In many ways, assassination is a futile effort to influence the political efforts of a nation, organization or movement. With the recent assassination attempt that targeted a U.S. presidential candidate, it is worth recalling that the many assassinations that have occurred throughout U.S. history have done little damage to our nation.
Naturally, assassinations, whether they have succeeded in killing the intended target or failed in that regard, have occurred globally with similar results. Even when the perpetrators successfully murder their target, that success has been short-lived.
Wartime Assassinations and Their Influence on Hamas, Hezbollah and Israel
Political leaders have been killed during a coup d’etat. However, the goals of a coup are set upon seizing power and not simply focused on attempting to influence political trajectories.
War, on the other hand, sees assassination through a slightly different lens. However, that lens largely depends on the circumstances of wartime assassinations.
Recently, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was assassinated while on a visit to Iran, and Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr was killed in an Israeli airstrike in Lebanon.
Both Hamas and Hezbollah will survive these setbacks, and they will continue to operate with largely unchanged goals.
Israel, for its part, is pursuing a targeted killing campaign despite the shortfalls of assassination. However, the leaders of this campaign have a broader purpose in mind.
Israel has waged an aggressive war in Gaza since the October 7, 2023, attacks perpetrated by Hamas, so it’s not unexpected that Hamas leaders would be directly targeted. The same principle applies to the targeting of certain individuals with Hezbollah’s leadership.
Though Hezbollah did not participate in the October 7 attacks, it poses a significant threat to Israel’s northern border. In the case of Shukr, he was allegedly involved in the planning and execution of a recent rocket attack against Israeli civilians. So while Hezbollah and Israel are not actively engaged in combat at the scale of what’s happening in Gaza, they are continually in some state of war.
Assassinations Can Sometimes Lead to Incompetent New Leaders and Disruption
As Israel continues to reestablish a semblance of deterrence against further attacks, it will rely on assassinations of political and combatant leaders as a pillar of its overall strategy, despite the shortcomings of targeted killings. The rationale behind this approach is that leadership turnover among smaller, non-state actors does not always result in the replacement of a long-time commander with a competent leader.
Non-state actors do not always have a deep well of leadership with the knowledge and experience needed to continue operations seamlessly. Even when a leader or commander is replaced by someone who possesses the necessary qualities needed for the position, anyone who holds that office or responsibility will remain a target. Frequent disruption due to the death of adversarial leaders will eventually lead to chaos within an organization.
There is the personal element to consider as well. Most humans have a pesky desire to avoid an untimely demise. As a result, they enact improved security measures that will – at least temporarily – lessen the threat of becoming a target in an assassination campaign.
New leaders may be more willing to negotiate with the hostile actors perpetrating the targeted killings if it increases their chances of survival. This willingness to negotiate occasionally happens even if it runs counter to the interests or stated purpose of a terrorist group or nation-state, although the change may be accepted if it buys leaders more time to rebuild the damaged parts of an organization.
Israel and Hamas have been negotiating for the duration of this current conflict with little to show for it. As a result, Jerusalem is demonstrating that it can find and eliminate Hamas leadership – even in places like Iran – in the attempt to find a Hamas leader who will finally offer the concessions that Israel wants.
Wartime Assassinations Are Still Risky
Israel’s approach to targeted killings or assassination is different from the types of assassination that stem from lone-wolf individuals or a hostile nation-state targeting a leader in hopes of shifting the target nation’s political trajectory. These types of assassinations typically fail to bear fruit for the perpetrators.
Israel’s approach, on the other hand, is done in conjunction with a wider war effort and negotiations. So while the success of wartime assassinations is not guaranteed, that success can still influence events.
While this campaign against Hamas leadership is explainable, it does not remove some the typical pitfalls a nation faces when it targets the leaders of a hostile group. So, while it’s largely futile, an assassination campaign is still fraught with risk.
Comments are closed.