Australian Outlook

In this section

Does Yahya Sinwar’s Death Mean the End of the Israel-Hamas Conflict?

30 Oct 2024
By Cheuk Yui (Thomas) Kwong and Mohd Amirul Asraf Bin Othman
Yahya Sinwar greeting Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, 2012. Source: Wikimedia, https://t.ly/skDmN

The killing of Yahya Sinwar, one of Hamas’s most influential leaders, marks a pivotal moment in the Israel-Hamas conflict. But does his death signal a turning point toward resolution, or will it simply fuel further chaos and violence across the region?

While history shows that targeting leaders often strengthens militant movements, Hamas’s future leadership remains uncertain, and this uncertainty could further destabilise Gaza. Such actions are likely to escalate the conflict, potentially drawing in other regional actors or radicalising additional militant groups, further destabilising the Middle East.

From a tactical perspective, killing high-ranking officers seems compelling. Although, history tells a different story. Israel’s 2004 assassination of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, for instance, intensified support for the group, while the killing of Hezbollah leader Abbas al-Musawi in 1992 led to the rise of a more radical successor, Hassan Nasrallah, and the bombings in Buenos Aires later that year. High-level killings, these examples suggest, frequently embolden militant organisations rather than dismantling them.

For now, the power vacuum left by Sinwar’s death could lead to unpredictable outcomes, with no apparent signs that a more stable or peaceful situation will emerge. If Israel continues its tactics in Gaza and across Palestine, Hamas may struggle to maintain its influence. However, these actions could fuel further radicalisation, resistance, and the rise of an even more extreme Islamist group, such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which has already been gaining ground in the region with unwavering Iranian support. As a result, a more dangerous and ideologically extreme Islamist group, like Palestinian Islamic Jihad, may fill the void left by Hamas, further escalating the conflict and deepening insecurity in Palestine.

If Hamas manages to survive and maintain its power, more hardline factions within the group could gain influence. High-ranking officers like Mohammad Sinwar, a prominent military leader in Gaza, and Mahmoud al-Zahar, another senior figure and co-founder of Hamas, have the potential to step in and replace Sinwar. In this case, the ongoing conflict could escalate further, effectively ruling out options for peace or negotiations on the ground.

Indeed, there is also a chance for more moderate-leaning leadership to take control of Hamas. Figures like former Hamas leader Khalid Mashal and current deputy leader Khalil al-Hayya, who is in charge of negotiations, could steer the organisation toward a more diplomatic approach, shifting alliances and opening pathways for dialogue. In this scenario, Hamas’s new leadership may distance itself from Tehran’s influence, marking a setback for Iran’s broader regional ambitions while creating an opportunity for Türkiye and Qatar to reassert their roles as critical players in Gaza.

However, even if Sinwar’s successor comes from a more moderate faction within Hamas, it remains unlikely that the group will be willing or able to de-escalate the ongoing conflict. Factors such as deep-rooted ideological commitments, internal pressures, and foreign interference will continue driving Hamas toward resistance rather than a return to the negotiating table, making significant concessions or a peaceful resolution unlikely in the near term.

Meanwhile, Israel shows little willingness to engage in long-term diplomatic negotiations aimed at addressing the root causes of the conflict. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insists that the conflict will only end if Hamas lays down its weapons and returns hostages. Other far-right members within Netanyahu’s coalition are pushing for the continuation of the war against Hamas. In other words, there is little chance that Israel will pursue a diplomatic solution soon.

Given this set of circumstances, there is equally little chance that Hamas’s new leadership will consider disarmament or meet Israel’s conditions for peace. This is due to the group’s ideological commitment to resistance, its longstanding rejection of Israel’s legitimacy, and the political pressure from internal factions and regional allies that prioritise armed struggle over negotiations—regardless of who replaces Sinwar. As a result, accepting such a proposal would be seen as a betrayal of their cause, making it nearly impossible for Hamas to agree without losing significant domestic support.

Post-Sinwar Realignment: Tracing Tehran’s Strategic Repositioning

From a regional perspective, Sinwar’s death does not signify the end of the ongoing conflict. Instead, it presents a significant challenge for Iran, potentially triggering a stricter response and escalating regional tensions. Tehran has long pursued a strategy of projecting influence throughout the Middle East, positioning itself as a key player through its network of proxy groups. This conflict forms part of Iran’s broader effort to reassert regional dominance, with its influence stretching across Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon.

Over the years, Tehran has solidified its role as a critical backer of Hamas, funnelling both military and financial support through its Quds Force. Sinwar was instrumental in rebuilding Hamas-Iran ties, which were strained during the Syrian Civil War. His success in securing Iranian backing, including hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, solidified Hamas as a critical component of Iran’s “Axis of Resistance,” alongside Hezbollah and various Iraqi and Syrian groups. The loss of Sinwar, therefore, represents not just a blow to Hamas but a setback to Iran’s broader regional ambitions.

Recently, Israel conducted strikes on military targets and missile sites in response to Iranian ballistic missile attacks. From Iran’s perspective, these strikes mark a significant escalation by Israel, which Tehran views as a provocation. In retaliation for both the death of Yahya Sinwar and Israel’s recent actions, Iran may escalate its offensive, potentially increasing missile strikes or facilitating assassination attempts against Israeli leaders through proxies like the Houthi movement in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Furthermore, Iran recently conducted naval drills with Russia and Oman under the “IMEX 2024” banner, signalling its intent to display military strength and strengthen regional alliances. This heightened military cooperation risks further escalation, complicating diplomatic efforts and raising the likelihood of a broader regional conflict.

Other actors, such as Türkiye and Qatar, may find their positions increasingly challenging to maintain. As the conflict intensifies, their ability to influence Hamas’s trajectory and promote dialogue could be severely tested.

On the international stage, Israel’s ally, the United States, has sent a clear message to Iran through its diplomatic channels and via military support to Israel. Recently, the US deployed advanced THAAD missile defence systems and the B-2 bombers against Iranian-aligned forces in Yemen, signalling Washington’s readiness to confront Iran’s regional ambitions and deter any escalation. Nevertheless, these actions may provoke further retaliation from either Iran or Israel. Despite Washington’s efforts to prevent further escalation, the situation could spiral into a broader conflict, potentially drawing in other regional players and ultimately destabilising the Middle East.

In conclusion, the killing of Yahya Sinwar, while a tactical victory for Israel, is unlikely to lead to a lasting ceasefire or peace in the region. Without a significant shift in the approaches of both Hamas and Israel and without addressing the broader geopolitical influences at play, the conflict is likely to escalate further, drawing in regional and international actors and prolonging instability in the Middle East.

Mohd Amirul Asraf Bin Othman is a PhD student in Political Science and International Relations at the Australian National University. His academic interests are diverse and encompass areas such as Middle East Security Studies, Regionalism, Terrorism, Extremism, and the broader fields of Political Science and International Relations in the Middle East. You can find him on social media here.  

Cheuk Yui (Thomas) Kwong is a columnist for The News Lens Media and a political analyst at the Hong Kong Thinkers Company Limited. He was a research assistant at the Australian Institute of International Affairs. He holds an advanced master’s degree in Middle East and Central Asian Studies from the Australian National University. For more information, you can contact him here.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Licence and may be republished with attribution.