The assassination of Hamas’ political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh, in the heart of Iran on July 31, 2024, not only marked the death of one of the highest-ranking leaders of the Palestinian resistance but also highlighted severe flaws in Iran’s intelligence system. Israel has not officially acknowledged responsibility for the operation, but the methods used suggest involvement by Israeli operatives. The fact that Israel was reportedly able to remove such a high-profile target from one of Iran’s most protected sites demonstrates a serious intelligence blunder.
Ali Vaez, the Iran director for the International Crisis Group, affirmed that “The perception that Iran can neither protect its homeland nor its key allies could be fatal for the Iranian regime, because it basically signals to its foes that if they can’t topple the Islamic Republic, they can decapitate it.”
In its Aug.1, 2024 edition, the conservative Jomhouri Eslami (Islamic Republic) newspaper lambasted the authorities for failing to prevent breaches at the top tier of their intelligence apparatus. Referencing the historical case of Eli Cohen, an Israeli spy who penetrated the upper echelons of the Syrian military and government in the 1960s, Jomhouri Eslami called for a “fundamental clean up in intelligence and security agencies.”
Iran has long been a prominent force in the Middle East, wielding influence both militarily and politically. It has supported various Palestinian resistance groups, bolstering its standing among key players in the resistance movement. However, Haniyeh’s killing demonstrates that Iran is not as mighty as it appears, given that serious questions persist on the integrity of its security apparatus. This attack, which is similar to the sabotage at Natanz in 2020 and the subsequent assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, one of the nuclear scientist of Iran’s nuclear program, in an armed attack on his car in Tehran, underlines the vulnerability of Iran’s strategic ambitions on the international stage. The Natanz sabotage was viewed as a severe blow to Iran’s nuclear program, with claims that Mossad played an active part.
Iran’s vulnerability and Mossad’s infiltration
Mossad’s alleged involvement in Haniyeh’s killing demonstrates how Israeli intelligence has grown its presence within Iran, a problem that is recognized even by Iranians themselves. For years, Mossad has effectively exploited vulnerabilities in Iran’s security system. The capacity of Mossad to carry out such a large-scale operation on Iranian soil indicates Israel’s strong intelligence network, both technically and in terms of human intelligence. The purported infiltration of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) could portend a significant crisis in Iran’s internal security establishment.
The Iranian intelligence landscape is complex, characterized by the coexistence of the Ministry of Intelligence and the Revolutionary Guard’s separate spy service. This dual structure often creates a competitive environment, leading to gaps in security coordination.
Hamidreza Azizi, a researcher at the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik in Berlin, points out that, “The secret services in Iran work in silos, which creates a security vacuum.”
Additionally, the 2009 post-election protests, which challenged the legitimacy of then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s reelection, triggered a significant purge within the Ministry of Intelligence. Many intelligence officials sympathetic to reformist causes were dismissed, further weakening the intelligence apparatus.
Some attribute the gaps in intelligence to the economic pursuits of certain officials within these agencies, especially among the Revolutionary Guards, who have evolved into a major economic powerhouse in the country. Pundits highlight that intelligence officials regularly broker deals for Iranian oil rather than attending to their primary duties.
Limits of Iran’s power
Iran often highlights the importance of the Palestinian cause in its regional strategies, yet the assassination of Haniyeh has put Tehran in a compromising position. The incident raises questions about Iran’s ability to provide security, not only for its high-profile visitors but also for Palestinians living under occupation.
Additional questions surface: Why were the leaders of Hezbollah and the Houthis – both closely allied with Iran – not present at the event? Was their absence a result of Iran’s recommendation? If the absence of these two leaders was due to security concerns, it begs the question of why Haniyeh, a known target of Israel, was not warned of potential dangers.
In conclusion, Haniyeh’s killing represents a grave infringement on Iran’s sovereignty, a breach of its security, and a major diplomatic embarrassment. Regardless of Ismail Haniyeh’s significance, Tehran is compelled to react to this political assassination. Failure to respond would imply that Tehran accepts Tel Aviv’s imposition of new rules of engagement.
Furthermore, the assassination of Haniyeh significantly undermines Iran’s projection of influence in the Middle East. Mossad’s effectiveness on Iranian soil highlights the flaws in Iran’s internal security structure and raises doubts about the country’s ability to achieve its future strategic goals. Unless Iran strengthens its intelligence apparatus, it will be challenging for the country to maintain its regional influence and ensure its security.
