The assassination of a Hamas leader in Tehran humiliated Iran’s leaders, dashed hopes of a ceasefire and left the heavily armed nations of the Middle East moving inexorably closer to an all-out war they all claim not to want

If Iran’s newly elected president, Masoud Pezeshkian, was hoping for a honeymoon period after his inauguration last week, he must be sadly disappointed. Less than 12 hours after Pezeshkian was sworn in, an explosion, reportedly caused by a remotely controlled bomb, shook an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) compound in central Tehran. The target: Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s political leader, an honoured guest at the inauguration, and one of the Middle East’s most wanted. The bomb under the bed killed Haniyeh instantly. Honeymoon over.

The Haniyeh assassination, attributed to Israel and not denied in Jerusalem, has scrambled all those hopes. Pezeshkian finds himself in the eye of an international storm that analysts warn could lead to all-out war, engulfing the Middle East.

Infuriated by an audacious attack that humiliated him, his country and its elite armed forces, Khamenei – Iran’s ultimate authority – is said to have ordered preparations for direct military retaliation against Israel. Avenging Haniyeh’s death was “our duty”, Khamenei said. Pezeshkian had no choice but to meekly go along. Now the world waits to see what Iran will do. So much for a fresh start.

Iran’s next step may be decisive in determining whether the Middle East plunges into chaos. Its pivotal position should come as no surprise. Its gradual emergence as the region’s pre-eminent power has accelerated in the wake of 7 October. Iran’s anti-Israeli, anti-American “axis of resistance”, embracing ­militant Islamist groups in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, and ever more openly backed by China and Russia, is now a big force challenging the established western-led order.

  • CrikesteEnglish
    7·
    3 months ago

    I guess that motherfucker never took that oath he spoke of.

    • RadioFreeArabia@lemmy.worldEnglish
      9·
      3 months ago

      Here’s another quote where he was more honest [emphasis mine]:

      [It is the] iron law of every colonizing movement, a law which knows of no exceptions, a law which existed in all times and under all circumstances. If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison on your behalf. Or else – or else, give up your colonization, for without an armed force which will render physically impossible any attempts to destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is impossible, not “difficult”, not “dangerous” but IMPOSSIBLE! … Zionism is a colonizing adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important to build, it is important to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot – or else I am through with playing at colonialization.

      https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ze'ev_Jabotinsky

      Yet, nearly half the comments here blame the Palestinians for the natural response Jabotinsky accurately predicted.

      • CrikesteEnglish
        8·
        3 months ago

        “… a colonizing adventure that stands or falls by the question of armed force.” I hate how unflinchingly this statement was made while the implications of it are terrifying. That is something I simply can’t wrap my head around.

        How can people have such callous disregard for humanity?

        • PhoenicianpirateEnglish
          5·
          3 months ago

          Colonialists and imperialists and capitalists in general have been known to say and write this stuff all the time. I watched a video on United Fruit (now Chiquita) that described the military response to protests by Banana growers in the early 20th century that had them describe ‘with great delight and satisfaction’ (not the exact words, but similar sentiment) after machine guns were fired into the crowds and hundreds were killed or injured.