In the aftermath of the assassinations earlier this week of Hizbullah commander Fuad Shukr in Beirut and of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, the prospect of the escalation of the current conflict in Gaza to an all-out regional war appears to loom larger than ever.
While Israel has, on previous occasions, undertaken actions that threatened the full-scale entry of Hizbullah or Iran or both into the conflict, the killing of Shukr and Haniyeh is particularly provocative. Much of the focus has been on the death of Haniyeh, who was head of the political bureau of Hamas, based in Doha.
Haniyeh spent much of recent years in Qatar and in Turkey, was seen as a pragmatist within the organisation’s leadership, and had close relations with key actors in the region, notably Qatar, Turkey and, of course, Iran, as well as with other Palestinian factions. He was also a key negotiator in the mediation process being overseen by Qatar in an attempt to bring about a ceasefire in Gaza and pave the way to an end to the conflict.
However, the killing of Shukr is also extremely significant. He was a founding member of Hizbullah, which emerged after Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and served as military adviser to its secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah. According to Israeli sources, he was responsible for the missile strike that killed 12 children playing football in the town of Majdal Shams in the Golan Heights – Syrian territory that Israel has occupied since the 1967 war.
His assassination marked the first time that Israel has attacked the southern suburbs of Beirut – a Hizbullah stronghold – since a drone attack killed Hamas commander Salah al-Arouri in January of this year. Unsurprisingly, the leaderships of Iran and Hizbullah have vowed to retaliate. Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, said it was Tehran’s duty to avenge the killing of Haniyeh, because it occurred in Tehran and because Israel had provided grounds for “harsh punishment”.
A somewhat more conciliatory note was struck by Iran’s first vice-president, Mohammed Reza Aref, who stated that it has no intention of escalating the conflict. However, in addition to prompting calls for vengeance, the assassination of Haniyeh in Tehran has raised alarm concerning the security of Iran’s leadership more generally.
Haniyeh was killed while sleeping in a residence linked to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps. He was in Tehran for the inauguration of the new Iranian president, Masoud Pezeshkian, and at a time of heightened security.
Following his death, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council held an urgent meeting at Khamenei’s residence. The council is the country’s highest strategic decision-making body and answers directly to the supreme leader, meeting only at times of national emergency.
The ultimate decision on Iran’s next course of action rests with Khamenei. What form Iranian retaliation might take is the subject of much speculation. As recently as April, Iran responded to an Israeli assault on its consulate in Damascus by launching more than 300 missiles and drones at Israeli territory, the vast majority of which were intercepted outside the country.
A more substantial response from Hizbullah in Lebanon is more likely, not least because that organisation is also committed to avenging the killing of Shukr. Even before the death of Haniyeh, it was being reported in the Israeli press that Hizbullah was transporting precision missiles in advance of a possible confrontation with Israel.
For Israel, Hizbullah would be a far more daunting opponent, in the event of the emergence of broader conflict. Hizbullah fought the Israelis to a standstill in the last big conflict between the two sides, which followed the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. In the meantime, it has built up its military capacity and also has the experience of years of fighting in support of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in neighbouring Syria.
On the other hand, a wider war involving Hizbullah and Israel would be catastrophic for Lebanon and threaten its already fragile stability. The potential for a regional war in the Middle East has united the big powers in calling for restraint and a negotiated ceasefire. While condemning the killing of Haniyeh both Russia and China have emphasised the need for a comprehensive and permanent ceasefire and the avoidance of actions that could lead to a wider regional war.
The United States has been somewhat more circumspect as Antony Blinken has spoken of “the imperative of getting a ceasefire”. However, quite how much sway the US government has over Binyamin Netanyahu at present is difficult to discern, particularly since Blinken has made it clear the US had no involvement in, or advance knowledge of, the assassination of Haniyeh.
Before this week’s assassinations, there were reports of progress in negotiations between Israel and Hamas, which led to considerable optimism that a ceasefire deal might be imminent. This now seems unlikely, at least in the immediate future.
As the Qatari prime minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani asked on X: “How can mediation succeed when one party assassinates the negotiator on the other side?” There is some speculation that Netanyahu might be able to represent recent events as real progress in the achievement of the war aim of dismantling Hamas, particularly with the confirmation of the death last month of Mohammed Deif, widely believed to be one of the key planners of the October 7th attacks on Israel. This in turn might give him leeway to agree a ceasefire deal on something like his own stated terms.
[ Can Israel go beyond show of strength to achieve strategic success?Opens in new window ]
The domestic context in Israel remains a strong countervailing force. Netanyahu has a vested interest in continuing the war, which is supported by the right-wing elements in his government on which he depends, and which postpones the day when he confronts his own unpopularity and demands for accountability on multiple grounds.
For the moment, it may be that the Israeli calculation that assassinating Haniyeh in the heartland of the Iranian regime might not incur the catastrophic consequences that some envisage proves correct. But there is a limit to how far this logic can extend before the intended or unintended consequences of its actions lead to even greater levels of violent conflict in the region.
Dr Vincent Durac lectures in Middle East politics in the UCD school of politics and international relations
- Listen to our Inside Politics Podcast for the latest analysis and chat
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date