a missile was fired from a long range, possibly from across Iran’s borders or by F-35 stealth aircraft, directly targeting Haniyeh’s guesthouse.
Plausibility: This theory is also considered relatively implausible:
- Detection and Interception: Iran's air defense systems around Tehran are sophisticated and would likely detect and intercept a long-range missile before it could reach its target. Guiding such a missile in a densely populated urban area to its target would be too risky.
- Coordination and Timing: The logistics of timing such an attack to coincide with Haniyeh’s presence would be extraordinarily difficult. The missile would need to be launched precisely when Haniyeh was in the target zone and hit when he was still there, with little room for error.
- Political Risks: A cross-border attack carries enormous risks of detection and escalation, potentially leading to direct conflict between Iran and the nation from which the missile was launched.
Given these factors, this theory remains unlikely.
3. Short-Range Strike (Drone or Missile from Nearby)
Theory: The most plausible theory and also recent report from Iran suggests that a short-range strike was carried out using a small drone or missile launched from a nearby location, possibly just a few hundred meters away, after visual or electronic confirmation that Haniyeh was in the building.
Plausibility: This theory is widely considered the most credible:
- Proximity and Precision: Using a drone or a small missile from a nearby location allows for a high degree of precision and reduces the chances of detection before the strike. Such an attack would be highly accurate while difficult to trace.
- Real-Time Confirmation: The strike could have been executed after real-time confirmation that Haniyeh was present, minimizing the risk of targeting the wrong person. This could have been achieved through surveillance or insider intelligence.
- Feasibility: Israel has a history of using such precise, high-tech methods, making this a highly plausible scenario. The use of drones or short-range missiles aligns well with Israel’s known capabilities and past operations to target Iran's nuclear scientists.
This method would be highly effective in Tehran, allowing for a quick, precise, and largely undetectable strike, making it the most plausible scenario.
4. Insider Job or Non-Israel Actor
Theory: Another theory posits that the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh was an inside job, potentially orchestrated by factions within the Iranian regime or involving non-Israeli actors, such as other Arab countries. These parties could have had their own motives for eliminating Haniyeh, using the opportunity to further their interests while deflecting blame onto Israel.
Plausibility: This theory is plausible for several reasons:
- Internal Discontent: Within Iran, there are multiple power centers, including factions within the government and the Revolutionary Guards. Some of these groups may have been dissatisfied with Haniyeh’s role or the policies he represented, particularly regarding Iran's involvement with Hamas. By removing Haniyeh, these factions could shift the direction of Iran’s foreign policy or strengthen their own position internally. Similarly, rival Arab countries could see Haniyeh's elimination as a way to weaken Iran's influence or Hamas's role in the region.
- Reduced Risk: An inside job would significantly reduce the risk of detection and interception. If key figures within the Iranian security apparatus were involved, they could ensure the operation went unnoticed until it was too late.
- Plausible Deniability: If it were an inside job, it would allow Iran to blame Israel while dealing with internal dissent. Likewise, a third party actor could calculate that the Israel would be blamed.
This theory holds weight, especially in the context of Iran's complex internal politics and the challenges it faces from both domestic and external pressures. It could also derail Gaza ceasefire.
Motives Behind the Assassination
At the core of the assassination lies a complex web of political, strategic, and regional interests. The most prominent theory points to Israel, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu potentially seeing Haniyeh's elimination as a way to achieve multiple objectives.
Netanyahu has been under immense pressure due to the ongoing conflict in Gaza, which has turned into a quagmire for his administration. The Gaza war, which escalated after Hamas' attack on Israel, has left Netanyahu seeking ways to turn the tide in his favor, both domestically and internationally.
Netanyahu’s Strategy to Involve the U.S.
One key aspect of Netanyahu's strategy may involve drawing the United States more deeply into the conflict. By escalating tensions with Iran—especially through a high-profile assassination on Iranian soil—Netanyahu could be attempting to provoke a broader regional conflict that would necessitate U.S. involvement.
A larger conflict with Iran, often seen as Israel's most formidable regional adversary, could shift the focus away from Gaza and rally international support for Israel, particularly from its most powerful ally, the United States.
The assassination of Haniyeh could also serve to disrupt ceasefire talks between Hamas and Israel. Netanyahu has been criticized for his handling of the Gaza conflict, and a ceasefire could be seen as a political defeat, especially if it is perceived as being favorable to Hamas.
By eliminating Haniyeh, a key figure in Hamas' political and negotiation strategy, Netanyahu may be seeking to ensure that any talks collapse, thus prolonging the conflict and allowing him to maintain a hardline stance.
Other Actors with Vested Interests
However, the situation is further complicated by the possible involvement of other regional actors who may also benefit from the disruption of ceasefire talks. Various Arab countries, some of which are wary of Iran's growing influence through its proxies like Hamas, could see the assassination as an opportunity to weaken both Hamas and Iran. This brings into play the possibility that the assassination was an insider job or the work of a non-Israeli actor, as discussed in the earlier theories.
For these countries, the killing of Haniyeh could serve to destabilize the Gaza negotiations, weaken Iranian influence, and shift the balance of power in the region. By allowing Israel to take the blame, these actors could achieve their strategic objectives while avoiding direct confrontation.
The Broader Implications
The assassination of Haniyeh is not just a tactical move; it is a strategic gambit that could have wide-ranging implications for the Middle East. If Israel is perceived as the orchestrator, it could lead to a severe escalation with Iran, potentially drawing in the United States and other regional powers.
On the other hand, if the assassination is the result of an internal or third-party plot, it could expose significant vulnerabilities within Iran and shift the dynamics of power within the region.
Unfortunately, the assassination can derail any remaining hopes for a ceasefire in Gaza, prolonging the conflict and further entrenching the region in violence.
Iran's Retaliation
Iran has vowed retaliation against Israel, with its Revolutionary Guards promising "severe punishment" at a time and place of their choosing. However, as has been observed in previous cases, Iran’s response might be carefully calibrated to manage both internal and external pressures, and to avoid triggering a broader conflict that could spiral out of control.
Historically, Iran has often delayed its retaliatory strikes in similar situations. This delay serves multiple strategic purposes:
- Ensuring Preparedness of U.S. and Allies: By postponing its response, Iran allows time for the United States and its allies to position their missile defense systems and other military assets. This calculated delay helps Iran avoid an uncontrollable escalation while still demonstrating its capability and willingness to retaliate. It allows Iran to engage in a symbolic act of defiance without risking a massive and potentially devastating counterstrike from Israel or its allies.
- Signaling to Proxies: Iran’s network of regional proxies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and various militias across the Middle East, expects Tehran to respond forcefully to any attack on its leaders or allies. By timing its retaliation carefully, Iran can maintain its credibility with these groups, showing that it will defend its allies while also managing the broader strategic environment to avoid a larger conflict.
- Avoiding Unwanted International Attention: With the global focus currently on Israel's war in Gaza, Iran is likely wary of drawing too much attention to itself. A significant military response could shift international scrutiny onto Tehran, potentially leading to increased sanctions, diplomatic isolation, or even military intervention by Western powers. By keeping its response measured, Iran can express its anger and satisfy domestic calls for revenge without inviting broader international consequences.
- International opinion: While Iran’s measured response strategy might seem to give Israel some breathing room, it’s unlikely Tehran would want to entirely let Israel off the hook for the Gaza conflict. However, by opting for a controlled and symbolic retaliation, Iran can maintain its stance without directly aiding Israel in extricating itself from the Gaza quagmire. Tehran is likely aware that a disproportionate response could inadvertently unite international opinion against it, allowing Israel to shift the narrative and gain sympathy or support.
In addition to external posturing, Iran may also choose to focus on internal measures as part of its response to Haniyeh's assassination. This could involve the arrest of certain individuals or factions within the country, particularly if there are suspicions of an inside job or security lapses that allowed the assassination to occur. This approach would allow Iran to manage the situation domestically, calming public outrage while avoiding a full-scale military confrontation.
