‘FOG OF WAR’ & BOOBY TRAPS IN THE KILLING OF ISMAEL HANIYEH

 

“A General with ‘winning ways’ is one who is as proficient in the science and art of covering the battlefield with the ‘fog of war’ as also in piercing through this veil, while employing it as a key strategy to strike at the ‘OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Action) Loop’ of the adversary.” – Col RS Sidhu

 

Backdrop

“…An enemy should be destroyed without a trace.” - Chanakya

Obfuscating the battlefield is a strategy as old as Mahabharat, where the Pandavas employed grey zone propaganda to spread the half-truth of ‘Ashwathama is dead’, to neutralise Guru Dronacharya, the leading general of the Kauravas army, and Krishan orchestrated a fake sunset to set the stage for Arjun to kill Jayadrath.   

During World War II, the detailed planning and execution of Operation ‘Overlord’ to invade Nazi Germany occupied Europe, was matched by an equally meticulous deception plan codenamed Operation ‘Bodyguard’ and Operation ‘Fortitude’. 

Closer to time and home, Pakistan successfully employed strategic deception to intrude into Indian territory in Kargil during the year of 1999, while China executed a major incursion into Ladakh in May of 2020 under the cover of a masterly deception plan that completely surprised India.

In 1973, Egypt, under the cover of a deception plan spread across a time span of couple of years, achieved strategic surprise over Israel, enabling it to successfully breach the Israeli defences on the Suez Canal. Quite like India in 1999 and 2020, Israel was caught unaware again. This time by the bold and unorthodox multi-pronged Hamas attacks into Israel on 9^th October 2023.

In the preceding ten months, post the traumatic Hamas attack, Israel is returning to its ‘winning ways’ by eliminating substantial numbers of senior military leaders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Hamas, and Hezbollah, the extremist organisations backed by Iran, through targeted killings.

Setting the Narrative

“Wars begin when you will, but they do not end when you please.” – Niccolò Machiavelli

Following detailed planning, covert preparations and rehearsals, Hamas leadership opted to launch multiple attacks across the heavily defended Gaza Strip border with Israel. The plan was premised on provoking Israel into a forceful response by subjecting the Israeli civil population to deliberate brutality and horror, and use it to launch a sophisticated information war to isolate Israel on the world stage, and gain worldwide sympathy and support. In addition, it also entailed seizing maximum Israelis as hostages to inhibit use of maximum force by Israel, and compel it to the bargaining table. There were three aspects of this operation which were galling to Israel.

The first was the scale of casualties. The attacks by Hamas inflicted 1139 fatal casualties in just two days, and also resulted in seizing 251 hostages. Compare these figures with 776 fatal Israeli casualties in the 6 days of the 1967 war, 1424 killed during the war of attrition of 1967-71, and 2656 fatalities in the 20 days of the 1973 war. It dented Israeli pride and, much more damaging, shattered the aura of invincibility surrounding the Israeli armed forces.

Second, was the national intelligence failure under the very nose of the entire security establishment. This was further compounded by the failure of their much vaunted three tiered defensive parameter, which just collapsed when faced with the Hamas onslaught, giving a free run to the marauders.

But it was the third aspect that impacted Israel the most; the scale of wanton brutality inflicted by the Hamas on the civil population of the Israeli border communities. It was this very success of the Hamas strategy that eventually shaped the Israeli resolve to annihilate Hamas, notwithstanding the extensive collateral damage it entailed, and facing the resultant international approbation. 

For Israel, with no strategic depth, and surrounded as they are by fanatic enemies, it’s a matter of survival. Their continued existence is dependent on the deterrence imposed by their technological and combat superiority, and war fighting doctrine of pre-emptive strike to carry the battle into enemy territory. The military success of Hamas, and their successful information war to orchestrate worldwide public support, exposed the vulnerabilities of Israel.

This impelled the Israeli leadership to unleash an equally ruthless military campaign to decimate Hamas, by launching sustained offensive to destroy their armed and support cadre, and logistics infrastructure, and annihilate their political and military hierarchy through targeted killings.

It is this strong Israeli resolve, and the unwavering support from the US, which has upset the well crafted plans of international backers of Hamas. Prolonging of the hostilities is inevitably leading to the decimation of Hamas as a cohesive fighting force, while opening up avenue for stronger Israeli offensive action against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Ultimately, it could lead to unravelling of the entire extremist network, methodically established by Iran across West Asia region, and the resultant destabilisation of its fundamentalist regime. The rigid stand of Ismael Haniyeh against the release of Israeli hostages and a ceasefire deal with Israel, is now a liability to his backers.

‘Fog of War’ Over The Killing of Ismael Haniyeh

“Laws are silent in times of war.” - Cicero

In time and space of other than a serious conflict zone, the killing of Ismael Haniyeh would be sufficient to invoke charge of murder/assassination, and exchange of diplomatic demarche. However, the ‘fog of war’ hovering over the targeted killing of Ismael Haniyeh is blinding. No organisation has come forward to claim the kill. Israel, the country with the proclaimed aim of wiping out the top Hamas hierarchy, has maintained a studied silence.  Brig Gen Daniel Hagari, official defence spokesperson of Israel, has made a bland public statement that apart from one Israeli aircraft mission flown over Lebanon on the 31^st of July, there were no other Israeli air assets airborne that night. 

As on date, the authentic information in the public domain is, that Ismael Haniyeh was killed in the early hours of the morning of 31^st of July 2024, in an explosion in the residential accommodation inside a special security zone of Tehran, where he normally stayed during his infrequent visits to Iran. Further, Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran has publicly pledged revenge for the killing of Ismael Haniyeh. However, the when, where, how, and most important, against whom, has been left unsaid.

Multiple hypothesis on the modus operandi employed for the killing are being discussed in the public domain. The versions range from a sea/air/ground launched precision munition fired from beyond/within Iranian sovereign space, to an AI enabled remotely exploded pre-positioned/man packed explosive device.

The killing is variously being attributed from the first favourite Israel, to the US, and even Iran itself! However, all hypothesis are attributed to secondary sources, without being backed by verifiable data.  

With there being no authenticated trace of the perpetrators, the ‘fog of war’ is overwhelming, preventing closure of the ‘OODA Loop’.

The Booby Traps In The Killing

“More often than not, during times of dangerous uncertainty in the corridors of autocratic power, the safest option exercised is to kill the messenger!”

The open ‘OODA Loop’, and the resultant delayed Iranian response, shall by itself raise multiple adversities needing to be resolved, further compounding the complexities of the situation.

The unassailable fact is that the assassination could not have been undertaken without humanint within Iran. Protecting the identity of this high grade source shall be of primary concern to the principal perpetrator(s), who would have adroitly designed smokescreen of grey and black zone propaganda masked as conspiracy theories. Obfuscation of perpetrator footprints, and plausible deniability will noticeably retard the quality of Iranian response.

So the first booby trap planted in the killing is the ‘OODA Loop’ itself. The situation commands an effective overt response. Even if all accusing fingers point towards Israel, but with no plausible evidence, how and against whom does Iran react. Any forceful action may invite a stronger Israeli response, leading to conflict escalation, a factor detrimental to interest of Iran. In obverse, non-action may result in loss of confidence by its protégé organisations spread across West Asia.

The second and even more insidious booby trap is raising distrust and discord within own security establishment, potentially impeding professional performance. Whichever way the killing is looked at, a critical breach in the internal security citadel of Iran is out in the public domain. The rupture in the security wall is of a ‘hanging order’ magnitude, that could embroil the internal security high echelons in mutual accusations to save own skin. But a public scapegoat is warranted!

But it’s the third boobytrap, that is likely to take the centre stage in the cerebral space of the apex decision makers of Iran; the impact on the survivability of the ruling fundamentalist regime. While the killing itself would give fillip to internal dissent, greater involvement of the Iranian state in an external military venture would debilitate it economically, exacerbation the existing ruptures in civil society.  

Short Term Auspices

“The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerilla wins if he does not lose.” – Henry Kissinger

The modus operandi of the killing and identifying the perpetrators is of importance to determine the scope of retribution by an aggrieved Iran. But the complexity of the overall scenario warrants only a short term assessment at how the course of events is likely to unfold.

There is an imperfect hierarchy of environmental factors, as for atmospheric cross-winds and windshear, that have an impact on the future direction of the West Asia conflagration. Each of these aspects is being discussed only briefly, as individually they are a subject for study by themselves.

The most volatile windshear at the conflict ‘Ground Zero’, currently at the Gaza Strip, is the mutually irreconcilable interests of the Palestinian Arabs and the Israelis. The two communities face an existential threat, as the existing living space is inadequate for both together.

Above the ‘Ground Zero’ is the crosswind of the inherent conflict of interest and aspirations of the more productive and influential Palestine Arab diaspora, from the resident Palestine Arabs of Gaza Strip. Of the overall 14 million Palestine Arabs, only 7-8 million live in the Palestine region, of which just 2 million are in the Gaza Strip.

The next level in the windshear is the regional dominance aspirations of the major states, Israel, Iran, Turkiye, and Saudi Arabia, and their manipulating the Sunni and Shia Muslim religious divide for advancing their respective interests.

At the apex lies the crosswind and windshear factor of the Big Powers rivalry injected into the West Asia quagmire, with US aligned Israel arrayed against an Iran backed by Russia-China combine.  

Hamas has been consistently working towards dismantling the state of Israel and subsuming it into a unitary State of Palestine. Post October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, the latter has unequivocally proclaimed its war aim to destroy Hamas from its roots. The present war between the two is thus a fight to the finish. Israel has already achieved most of its war aim, by eliminating near 70% of the armed cadres, logistics infrastructure, apex political and military leadership of Hamas. Yahya Sinwar, the military wing commander of Hamas, is the sole surviving prominent senior commander from October 2023. Israel shall remain committed to destroy this militant organisation from its root.

Iran has demographic advantage of being the acknowledged leader of the world wide Shia Muslim Ummah numbering 200 million. It commands strong influence over the widespread Shia Muslim community in West Asia, which gives it overwhelming leverage in exerting geopolitical influence in the region. Currently Iran is indirectly engaged in irregular warfare against Israel, through its proxy militant organisations Hamas in Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran is inhibited in engaging in open war against Israel, owing to fragile state of economy, internal dissensions, and lack of strong military support from its extra-regional allies, namely China and Russia.

Russia is heavily committed in the conflict in Ukraine. This leaves it with negligible residual combat power to intervene militarily in favour of Iran. Even the prolonged Russian military presence in Syria has been inadequate to restore full territorial integrity of the latter.

China’s current intervention in West Asia is more in the diplomatic arena. It had brokered a rapprochement in 2023 between the two major rivals, Saudi Arabia and Iran, but the antagonistic relationship between the two adversaries has not seen any positive impact on the ground situation. Recently, in a meeting held at Beijing on 22 July 2024, China has brokered a rapprochement between 14 different Palestinian organisations. In this meeting all the Palestinian invitees consented to unite under the leadership of the PLO, an organisation which otherwise stands discredited in the Palestine Arab world and West Asia at large. It also used the opportunity to facilitate joining of hands between Hamas and Fateh, the two rival political groups from Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Such political deals reached in the past have time and again unravelled.

But Chinese military support to Iran is at best nebulous. It lacks the military potential to engage in sustained military intervention in West Asia, specially against US might.

Israel, on the other hand, has assured backing of active US military support in a major confrontation between Israel and the Hezbollah-Iran combine. Infact, with organised military resistance by Hamas in Gaza Strip coming to an end, the stage is set for the next phase of conduct of military operations by Israel, with US support, to neutralise Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Under the circumstances any strong Iran reprisal against Israel will be against the long term interest of the former. Iran’s leadership understands this equation. But the X Factor of saving face will most likely compel Iran to launch aerial projectiles from Iranian soil, in conjunction with its proteges from Lebanon and Yemen. This in its turn shall invite an inevitable Israeli riposte.

In the final bargain, it does appear that Israel and Iran shall eschew the option of an open war, in the near term.