Shaken by the embarrassment of Ismail Haniyeh's assassination in Tehran, top Iranian officials are issuing threats of harsh retaliation against Israel, attempting to put a brave face on a monumental security failure.
Blaming Israel, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei stated that he considers it a “duty to seek justice for him, who was martyred within the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) issued a statement attributing the attack to "the Zionist regime" and declared that this "crime" would be met with a "harsh and painful response" from the Resistance Front, particularly from Iran.
Even the ostensibly 'moderate' Pezeshkian adopted a harsh tone, vowing that the Islamic Republic would defend its territorial "integrity, dignity, honor, and pride," and promising to make the "terrorist occupiers" regret their actions.
The Iranian foreign ministry released a statement accusing the US of being an "accomplice and supporter of Israel in the killing of Ismail Haniyeh," and indicated that the Islamic Republic considers an "appropriate response" to this action. Iran’s former acting foreign minister, Ali Bagheri-Kani, stated that Iran has the right to respond to the assassination of Haniyeh, describing the attack as a "cowardly act" and a “breach of international law and the UN Charter.” Senior Iranian diplomats also vowed significant retaliatory actions.
Iran’s UN Mission posted on X, stating, “The response to an assassination will indeed be special operations—harder and intended to instill deep regret in the perpetrator.” Mojtaba Amani, Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon, also stated that “Iran, in return, will not allow this region to be prey to the joint US and Israeli administrations.”
The only official adopting a somewhat more measured tone was First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref, who refrained from mentioning any retaliation and stated, “The high power of the establishment will not be affected by these mischievous actions.”
Aref also remarked that the attack aimed to create a new crisis in the region and complicate Iran's regional and international relations, particularly at the onset of the new administration's term.
One could argue that Aref has a point, as the attack and Iran's vow of retaliation for the Hamas leader's assassination cast doubt on the portrayal of the establishment as having shifted to a more 'moderate' direction.
Although chants of “Death to Israel” and “Death to America,” alongside calls for “wiping Israel off the map,” remain central to the Islamic Republic’s political discourse, officials had hinted at a strategy shift under new president Masoud Pezeshkian. In early July, Iran's former Acting Foreign Minister, Ali Bagheri-Kani, addressed the United Nations Security Council in New York, emphasizing Pezeshkian's foreign policy aimed at "opening new horizons" to foster "friendly relations with other nations based on dialogue, cooperation, equality, and mutual respect."
Despite these diplomatic assertions, Iran has continued to publicly prioritize and defend its support for sponsored militias, revealing a fundamental contradiction. While the West accuses Iran of sponsoring terrorism, thereby hindering mutual dialogue, Iran remains steadfast in its stance.
When asked whether Pezeshkian’s election would alter the US negotiating position, White House spokesman John Kirby unequivocally responded, "No," citing Iran's continued support for militant groups. “They’re still supporting terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. They’re still supporting the Houthis as the Houthis attack ships in the Red Sea. They’re still attacking shipping as well,” Kirby stated at a press conference. “So no, no.”
The presence of militia leaders, including Hamas' Political Bureau Head Ismail Haniyeh, Islamic Jihad Secretary-General Ziyad al-Nakhalah, and Yemeni Houthi spokesman Mohammed Abdul-Salam, at Pezeshkian's inauguration on Tuesday in parliament, starkly underscores Tehran's true priorities.
Haniyeh's killing early on Wednesday suggested that sponsoring regional militias carries significant consequences, and while seeking the removal of sanctions, exposes inherent contradictions, underscoring the impossibility of having one's cake and eating it too.
