Whilst Israel is widely expected to be behind the assassination it has refrained from commenting on the event and has stated that the Israeli military is conducting a situational assessment. An attack this deep into Iran and on such a sensitive target will be seen as a major embarrassment for Iran. Although the term “raid” typically implies a tactical operation with a physical presence within Iran, this is highly unlikely and the attack most likely involved some form of missile. Israel’s ability to strike so deep into Iran suggests major deficiencies in Iran’s air surveillance and air defence network.  

Reports also indicate that Haniyeh had only arrived in Iran on 30 July. Israel’s ability to locate, track and target Haniyeh within such condensed timeframes indicates a high level of Israeli intelligence penetration into Iran and significant weaknesses in Iranian counterintelligence. Israel’s attack on the Hamas leader has demonstrated that it can attack anywhere within Iran – a threat the regime will be cognisant of.  

Iran is also closer than ever to achieving a nuclear deterrent, one of the regime’s primary objectives. A major escalation with Israel will almost certainly see this project targeted, likely sending it back years. Iran’s new president is seeking a path towards reconciliation with the West after years of sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy. A major escalation will jeopardise these attempts and invariably lead to Iran’s greater isolation, the imposition of more sanctions and increased internal pressure on the regime.  

While Iran has promised severe consequences and will likely have to show some level of force, Iran will need to factor in these variables before it decides to escalate. 

The immediate effect of Haniyeh’s assassination may be the collapse of current ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas. Perceived as a moderating influence in Hamas, Haniyeh’s relative pragmatism was considered vital to diplomatic efforts. While he served as Hamas’ political leader, his de facto power over Hamas in Gaza was limited, with the more hardline Yahya Sinwar leading in Gaza. Sinwar, a battle-hardened militant, contrasts with Haniyeh, who acted more like a conventional politician.  

Although Haniyeh’s leadership was largely symbolic, he was pivotal in fostering and maintaining diplomatic channels with key regional actors, essentially serving as the face of Hamas’ international diplomacy. Based in Qatar, Haniyeh was a key influence in ongoing ceasefire negotiations between Hamas and Israel, brokered by Qatar, Egypt, and the US.  

While not directly engaged in day-to-day negotiations, his death is likely to jeopardise ceasefire talks. The Qatari prime minister has questioned the viability of the talks following Haniyeh’s killing, and Egypt’s foreign minister called the attack a “dangerous escalation” that undermines negotiations. It is a realistic possibility that Hamas may pull out of the negotiations entirely as a result of his death.  

Furthermore, it is likely that Haniyeh’s death will empower hardliners within the political wing of Hamas, and Haniyeh’s replacement as Hamas’ political leader is likely to be less willing to engage in peace talks – a development that would likely prolong the war in Gaza and sustain associated civil unrest throughout the globe.  

Haniyeh’s funeral will be held in Tehran on 1 August at 8 am local time before his body is transferred to the Qatari capital of Doha for burial on 2 August. Any coordinated response by Iran will likely occur after Haniyeh’s funeral.  

Iran’s attack in April consisted of an assessed 350 rockets, missiles and drones launched by both Iran and its proxy forces throughout the Middle East. This attack was in response to the killing of senior members of the IRGC’s Quds Force within Syria. An attack within Iran itself during a presidential inauguration will be interpreted as an attack on the country’s sovereignty and honour, a situation that will likely warrant a stronger response from Tehran. 

The assassination of Haniyeh also follows the recent decapitation strike on a senior Hezbollah commander, with indications that Hezbollah too will respond with force. The effect of these double assassinations will be to galvanise The Iranian-led resistance against Israel. 

The most obvious form of retaliation by Iran and its proxies will be to launch a similar attack to the one observed in April. This would consist of Iran and all of its proxy forces firing projectiles near-simultaneously at Israel and from as many axes as possible to overwhelm Israel’s advanced air defence network. Such an attack would likely prioritise the targeting of Israeli military installations rather than population centres. Tehran will likely attempt to conduct an attack that will fall below what it calculates is Israel’s threshold for a major escalation, while still large enough to demonstrate strength, intent and capability. 

However, debris from projectiles intercepted by Israeli air defence systems will pose a major risk to anyone in Israel and even in countries on the approach, such as Jordan, as evidenced by the April attack. In addition, the recent Hezbollah-linked rocket attack in the Golan Heights which killed 12 children, demonstrated the inaccuracy of unguided rocket systems which make up the bulk of Hezbollah’s arsenal. 

To avoid escalation, Iran may seek to rely solely on its proxy forces, especially Hezbollah as it knows it can hurt Israel from Lebanon. This approach provides Tehran with multiple advantages. Firstly, Iran can retain its own strategic military capabilities such as its ballistic missiles. Most importantly, by leveraging its proxy forces, Iran can maintain some degree of plausible deniability, thus reducing the chances of a direct conflict. Hezbollah’s current arsenal of some 150,000 rockets and missiles, its experience in guerilla warfare and its use of conventional and non-conventional tactics puts Hezbollah in an advantageous position to inflict losses on Israel at the behest of Iran.   

Another option available to Iran will be to target Israeli interests on the global stage. Iran has a legacy of attacking Israelis or Jews way beyond the borders of Israel and there have been examples of this since 7 October. In November 2023, authorities in Brazil uncovered an alleged plot linked to Hezbollah to attack Jews in the country. In 1994, 85 people were killed in Buenos Aires, Argentina when a bomb detonated at the Amia Jewish cultural centre – a terrorist act that Argentina claimed was carried out by Iran. These attacks indicate the scope of Iran’s reach and its willingness to conduct offset action on the global stage- an option that may be attractive as it provides a high level of plausible deniability and is unlikely to trigger a regional escalation. 

READ MORE

On July 27, a rocket hit a football pitch in Majdal Shams, a Druze town in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, killing 12 children. Israeli authorities have blamed Hezbollah for the attack. Explore the possible responses Israel might take following this Hezbollah rocket attack, including military actions and potential retaliation scenarios.