After the assassination of Hamas political head Ismail Haniyeh in Iran on Wednesday, officials from Arab countries condemned the operation, stressing the importance of not expanding the conflict in the Middle East. Some official responses did not mention Haniyeh by name, instead referring to the unspecified “political assassination.”
In contrast, most Arab countries ignored Israel’s assassination of top Hezbollah military commander Fuad Shukr. Following Shukr’s death in Beirut on Tuesday, only Iraq and the Houthis in Yemen issued official statements.
Public opinion in the Arab world mostly favored Shukr’s assassination. Popular Arab approval of Hezbollah is low due to the group’s loyalty to Iran, association with other Shiite terrorist groups, and role in drug smuggling, as well as its involvement in conflict in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. Arab public opinion about Haniyeh’s assassination was more mixed.
Qatar was the first Arab country to respond to Haniyeh’s assassination. The Gulf country, where Haniyeh lived for the past several years, condemned the killing as a dangerous escalation and a flagrant violation of international and humanitarian law.
A statement from the United Arab Emirates noted the country’s “deep concern over the continued escalation and its repercussions on security and stability in the region, and the importance of exercising maximum restraint and wisdom to avoid risks and expand the scope of the conflict.”
Bahrain warned of the danger posed by potential escalation. “Bahrain rejects political violence, calling on the Security Council and the international community to support the efforts of the countries of the region to prevent further escalation and tension and their dangerous repercussions on regional security and stability, demanding an immediate end to the war on the Gaza Strip and a settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict according to the two-state solution,” the Bahraini statement read.
Oman said that Haniyeh’s assassination “will only lead to more instability and will only lead to more conflict and is a serious setback for the cause of peace.”
Kuwait described Haniyeh’s killing as a “criminal and irresponsible” violation of international law.
Jordan also condemned the assassination, saying that “what happened was an escalating crime that will lead to more tension and chaos in the region.”
Iraq’s statement called the killing “an aggressive act, a flagrant violation of international laws, and a threat to security and stability.”
At the time of writing, the Saudi Foreign Ministry had not issued an official comment on either assassination.
The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh does not concern us. He is not a true defender of the Palestinian cause but rather someone who sought to profit from it.
“The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh does not concern us,” Saudi political writer Sultan Nafiei told The Media Line. “He is not a true defender of the Palestinian cause but rather someone who sought to profit from it.”
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
Nafiei condemned Haniyeh’s choice to ally with Iran and the Houthis.
“Haniyeh was in the luxurious hotels of Doha on October 7, and he moved from one country to another, living in palaces and luxurious hotels, while the Palestinian people are the ones who live in the open because of the operation he launched, which plunged Gaza into a war from which it was the loser,” he said.
Fuad Shukr was involved in the blood of Syrians and Lebanese. He got what he deserved.
He expressed a similar sentiment about Shukr’s assassination. “Fuad Shukr was involved in the blood of Syrians and Lebanese,” he said. “He got what he deserved. He was burning them alive, and now he was burned alive. The punishment is of the same kind as the deed.”
I personally expect that Iran facilitated the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, and he was the person who defended it the most
Ismail Al-Basri, a Gulf political researcher, also harshly criticized Haniyeh.
“I personally expect that Iran facilitated the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, and he was the person who defended it the most,” he told The Media Line. “Haniyeh lost Arab and Gulf support because of his supportive stance towards Iran and all its terrorist militias, which kill Arabs.”
He also condemned Haniyeh’s corruption. “We will soon see the billions of dollars that Haniyeh obtained in the hands of his sons, just as we saw before how the support money for the Palestinians that was given to [late Palestine Liberation Organization Chair] Yasser Arafat went to his daughter, and the Palestinian people did not benefit from it,” he said.
Al-Basri said that the assassination will likely weaken Hamas and herald “the beginning of the end of the war in Gaza.”
The Kuwaiti writer Khaled Al-Ruwaih also chose not to condemn the assassinations of Haniyeh or Shukr.
“These people did not contribute to the liberation of their countries but rather dominated the Arabs, and they were the ones killing Arabs everywhere,” he told The Media Line.
Like Al-Basri, he predicted that Haniyeh’s assassination would bring an end to Hamas. He noted that Khaled Meshaal, who preceded Haniyeh as the leader of Hamas’ political wing, is the only major Hamas leader still alive.
“Haniyeh was assassinated in Iran, which has always claimed to support the Palestinians, but today it was unable to even protect him despite being in the middle of Tehran,” Al-Ruwaih said. “It may have even contributed to his assassination, and it will not respond to this assassination.”
He also called Shukr’s assassination “a major blow to Hezbollah.”
“He is considered the right-hand man of [Hezbollah chief] Hassan Nasrallah, and this is a prelude to assassinating Nasrallah himself, and then the Arab scene will definitely change,” he said.
Ali Sand, a professor of political studies at the University of Iraq, expressed his support for Haniyeh and Shukr and said that the assassinations might actually strengthen the resistance movements.
“Israel will not be safe,” he told The Media Line. “They previously assassinated [Hamas co-founders] Sheikh Ahmed Yassin [and] Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, and [top Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander] Qasem Soleimani, and they thought they had gotten rid of the leaders of the resistance, but what happened was the October 7 operation that shook this entity.”
Sand predicted that Israel would soon cease to exist. “The resistance will be stronger, and Iran will enter the line because the assassination took place on its land. Israel will regret it,” he said.
He called Shukr a “martyr.” “His name will remain immortal in targeting Israel,” he said.
Syrian political writer Khalil al-Miqdad described both assassinations as part of the same effort to take down Iran.
“The assassination of Haniyeh or the generals of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, or members of Hezbollah or the Houthi movement, they are all arms of the Iranian octopus, so the conflict is actually an Iranian-Israeli conflict,” he told The Media Line.
He noted that seven countries are currently involved in the fighting and expressed concern that the conflict might continue to expand. “We do not want the number of countries to increase or to see targeting in Jordan, for example, or Egypt or Libya, or any other country,” he said.
Al-Miqdad predicts that the conflict will continue until Iran makes peace with Israel or Israel eliminates the Iranian regime.
“The only problem in the Middle East is Iran, and it is the one supporting all these militias,” he said. “Israel must leave the arms and head to the head. If it is able to uproot [Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei from his seat and overthrow the Iranian regime, this conflict will end immediately.”