Israel is in a prolonged war on seven fronts, and the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas’s Political Bureau, and Fuad Shukr, the senior Hezbollah official, is part of this situation. The message to Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, and its partners in the axis is that Israel has not lost its power and is not the new “weak kid” in the region. Rather, it demonstrates determination and willingness to strike at the heart of its enemies’ strongholds with boldness, originality, and a demonstration of intelligence and precise operational capability. Moreover, the actions are intended not only for the enemies who are watching the military campaign but also for Israel’s partners and allies, in addition to strengthening the security and sense of security of the residents of Israel and the Jews in the diaspora.
But, as in any action, the two operations we saw yesterday have both advantages and disadvantages.
The advantages of Fuad Shukr’s assassination:
1. This was a strong and necessary response to the murder of the youth in Majdal Shams. This was apparently the least powerful choice among the alternatives, and its probability of “ending” the event by mitigating this specific conflict is higher than the other alternatives.
2. Shukr’s assassination sent a clear message to Nasrallah about the exposure of his organization and its vulnerability; about completely changing the game of balancing the equations; and the determination to continue the “harvest of senior commanders.”
3. It also sent a clear message to Iran and its partners (as a reminder, a few hours later, the assassination of Haniyeh happened in Tehran).
The disadvantages of Fuad Shukr’s assassination:
1. There is a risk of a flare-up against Hezbollah and the axis of resistance. There is also the possibility that Hezbollah will react strongly toward the northern communities, including places where it has been careful not to attack, as well as cities in Israel—Nahariya and Haifa to Tel Aviv.
2. The objectives, scope, strength, and results of Hezbollah’s response will dictate Israel’s counter-reaction and may lead to an escalation and deterioration of the war at a time that is less favorable for Israel (in terms of armaments, order of forces, economy, reserve exhaustion, the state of relations with the United States, and negative international legitimacy, and partially internal). It is important to mention that there are also aspects that are actually favorable to Israel at the current time: The border communities have already been evacuated, the alertness and readiness of the army is at a high level, and there is an urgent need to return the residents safely and as soon as possible.
The advantages of Ismail Haniyeh’s assassination:
1. It sends a clear message from Israel that it is keeping its promise that the current and future Hamas leadership does not and will not have immunity anywhere in the world, not even in the heart of the fortress of its main supporter, Iran.
2. Haniyeh’s assassination sends a message and reminder to Iran that it is not immune, even at home and neither are its senior officials and guests from the terrorist organizations. This message accompanies the one sent in the targeted and precise response to Iran’s April 13 attack on Israel, which did not undermine Iran’s sense of security about the strategic superiority of the axis it has formed around Israel.
The disadvantages of Ismail Haniyeh’s assassination:
1. Haniyeh was a marginal figure in essence, mainly symbolic. His physical disappearance will have no significant impact on Hamas’s status, its political or military capabilities, or on the organization’s internal or all-Palestinian politics.
2. His elimination will not change anything in Sinwar’s policy in general, nor the hostage deal in particular, and it certainly will not affect the nature and essence of Sinwar’s demands.
3. It will not be a problem to find a replacement for Haniyeh, especially if there is a “swap” deal. There will be plenty of talented replacements for him.
Israel is in a prolonged war on seven fronts, and the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas’s Political Bureau, and Fuad Shukr, the senior Hezbollah official, is part of this situation. The message to Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, and its partners in the axis is that Israel has not lost its power and is not the new “weak kid” in the region. Rather, it demonstrates determination and willingness to strike at the heart of its enemies’ strongholds with boldness, originality, and a demonstration of intelligence and precise operational capability. Moreover, the actions are intended not only for the enemies who are watching the military campaign but also for Israel’s partners and allies, in addition to strengthening the security and sense of security of the residents of Israel and the Jews in the diaspora.
But, as in any action, the two operations we saw yesterday have both advantages and disadvantages.
The advantages of Fuad Shukr’s assassination:
1. This was a strong and necessary response to the murder of the youth in Majdal Shams. This was apparently the least powerful choice among the alternatives, and its probability of “ending” the event by mitigating this specific conflict is higher than the other alternatives.
2. Shukr’s assassination sent a clear message to Nasrallah about the exposure of his organization and its vulnerability; about completely changing the game of balancing the equations; and the determination to continue the “harvest of senior commanders.”
3. It also sent a clear message to Iran and its partners (as a reminder, a few hours later, the assassination of Haniyeh happened in Tehran).
The disadvantages of Fuad Shukr’s assassination:
1. There is a risk of a flare-up against Hezbollah and the axis of resistance. There is also the possibility that Hezbollah will react strongly toward the northern communities, including places where it has been careful not to attack, as well as cities in Israel—Nahariya and Haifa to Tel Aviv.
2. The objectives, scope, strength, and results of Hezbollah’s response will dictate Israel’s counter-reaction and may lead to an escalation and deterioration of the war at a time that is less favorable for Israel (in terms of armaments, order of forces, economy, reserve exhaustion, the state of relations with the United States, and negative international legitimacy, and partially internal). It is important to mention that there are also aspects that are actually favorable to Israel at the current time: The border communities have already been evacuated, the alertness and readiness of the army is at a high level, and there is an urgent need to return the residents safely and as soon as possible.
The advantages of Ismail Haniyeh’s assassination:
1. It sends a clear message from Israel that it is keeping its promise that the current and future Hamas leadership does not and will not have immunity anywhere in the world, not even in the heart of the fortress of its main supporter, Iran.
2. Haniyeh’s assassination sends a message and reminder to Iran that it is not immune, even at home and neither are its senior officials and guests from the terrorist organizations. This message accompanies the one sent in the targeted and precise response to Iran’s April 13 attack on Israel, which did not undermine Iran’s sense of security about the strategic superiority of the axis it has formed around Israel.
The disadvantages of Ismail Haniyeh’s assassination:
1. Haniyeh was a marginal figure in essence, mainly symbolic. His physical disappearance will have no significant impact on Hamas’s status, its political or military capabilities, or on the organization’s internal or all-Palestinian politics.
2. His elimination will not change anything in Sinwar’s policy in general, nor the hostage deal in particular, and it certainly will not affect the nature and essence of Sinwar’s demands.
3. It will not be a problem to find a replacement for Haniyeh, especially if there is a “swap” deal. There will be plenty of talented replacements for him.