His name had been at the top of Israel’s target list since Hamas’ bloody attack on October 7. The head of the terrorist organization’s political bureau, Ismail Haniyeh, was killed on Wednesday, July 31, in Tehran, in a strike blamed on the Hebrew State. The day before, the 61-year-old leader had participated in the inauguration ceremony of the new Iranian president Massoud Pezeshkian, an ally of Hamas and sworn enemy of Israel. Although significant, this loss does not, however, signal the end of the organization. “You can destroy a political-military structure, but it is more difficult to destroy an ideology that is fought at another level and over time,” emphasizes David Rigoulet-Roze, associate researcher at the Institute of International and Strategic Relations (Iris) and editor-in-chief of the journal Strategic Orientations.
L’Express: What does the death of Ismail Haniyeh represent for Hamas?
David Rigoulet-Roze: Ismail Haniyeh was a central figure in the movement and, since 2017, the head of its political bureau based in Doha, Qatar. He was the diplomatic incarnation of the organization outside the Gaza Strip. This is therefore undoubtedly a big loss for Hamas. All the more so since historically, Ismail Haniyeh had been very close to the founder of the organization, Sheikh Ahmed Yacine, killed on March 22, 2004 by the Israelis, and had been Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority for a time between 2006 and 2014, before taking over the leadership of Hamas between 2014 and 2017 and formally replacing Khaled Meshaal as head of the political bureau seven years ago. From an Israeli perspective, it is therefore a great success to have managed to eliminate him.
This significant loss for Hamas is not entirely a surprise, however. As early as November 2023, Benjamin Netanyahu had made it clear that he had instructed the Mossad to eliminate all Hamas leaders “wherever they are.” Ismail Haniyeh was therefore an officially designated target. The surprise is rather that he was killed in Tehran, which raises many questions about the Iranian security system. It is likely that the Israelis did not want to carry out his elimination in Qatar, since Doha is one of the negotiators involved in the discussions with Hamas on the hostages. This would have embarrassed both parties.
Was Ismail Haniyeh involved in the October 7 attacks?
Although he had welcomed the October 7 attack, he was probably not a planner or an order-giver. It was planned by Yahya Sinwar, the head of Hamas’ political bureau in Gaza, and Mohammed Deif, the head of its armed wing. It is recalled, however, that Ismail Haniyeh had made a video in which he thanked the participants in the attack, just before offering a prayer of blessing. He had thus politically endorsed the attack and had become a legitimate target from the Israeli point of view.
What consequences will his death have on the future of Hamas?
In the immediate future, this represents a new shock for Hamas, which is already militarily crushed in the Gaza enclave. Politically, as some of the organization’s leaders, including Sami Abu Zuhri, one of its spokesmen, point out, Hamas is first and foremost an organization and an ideology that do not depend on a single incarnation. The fact of having eliminated Ismail Haniyeh will therefore not be enough to make Hamas disappear. This is the problem with the declared objective of the Israeli operation in the Gaza Strip: the eradication of Hamas. A political-military structure can be destroyed, but it is more difficult to destroy an ideology that is fought at another level and over the long term.
From a political and media point of view, there will nevertheless be significant consequences for Hamas. Even though he has always been faithful to the historical DNA of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh was perceived as the diplomatic figure of the organization and benefited from a less radicalized image than some of its other members. In particular, he tried to defend the political survival of the movement by betting on inclusive governance for “the day after” in Palestine. This strategy was recently visible during the agreement between the different Palestinian components – and in particular between Hamas represented by Moussa Abou Marzouk and Fatah by Mahmoud Aloul – formalized under the auspices of China in Beijing. Through the elimination of Ismail Haniyeh, the Israelis wanted to show that this is simply not an option.
Who Really Runs Hamas Today?
Inside the Gaza Strip, it is undoubtedly Yahya Sinouar. He is the thinking head within the enclave, and decides everything, in addition to validating each step of the negotiation process with Israel. So much so that there were sometimes frictions with Ismail Haniyeh and his political office located outside Gaza. In particular because Haniyeh considered a form of intransigence of Yahya Sinouar on certain aspects of the negotiation to be problematic. From now on, the question will no longer arise and this mechanically reinforces the weight of Yahya Sinouar in the enclave.
Hamas denounced “a cowardly act that will not go unanswered.” What kind of retaliation can we expect?
In reality, Hamas is no longer really able to respond today. On the other hand, the question is rather that of the potential mobilization of the Moukawama, that is to say the forces of the so-called “resistance” to Israel, of which Hezbollah is obviously a part, the pro-Iranian Lebanese Shiite militia which has just seen one of its most important military leaders, Fouad Chokr, eliminated by Israel in its stronghold of Beirut.
Some statements indicated that the elimination of Ismail Haniyeh would “strengthen the determination of the resistance fighters on all fronts to continue the jihad […] and to confront the Zionist enemy.” Behind this type of statement, which partly refers to elements of language, the idea is nonetheless that a belligerent process is at work. And it is certain that the elimination of Ismail Haniyeh will not improve the situation at the regional level.
Should we fear a conflagration in the region?
A priori, a targeted elimination is not likely to trigger a multi-front conflagration. This is why the United States opposed a massive Israeli operation against Lebanon after the tragedy that occurred on the Golan, and this precisely in order to avoid a widening of the conflict with the opening of a second front with Hezbollah in Lebanon, or even elsewhere. Under American pressure, Israel has therefore for the moment favored the strategy of targeted eliminations. But one is never safe from a miscalculation with precisely incalculable consequences.
Furthermore, Hamas is a Sunni-affiliated movement, unlike Iran’s myriad pro-Iranian proxies like Hezbollah, which are Shiite. Tehran’s choice to support Hamas is not out of affinity, but because this organization is also involved in a fight against the State of Israel. Beyond vigorously denouncing the elimination of Ismail Haniyeh, which will undoubtedly lead to a response, Tehran has no intention of letting the conflict spiral out of control on a regional level.
The elimination of Ismail Haniyeh on Iranian soil is a snub to Tehran…
Undeniably. This is an operation that took place inside the country, while Ismail Haniyeh had been invited to celebrate the election of the new Iranian president Massoud Pezechkian. There had already been precedents in terms of security failures, but the image that this sends out is disastrous for the Iranian authorities, especially since Ismail Haniyeh was housed not in a hotel in the capital but in a supposedly secure complex of the Revolutionary Guards. Conversely, Israel demonstrates by this elimination that its forces are capable of carrying out a spectacular targeted elimination operation in the heart of Tehran.
Are the talks about a potential ceasefire with Hamas definitively buried after the elimination of Ismail Haniyeh?
There is no doubt that this will not help them. And that is an understatement. A “window of opportunity” had been recently reported with the idea that Hamas had agreed for the first time to soften one of its principled positions, which was that of a definitive prior ceasefire. Even if blockages still existed between the Israeli and Hamas positions, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken had expressed reasoned optimism by indicating that the discussions were progressing and that we were approaching the “finish line”. The elimination of Ismail Haniyeh, who was pushing for talks, therefore clearly jeopardizes the finalization of an agreement. This has become a very unlikely scenario in the short term.
.