Last week’s assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas Political Bureau, was about as masterful as you can get. While Israel hasn’t formally claimed responsibility, the entire operation was in keeping with its modus operandi. The Israelis not only have the capability to execute this kind of strike—the Mossad is one of the most impressive foreign intelligence services in the world and has a long history of eliminating Israel’s enemies regardless of where they reside—but also the motive. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant have both been vocal since Oct. 7 about taking Hamas’ entire leadership off the board. There is “no difference between a terrorist with a Kalashnikov and a terrorist in a three-piece suit,” Gallant said back in November.
Whether a bomb was smuggled into Haniyeh’s sleeping quarters or a short-range missile killed him is irrelevant. Either way, the top Hamas political official, a man who was under Iran’s care and was a dignitary at Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s inauguration hours earlier, was a calamity for the Iranian security services and just the latest in what has been a long string of Israeli-sponsored assassinations on Iranian soil. More than two dozen senior Iranian intelligence officers and military officials were reportedly arrested after Haniyeh’s death, a sign that Tehran’s security apparatus is desperate to sniff out potential moles.
But these types of targeted killing operations must also be looked at strategically. Killing Haniyeh was obviously the priority. But if the killing, however justified on a moral level, leads to unintended consequences or makes accomplishing other goals more difficult, then it’s fair game to question whether the operation should have gone ahead. Tactical successes can lead to strategic failures.
Author
Daniel
DePetris
Fellow
More on Middle East
Events on Israel-Hamas
