After targeting the suburb and assassinating Haniyeh.. Did Netanyahu choose all-out war? | News
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu returned from Washington with a greater dose of extremism and a green light to cross all red lines and proceed with committing other crimes, by carrying out a double assassination and two aggressions against both Lebanon and Iran that would change all the equations that have governed the movement on the ground so far, and would take the region towards a comprehensive war.
The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) announced this morning, Wednesday, the assassination of its political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh in the Iranian capital, Tehran. Hamas said in a statement that the movement's head “died as a result of a treacherous Zionist raid on his residence in Tehran.”
For its part, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard said, “We are studying the dimensions of the incident of Haniyeh's martyrdom in Tehran” and will announce the results of the investigation later. The Iranian News Agency reported that Ismail Haniyeh and one of his bodyguards were martyred after their residence in Tehran was targeted.
The Israeli Broadcasting Corporation said, for its part, that Haniyeh was assassinated by a missile launched from outside Iran.
This comes hours after an Israeli strike targeted the southern suburbs of Beirut on Tuesday evening, during which the Israeli army confirmed that it had succeeded in assassinating the leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah, Fouad Shukr, and also resulted in 3 civilian deaths and 74 wounded.
While Hezbollah has yet to issue a statement on the matter, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Galant said that the Israeli army had “eliminated” what he described as Hezbollah’s Chief of Staff, Fouad Shukr, in a “deadly and precise” operation in the southern suburbs of Beirut, adding – in a post on the X platform – that by assassinating Shukr, “we confirmed today that we are able to reach everywhere to make anyone who harms Israel pay the price,” as he put it.
Comprehensive escalation gamble
The Beirut strike could have fallen within the familiar rules of engagement, on the basis that Hezbollah is not interested in a large-scale war and could respond with a localized, limited strike without causing significant damage to Israel’s strategic depth, according to the “blow for blow” rule. But Netanyahu went too far by targeting Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. Netanyahu’s choice of a comprehensive escalation adventure may have been based on direct American support.
It seems that the reception Netanyahu received in Washington, the loud applause that interrupted his speech while he was “promoting” his crimes in Gaza, his rejection of any plan for calm, and the disruption of the exchange deal were factors that signaled to him to move forward with the escalation to the maximum.
The missile attack on the town of Majdal Shams was a pretext for escalation after Hezbollah was accused, which categorically denied responsibility for the incident. Netanyahu turned the “ambiguous” incident into an opportunity to expand the war and attempt to restore the lost deterrence in a war that it is not in his interest to end, so he embarked on the adventure of expanding it.
By targeting Beirut and Tehran with the two assassinations, Israel has gathered all the reasons for the outbreak of a large-scale war in one night, which constitutes a major and severe violation of the rules that govern and control the course of the fronts. It is likely that Hezbollah will respond to the assassination of its leader, and the matter remains pending on Israel’s understanding of the size of the strike and the extent to which the United States controls Tel Aviv’s reaction and international efforts to prevent a large-scale war and risks.
Analysts also point out that Netanyahu somehow wanted to deliver the “final blow,” by assassinating two prominent leaders in the “axis of resistance,” a gamble that would give him “some victory,” if he avoided a scenario of all-out war or a harsh response from Hezbollah and Iran.
waiting for reply
Analysts indicate that Hezbollah will respond to the Israeli attack based on its history of conflict with Israel and its leadership’s warning against any targeting of the southern suburb and expanding the circle of confrontations.
The response is likely to be on the scale of the assassination that targeted a prominent leader in its ranks and stronghold, in addition to the targeting of the late Ismail Haniyeh in Iran, whom the party considered “one of the great resistance leaders of our time who bravely stood up to the American hegemony project and the Zionist occupation.”
A leading source in the party confirmed to Al Jazeera that the party will inevitably respond to any Israeli attack on Lebanon, stressing that “the leadership of the resistance is in a state of complete readiness and is the one that determines the form and size of the response.”
Israel has crossed the red lines and is now in a position of reaction, and is awaiting the response of Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, and the Houthis. Perhaps the size of the response, its location, and Israel’s ability to respond will determine the fate of the confrontation, its new rules, and the fate of the region, according to analysts.
Israel has gathered all the reasons for the outbreak of a large-scale war in one night, by targeting Lebanon and Iran, which constitutes a major and severe violation of the rules that governed and controlled the movement of the front. It is likely that Hezbollah will respond to the assassination of its leader, and the matter remains pending on the extent to which Israel absorbs the size of the strike and on the extent to which the United States controls Tel Aviv’s reaction.
As for Iran, it is difficult for it to digest such an attack on its territory by assassinating one of its guests on the night of the inauguration of its new president, in addition to the fact that the late Ismail Haniyeh is the head of the Hamas movement and is considered one of the pillars of the axis of resistance, and his assassination in Tehran is considered a continuation of the war on Gaza on Iranian territory.
On April 1, 2024, an airstrike targeted the Iranian consulate in Damascus, killing 16 people, including 7 members of the Revolutionary Guard, most notably Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi and his deputy Mohammad Hadi Rahimi. Iran responded by attacking Israel with drones and missiles on April 13, 2024. There were no military or material losses, but it demonstrated the ability to respond within rules of engagement that could be abandoned according to changes.
The assassination in Tehran is an Israeli escalation, perhaps more dangerous than the Damascus strike against Iran, as it targeted its territory and one of its allies. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said about the assassination of Martyr Haniyeh, “Iran will defend the integrity of its territory and honor and will make the invaders regret their cowardly acts.” For his part, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said, “By assassinating Haniyeh, the criminal Zionist entity has paved the way for harsh punishment.”
The Iranian response, its potential and its size remain subject to possibilities and speculations, and it may not be direct and quick, but the fronts will become more heated, especially on the northern front between Hezbollah and Israel, or with the Ansar Allah (Houthis) in Yemen or Iraq.
Analysts point out that Netanyahu played all his cards by assassinating Ismail Haniyeh and Hezbollah leader Fouad Shukr, and bypassing international laws by attacking sovereign states – despite the lack of official recognition of the two attacks – relying on American support before and after the operations were carried out, but he is also taking a risk and gambling with a more dangerous reaction, which exceeds his calculations and expectations.