The radical Iranian axis in the Middle East suffered not one, but two severe blows within several hours. First, a Beirut drone strike killed Fuad Shukr, one of Hezbollah's most senior commanders – an assassination Israel immediately took responsibility for. Then on Wednesday morning, Iranian media reported that Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas' political leader, was killed in a blast in Tehran. Even with no official statement from Israel so far, it's hard to see these two events as a coincidence.
Shukr and Haniyeh are the two most senior Hezbollah and Hamas figures killed since Hamas launched the war with the October 7 massacre, joined a day later by Hezbollah. Both attacks attest to a skillful level of planning, intelligence gathering and execution; and are both directed at the country that supports and operates the organizations behind the scenes: Iran.
The Tehran blast also killed a bodyguard from Haniyeh's security detail while the Hamas leader was visiting the Iranian capital to take part in the swearing-in of the new president. Now, the Iranian regime will play a central part in deciding the response.
We may be on the verge of another escalation in the war, one that could lead to a larger regional conflict. Iran will find it hard not to retaliate for an assassination on its soil. Until now, however, it seemed both Iran and Hezbollah sought to contain the conflict with Israel and prevent it from turning into an all-out war.
A destroyed building in Beirut following an Israeli attack on Tuesday. The U.S. requested restraint from Israel in its response to the Hezbollah attack on Majdal Shams in northern Israel on Saturday.Credit: Hussein Malla/AP
These latest developments exposed the Iranian axis' vulnerability. After the most recent assassinations – and the ones that came before – Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas' leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, find themselves almost alone at the top. Haniyeh's death is expected to have a negative impact on talks for a hostage deal, which have all but hit an impasse since Israel toughened its stance.
Haniyeh, 62, was born in the Shati refugee camp in Gaza, but has lived in Qatar in recent years. He was part of the group which founded Hamas in 1987, alongside Sheikh Ahmad Yassin. After Israel assassinated Yassin and other top Hamas figures during the Second Intifada, Haniyeh gradually took the reins. Later on, however, he clashed with Sinwar – who sought to take over Hamas – and moved to Qatar, where Haniyeh led the group's political wing.
After the October 7 massacre, Haniyeh and other leaders were filmed praying and giving thanks for the operation's success. Reports after October 7 said Israel had decided to target all Hamas leaders in Gaza, the West Bank and abroad for their part in the massacre.
Haniyeh is the second Hamas leader residing abroad to be assassinated, after Saleh al-Arouri was killed in a January strike in Beirut. In the Gaza Strip itself, Mohammed Deif was probably killed earlier this month. Before that, Israel assassinated Hamas' top military commander Marwan Issa, and three out of five Hamas Gaza divisions commanders. Haniyeh has a higher public profile than the other target, aside from Deif, and Israel is bracing for revenge attacks in the West Bank following his death.
Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh at the swearing in ceremony of the new Iranian president in Tehran on Tuesday. Israel is preparing for the possibility of revenge attacks within the West Bank in response to his death.Credit: Majid Asgaripour/Reuters
Several hours before the attack on Haniyeh, Israel assassinated Fuad Shukr, also known as Hajj Muhassin, considered Hezbollah's second-in-command. Lebanese media reported two killed and many wounded in the strike on the Hezbollah stronghold of Dahiyeh in Beirut. Israel is now bracing for a Hezbollah response in this case too, but hopes the conflict can be contained.
The Hezbollah rocket that killed 12 children and teens in Majdal Shams on Saturday prompted top Israeli political and defense officials to hold urgent consultations. It was clear that the attack on the Golan Heights – the deadliest strike since the war began – warranted a firm response. In another incident on Israel's northern border on Tuesday, an Israeli was killed Tuesday by a Hezbollah rocket at Kibbutz Hagoshrim.
The intention of those consultations, however, was to choose a retaliation that would place Hezbollah in a dilemma, and deter it from taking actions that could lead to war. Several possibilities were discussed, before electing the step deemed the most appropriate: targeting a very senior Hezbollah member in Beirut. The chosen operation was a targeted assassination, rather than a strike that could have killed both Hezbollah members and civilians.
Targeting Beirut's Dahiyeh suburb also carries symbolic significance: It is Hezbollah's beating heart and a stronghold for Beirut's Shi'ites. Israel had talked in the past about the "Dahiyeh Doctrine" – exacting a heavy price from Hezbollah by targeting the area, not unlike events during the 2006 Second Lebanon War.
Iron Dome interceptions over the Upper Galilee in northern Israel this month. The government and the IDF are still far from solving the strategic crisis in the north.Credit: Gil Eliyahu
Nasrallah is a great believer in "equations": Since at least 2006, the Hezbollah leader has described his actions against Israel as part of a conflict meant to achieve balance – both through military action and in terms of deterrence. Throughout the current war, Nasrallah has repeatedly warned that an attack on Beirut will be answered with a strike on the greater Tel Aviv area.
The Israeli army raised its alert levels on Tuesday night in preparation for a possible military retaliation by Hezbollah. Fighter jets could be seen across Israel, scrambled in case of drones or a need to strike launchers. The Home Front Command, however, has so far refrained from advising the public to take precautionary steps.
Three commanders of Hezbollah's central units have been killed in the current conflict. Israeli defense officials claim that targeting officials is of particular concern for Hezbollah, and damages its operational capabilities. Some 380 other Hezbollah fighters have also already been killed in Israeli strikes.
The funerals of children killed in the Hezbollah attack on Majdal Shams, earlier this week. The political and security establishment in Israel were clear that a sharp response was required to the incident.Credit: Rami Shllush
Shukr was in charge of Hezbollah's strategic array of long-range missiles, aerial defense and the "precision project" of upgraded rockets. In the 1990s, when the IDF still held a security zone in southern Lebanon, Shukr served as the commander of Hezbollah's operational unit in the south of the country.
It is likely that Israel notified the U.S. in advance. Shukr was wanted by the FBI for his involvement in international terrorism, and was suspected of taking part in terror attacks that killed American citizens. Over the past several days, senior Israeli defense officials have held talks with their American counterparts: The U.S. requested that Israel limits itself in its retaliation for the Majdal Shams attack and exercise caution to avoid a full-scale Middle East war.
Hezbollah's response will most likely stem from Shukr's fate. Israel's Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said after the strike on Tuesday that Hezbollah "crossed the red line." From Hezbollah's perspective, the Israeli attack is probably also perceived as crossing a red line, and an incident that warrants a retaliation.
Another more significant dilemma arises here: For nearly ten months, Israel has been unable to stabilize the situation along the northern border and allow for the return of 60,000 Israelis to their homes. Even if the Beirut strike doesn't lead to an all-out war, restoring stability to the Lebanese border seems, for now, out of reach.
It seems that the alternate path – securing a hostage release and cease-fire deal in Gaza, followed by expedited U.S. efforts to quell the flames in the north – has hit a dead end. The Israeli government and army are nowhere near solving the strategic problems in the north, and the residents have lost their patience long ago. Only a handful have returned to their homes, their lives are still in danger, and no one knows how and when quiet will return to the border. Under these circumstances, the risk of a deterioration into an all-out war becomes real – even more so now.