Could it be Iran that assassinated Haniyeh?

Not one media outlet seems to have reported on the possibility that Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, was assassinated by Iran.

Though I have no information other than what I read in the press, this to me seems odd, especially given the contradictory accounts about the assassination that have been emerging in the Iranian and international media.

There are at least two major frameworks of analysis that could point to possible Iranian responsibility – the traditional threat assessment triad of ‘opportunity, capability, intent’, and the more political question of ‘who gains most’.

While the legendary reputation and prior exploits of Mossad suggest Israel has the capability, this is dwarfed by Iran’s capability in its own capital. That the strike was carried out with such apparent pinpoint accuracy, within a particular bedroom and apparently without so much as a minor injury to any other occupant of the building aside from Haniyeh and his attendant, in particular raises eyebrows.

Likewise on opportunity – while it required no great intelligence capability for Israel to have had foreknowledge of Haniyeh’s attendance at the inauguration of the new Iranian president, and perhaps some insider sources that helped it identify and even penetrate the guesthouse where he was staying, Iran had significantly greater foreknowledge and opportunity.

Which brings us to the third and perhaps most pertinent category, ‘intent’, as well as the broader question of ‘who gains most’.

It is by no means obvious that Israel gains most from Haniyeh’s death, though you wouldn’t know this from reading global media outlets and their proliferating verification and fact checking services.

True, the death of Haniyeh has provided a morale boost for Israel. It helps prepare the ground among Israeli public opinion for a ceasefire in which the claim to have achieved the stated war goal of ‘total victory’ looks more plausible after Hamas’ political and military chiefs have now both been taken out. The argument has also been made that removing Haniyeh could give more leverage to Israel in the ceasefire/hostage negotiations, though it seems this argument could go either way – the US and Qatar, among others, have argued to the contrary. Finally, the assassination of Haniyeh in Tehran specifically could be considered to strengthen deterrence, sending a warning and poking a finger in the eye of Israel’s arch-nemesis, while commanding respect from actual and potential allies in the region.

However, there is a long list of reasons why Iran may gain more than Israel from Haniyeh’s death. Here are the reasons I can think of:

1. In the short term, it gives Iran another pretext for directly striking Israel, this time in coordination with its proxies, allowing it again to change the ‘rules of the game’ in its favour and establishing a new norm that increases deterrence against Israel.
2. More broadly, the assassination helps paint Iran as the injured party and Israel as the aggressor, relying on the predictable yet still inexplicably sympathetic response of international media to the death of the ‘moderate and pragmatic’ arch-terrorist, and thus further alienating Israel from ‘the West’.
3. Further to (2), plays into the discourse of distrust around PM Netanyahu, that this was a move to deliberately undermine the ceasefire/hostage negotiations, thereby intensifying internal divisions within Israel, while upsetting the US in its leadership efforts towards ceasefire and hostage release.
4. Gives Iran a defense for targeting political leadership, whether Israeli or others (as they have apparently stated and done in the past, e.g. President Trump, US National Security Advisor John Bolton).
5. Strengthens Iran’s position in achieving the key strategic objective it has apparently set itself from this conflict – its proxies’ takeover of the West Bank. In this respect, it is noteworthy the assassination came shortly after the Beijing Declaration between the Palestinian factions, with already surging Palestinian support for Hamas reinforced by the ‘martyrdom’ of its leader, and the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority forced to participate in eulogising the former leader of its great rivals.
6. Similarly in Jordan, reinforcement of support for Hamas among the 70% of Jordanian population that is Palestinian by origin may help Iran move forward its plans in the Kingdom where it has long been trying to undermine or coopt the regime in order to strengthen its supply lines to its proxies in the West Bank and ultimately to establish a new and particularly dangerous front against Israel from the east.
7. Gives Iran the opportunity to handpick the next Hamas leader more beholden to Iran, and perhaps less beholden to Qatar, noting that Haniyeh was an aide to Hamas founder and spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who is understood to have been cooler on Hamas’ positioning as an Iranian proxy. It may also have been the case that disagreements had opened up between Iran and Hamas on the terms of the ceasefire, or on other points of strategy, while noting that Iran has historically been closer to the smaller rival faction, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, whose leader was in the same guesthouse but emerged unscathed.
8. Provides some level of revenge for Hamas supporting the Sunni opposition to the Iran- and Hezbollah-backed, Shia-aligned Assad regime during the Syrian Civil War.
9. The assassination may also help consolidate Iran’s relationships with regimes in the region having close relations with Hamas, particularly Qatar and Turkey, perhaps with the intent, G-d forbid, to draw them into the conflict.
10. Finally, looking at internal dynamics within Iran, as it inaugurates a new ‘reformist’ president less close to the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guards than his ‘hardline’ predecessor (if one buys into the division between the two), the assassination of a political leader in Tehran may be considered a message to toe the line.

The facts may never be objectively established. However considering all these motives, it seems to me short-sighted to unquestionably apportion responsibility to Israel.