Israel’s actions demonstrate no locale is beyond their reach and ’that they are not cowed by Iran’s hostility,’ said Michael Doran, a Hudson Institute analyst.
The killings of the top Hamas and Hezbollah leadership put pressure on the terrorist groups and Iran to respond, heighten the chance of war, and change the dynamics of the conflicts, according to analysts.
Iran was drawn in more deeply because the killing of Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas, on July 31, took place in Tehran while he was a guest of the Iranian government. Israel has not taken credit for the attack.
Analysts say Israel changed the terms of the conflict with its willingness to go after its enemies’ heads in faraway capitals and showed its strength by succeeding. Fuad Shukr, military head of Hezbollah, was killed in the group’s stronghold in Beirut’s suburbs on July 30.
That area had previously been declared off-limits for Israeli attacks by the United States, and Israel until now had stayed away. Israel upped the stakes in response to Hezbollah’s July 27 rocket strike on a soccer field in the Golan Heights that killed 12 Druze children and teens and wounded more than 40.
“For Israel, this is a start of a new more offensive, confrontational, and integrated response to Iran’s proxies, stopping short of attacking Iran’s leadership directly without U.S. support,” Irina Tsukerman, a New York lawyer specializing in national security and counterterrorism issues, told The Epoch Times.
“This level of calculated escalation is meant to deal such blows to this nexus that they cannot easily recover from it,” she said.
“Haniyeh’s death is obviously a major blow to Hamas, as well as to Iran. His killing, while under the protection of the Iranian regime, reflects how profoundly Israel has succeeded in penetrating and compromising the Islamic Republic’s security,” Ilan Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council, told The Epoch Times.
“It is also clearly part of Israel’s campaign to rebuild its deterrence posture in the region, post-October 7,” Berman said.
“What this means for Hamas remains to be seen. The organization is clearly impacted by the killing, although its imperative of survival suggests the ceasefire negotiations with Israel will still continue,” he said.
“Haniyeh’s killing does, however, send a clear message that Israel’s vow to eliminate those responsible for Oct. 7 was serious, and that that campaign is progressing.”
“This is a severe blow to Hamas,” Michael Doran, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East, told The Epoch Times.
He said Haniyeh had long been Hamas’s political head, central to the organization, and played a significant role in cease-fire negotiations.
“He served as the external face of Hamas, its de facto foreign minister, if you will,” he said.
“By assassinating him in Tehran, the Israelis showed that virtually no locale is beyond their reach and that they are not cowed by Iran’s hostility. They are willing to risk all-out war with Tehran to achieve their stated objective of destroying Hamas fully and forever,” Doran said.
Israel this week also confirmed the death of Mohammed Deif, Hamas’s military head, in a July 13 attack aimed at him in Khan Yunis, a Palestinian city in the southern Gaza Strip.
And on Aug. 2 the Israel Defense Force (IDF) confirmed the elimination of another high-ranking threat, Mohammed al-Jabari, deputy head of weapons manufacturing for Islamic Jihad.
The deaths of Haniyeh and Deif, Doran said, show “that Israel is well on the way to achieving its goal of delivering to Hamas a blow from which it will never recover. It has a long way to go to achieve that goal, but it is clearly dedicated to it and, ultimately, capable of succeeding.”
Doran saw the Haniyeh assassination’s immediate impact, though, as setting back cease-fire negotiations.
“[With] one of the major negotiators removed from the table, it is difficult to see how negotiations will become easier,” he said.
Some have similarly positioned the late Haniyeh as being more moderate on the subject of negotiations.
But Tsukerman dismissed that notion.
She said Haniyeh had become a billionaire at Gazans’ expense and lived a luxurious life in Doha, Qatar, as Gaza’s economy deteriorated.
The Gaza Strip faced civil unrest over its economic mismanagement last year, she said. The response of Haniyeh, one of the Oct. 7 masterminds, to that “was to execute a horrific attack which dragged Gaza into a war.”
Events since then, including his continuing to travel freely and plot Israel’s encirclement by Iran-aligned enemies, should have indicated he had no intention of returning the hostages or ending Hamas’s state of war with Israel, she said.
“Haniyeh’s demise signifies the end to impunity and tacit acceptance and legitimation of the Hamas leadership, and sends a warning signal that no one is safe from justice, that Iran cannot protect its vassals even inside its borders, and that the same fate awaits anyone, no matter how high up, rich, or ‘normalized’ who continues presenting a threat to Israel,” she said.
“It also signifies the end of strategic ambiguity and distinction between the Hamas operatives in Gaza and its political leadership in Doha.”
Hamas’s leadership has been decimated since its Oct. 7 massacre of 1,200 people in Israel triggered its attack on the Gaza Strip.
She noted that Khaled Meshaal would probably become Hamas’s leader and that she expected him to be targeted by Israel as well.
“[Israel’s] aim from now on should be to turn the tables in Hamas insurgency strategy by disrupting their operations as early as possible and making sure that no leader can stick around long enough to gain relevant experience, earn respect, or accumulate power,” she said.
“Being a Hamas leader should become the most dangerous and the least desirable job in the world.”
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.