The Ineffectiveness of Assassinating Resistance Leaders on the Future of Resistance Groups

Although the assassination of Resistance leaders may temporarily have some effects on the activities and performance of Resistance groups, it never creates a fundamental change in the field equations.

News ID: 85659

Date: 02 February 2025 - 10:36

TEHRAN (Defapress) - The assassination of Resistance leaders, while it may temporarily affect the activities and performance of Resistance groups, never fundamentally alters the field equations. Accordingly, we observe that the Hamas movement remains alive and dynamic, maintaining the initiative on the ground—an initiative that has been most evident during prisoner exchange operations.

To discuss the ineffectiveness of assassinating Resistance leaders on the future and performance of Resistance groups, several critical factors must be considered: "organizational structure of Resistance," "ideology and motivations," "changes in tactics, not strategy," "limited impact on the field," and "historical experience." These elements must be examined to understand their effects.

The first factor is the "organizational structure of Resistance." Resistance groups typically have a decentralized and network-based structure. The assassination of a leader does not necessarily weaken the entire organization, as replacements and alternative decision-making structures quickly become active. This was evident during the Gaza war and the assassination of leaders from Hamas and Hezbollah. For example, after the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, in the southern suburbs of Beirut, we witnessed minimal impact on the activities and operations of these Resistance groups.

The second factor is "ideology and motivations." Resistance groups in the region are usually formed based on long-term ideologies and goals. Therefore, the assassination of leaders not only fails to diminish the motivation of Resistance forces but also strengthens their resolve to fight and resist, increasing popular support or attracting new members.

The third factor is "changes in tactics, not strategy." The assassination of leaders may alter the tactics of Resistance groups, but their overall strategy usually remains unchanged. As a result, Resistance forces tend to focus on collective goals and ideals rather than relying on individuals.

The fourth factor is the "limited impact on the field." The assassination of Resistance leaders generally cannot significantly influence the activities and actions of Resistance groups on the battlefield. This is because other factors, such as the balance of power, resources, external support, and local conditions, play a more decisive role. Consequently, assassinating leaders cannot fundamentally alter these factors.

The fifth factor is "historical experience." History has shown that the assassination of Resistance leaders has not been able to inflict serious damage on these groups. In many cases, such actions have even strengthened the spirit of struggle and resistance.

Another important point is that Resistance movements usually have strong succession structures. The assassination of a leader does not necessarily mean the end of the movement, as new leaders quickly emerge. These new leaders often possess sufficient experience and legitimacy to swiftly take control of the situation.

On the other hand, it is crucial to consider the short-term effects of assassinating Resistance leaders. While such actions may have psychological and political impacts in the short term, these effects are usually temporary. In many cases, these actions increase hatred toward the enemy and strengthen the fighting spirit among Resistance forces and their supporters.

In conclusion, the assassination of Resistance leaders may be a tactical move, but it alone is incapable of changing strategic or field equations. This is because nearly all Resistance groups in the region focus on collective goals and ideals rather than relying on individuals.