Iran's Response to the Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh: From Diplomacy to the Battlefield
The cowardly assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran marks a significant point in the hybrid warfare of the Israel against Iran and the resistance front. This incident, occurring on the night of Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian’s inauguration as the new President of our country, is by no means coincidental. It aligns with the strategic objectives of the Israeli enemy against the resistance led by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
As the positions of Western and Israeli think tanks and research centers indicate, one of the main objectives of this terrorist act is to engage the new Iranian government in pre-designed political and security challenges, thus disrupting the government's ability to focus on priority political and economic issues and hindering it from fulfilling its promises. Therefore, this assassination has extensive dimensions that must be met with an intelligent response leveraging various capacities of the resistance front.
Analyzing this terrorist incident requires first examining its timing. Executing this operation on the night of the new president’s inauguration allowed the Israel to exploit potential security and political disturbances. However, the intelligent reaction of our country, including the measured and wise messages from the Supreme Leader and Dr. Pezeshkian, demonstrated that this expectation was futile. The government wisely prevented any security unrest and hasty reactions to this crime.
Nevertheless, the primary aim of this terrorist act is to preoccupy the new president and his administration with the repercussions of this assassination, thereby preventing them from focusing on other crucial issues. This would lead to the persistence of economic and social challenges and the labeling of the administration as ineffective, creating public dissatisfaction. It is evident that the Zionists and their overt and covert allies are determined to prevent the success of the new government, viewing any setbacks and failures in the new government’s promises as valuable achievements.
Additionally, Israel's new gamble is rooted in its heavy defeats in the Gaza war. The Zionist regime’s security cabinet, engaged in a prolonged and attritional war, attempts to directly involve Iran in this war and use global platforms to garner European and American support to end its political isolation. The Israelis are aware that the Islamic Republic of Iran cannot ignore a terrorist attack on a foreign official on its soil, as it constitutes an assault on the country’s sovereignty and security. According to international rules, a proportionate response to this crime is legitimate. Therefore, it seems the Zionist regime aims to force Iran into a predictable stance, enabling it to shape subsequent conditions and reactions to its advantage. Hence, in response to the Zionists' crime, including the assassination of Martyr Ismail Haniyeh, Iran must employ a calculated strategy utilizing the country’s smart and hybrid capacities.
Furthermore, the international dimensions of this terrorist incident and its connection to the U.S. elections should be noted, as this assassination is not unrelated to the fate of the White House. Kamala Harris, the Vice President of the United States and a presidential candidate, has so far taken positions against the current Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu, especially regarding the Gaza war. However, in the American election atmosphere and under the influence of Zionist lobbies, any escalation in West Asia may compel her and her party to support Netanyahu’s warlike policies, as not decisively supporting the Zionists in a war against a power like Iran could weaken her political position against her Republican rival, Donald Trump.
Consequently, the first benefit for the Israel from this situation is increased political unity in Washington in support of Netanyahu’s warlike policies. This scenario creates a win-win situation for Netanyahu, linking U.S. domestic politics with regional dynamics and ensuring continued domestic and international support for himself and his government.
Given the above, the assassination of Haniyeh is a strategic maneuver by Netanyahu to gain internal and international support and navigate his current fragile political situation in the Zionist regime. This act pressures American politicians like Harris to align with his interests and strengthens his warlike stance. This clearly demonstrates the connection between a regional security incident and U.S. domestic politics as an example of hybrid warfare, where actions are designed to impact multiple fronts simultaneously.
Therefore, the new government, led by Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian, faces the challenging task of formulating an appropriate and effective response to the Zionists in the early days of its administration post-inauguration. In this context, the new government must leverage field capacities and its hybrid power. It is also essential for the government to expedite the introduction of ministers to Parliament and quickly form the new cabinet. With the formation of the new government, the Islamic Republic of Iran, backed by the hard power of the armed forces, will be able to fully confront the forthcoming threats.
As the Supreme Leader stated in his message regarding the martyrdom of Ismail Haniyeh, Iran’s response to this crime is certain. However, it is clear that this response will not be purely diplomatic; it will smartly utilize hybrid capacities because a purely diplomatic response to a crime like the recent terrorist incident might weaken the country’s deterrent position. Therefore, Iran’s strategy in responding to this crime must be precise and a combination of military, intelligence, and diplomatic elements. This approach could include targeted operations against valuable enemy interests and resources, along with strong media and diplomatic campaigns to highlight the regime's crime and isolate it internationally. Additionally, strengthening internal security measures to prevent similar breaches and demonstrating resilience against external threats is crucial.
In the long term, our country must review its security infrastructure and regional alliances. Strengthening relations with regional partners and utilizing international platforms to condemn the aggressive and inhumane policies of the Israel can help contain this regime on the international stage. Furthermore, reinforcing the link between diplomacy and the field and increasing investment in asymmetric warfare capabilities will allow our country to effectively respond to enemy threats without resorting to costly and ineffective confrontations.
We must remember that in all countries, intelligence and security agencies are responsible for predicting and neutralizing enemy threats. In Iran, too, strengthening coordination between intelligence and security agencies and using advanced surveillance technologies can fortify the country’s defense line against hybrid warfare tactics. Simultaneously, the various dimensions of Martyr Ismail Haniyeh’s assassination must be specially examined, as this assassination highlights the complexities of modern hybrid wars where psychological, political, and security operations are interconnected and intertwined.
Finally, it must be emphasized that the assassination of Martyr Ismail Haniyeh is a calculated effort by an enemy whose aim is to weaken Iran and alter regional dynamics in favor of its expansionist ambitions. The type and quality of our country’s response to this incident will be a critical test for the system and the fourteenth government.
Therefore, the government must mobilize the country’s capacities and, under the wise guidance of the leadership, adopt a multifaceted approach that combines military preparedness with intelligent diplomacy to confront the enemy and demonstrate Iran’s ability to respond to threats while maintaining internal stability.