Five Takeaways From Haniyeh’s Killing

Ismail Haniyeh was killed in a predawn airstrike in Tehran last night. The 62-year-old was not just another senior member of Hamas. He was the head of its political wing since 2017, a key member who initiated and orchestrated most of its strategic moves, and its worldwide representative. If Hamas’ leadership were a deck of cards, Haniyeh was the ace of spades. Iran and Hamas have blamed Tel Aviv and the U.S. for the killing, despite silence from the former and denial from the latter.

There are a number of implications that can already be gleaned from Haniyeh’s death. Here are the top five.

1. This is a message to the Iranian leadership. The targeted killing of Haniyeh serves as a demonstration of capabilities and power in the heart of Tehran as a new President began his tenure there. The message is clear: continuing to fund, sponsor, and support proxies such as Hamas, Hezbollah, or Yemen’s Houthis could lead to a direct response to the head of the octopus itself. If Haniyeh was eliminated in Tehran, anybody could be eliminated in Tehran.

2. A full-scale war with Lebanon is less likely, not more. Haniyeh’s death occurred only hours after Israel carried out a strike in the Dahieh quarter in Beirut and killed Fuad Shukr, who was directly responsible for the death of 12 Druze children on Saturday in Majdal Shams. Their death did not happen in a vacuum. Since joining the war in October, Hezbollah has fired at Israel thousands of times, and Israel has returned fire. The deaths of Haniyeh and Shukr, in the span of a few hours, send a sharp message to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah that enough is enough. While no one can fully predict how Nasrallah may respond—he promptly declared that Haniyeh’s death would “increase the resistance”—Nasrallah is known for being highly calculated. This new equation may not ultimately prevent a full-scale war, but it could make Nasrallah more cautious about Hezbollah’s military posture.

Read More: The Coming Israel-Hezbollah War

More from TIME

3. This is part of the Israeli healing process. The Israeli sentiment regards Hamas’ leadership just like it did with the Black September militants who carried out the Munich massacre in the 1972 Olympic games. Back then, killing Ali Hassan Salameh—the organization’s operations chief, known as the “Red Prince”—was essential for retaliatory purposes. Even more so, it was necessary for social healing. Similarly, here, Haniyeh is one of the symbols behind the biggest tragedy for Jews since the Holocaust. His death is a message for the victims and fallen soldiers’ families that the killing of innocent Jews, like in the 1930s and 1940s Europe, won’t go without punishment.

4. Yahya Sinwar is isolated. It’s been barely three weeks, and the world has forgotten the attempt on the airstrike targeting Mohammed Deif, the head of Hamas’ military wing, in Khan Yunis. In the event Deif did not survive, Sinwar, the architect of Oct. 7, would be the only senior Hamas leader standing (alongside Khaled Mashal). On the one hand, this means more power and responsibilities to the man who is already Hamas’ most influential person. Conversely, one man can handle only so much alone, especially while hiding underground. The direct implication here is that Hamas’ “management” will be harmed, both inside (militarily) and outside (politically) the Gaza Strip.

5. More uncertainty over a hostage deal. If there’s one topic Sinwar’s isolation could affect the most, it’s this. And it’s not just another topic. The 115 remaining hostages represent a national trauma in Israel. Their release isn't vital just for their own sake but for the continuation of the Israeli ethos, according to which no one is left behind. In the short run, Sinwar will likely refuse to engage in any deal to avoid “rewarding” Israel following Haniyeh’s death. Such a decision will also grant him a time window for a potential response from Iran or its proxies, which aligns with Sinwar’s aspiration for a full-scale regional war. In the longer run, however, this may increase the likelihood of a hostage deal, as Sinwar might seek to avoid a fate similar to Haniyeh’s. The problem is the hostages don’t have time. Conditions in captivity are horrendous and former hostages have recounted physical and sexual abuse. Finding the right formula to engage in a deal without altogether forfeiting its military interests will be an Israeli challenge.

Like every significant targeted killing in the Middle East, the implications go far beyond the specific target. Haniyeh’s case provides a profound example. This doesn’t mean the war ended—far from it. But it means new conditions have been set that will impact us all.