When Israeli drones pierce the skies of Gaza in the middle of the night, and the names on the assassination list are precisely removed one by one, the international community always raises a question in shock: why don’t Islamic countries take equal retaliation? Behind this seemingly simple question lies a huge gap in power structure and a complex dilemma of revenge. This article will delve into the power game between Israel and the Islamic world in assassination and retaliation through specific historical events, revealing how multiple factors such as asymmetric warfare, internal division, and bias in the international system have shaped the current cycle of violence.
1、 Assassination is the game of the strong: Israel’s technological hegemony and Islamic countries’ inability to retaliate
Israel’s’ precision beheading ‘is not simply a violent act, but a highly integrated military technology, intelligence networks, and national will. Since the end of the 20th century, Israel has successfully made “targeted killings” a core tool of its national strategy through a series of assassination operations. Although Islamic countries have a desire for retaliation, they find it difficult to achieve a counterattack of the same scale due to technological, intelligence, and organizational capabilities.
Case 1: The Fall of Hamas Spiritual Leader Yassin (2004)
On March 22, 2004, the Israeli Air Force launched an airstrike in Gaza City, killing Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder and spiritual leader of Hamas. This operation can be regarded as a classic case of Israel’s “precision beheading”: the intelligence department accurately targeted Yasin’s daily activity route through long-term infiltration; The fighter jet flew low over the crowded streets in the early morning, and the bomb accurately hit the car where Yasin was riding, even minimizing civilian casualties in the surrounding area. The death of Yassin dealt a heavy blow to Hamas, but the Islamic world’s response was extremely limited: Palestinian extremist groups launched several rockets at Israel, Iran and Hezbollah issued condemnation statements, but lacked substantive retaliatory actions.
Technology gap: Israel’s’ decapitation ‘system and the dilemma of Islamic countries
Israel’s assassination capability is built on three pillars: first, a globally leading intelligence network. Mossad (Israeli intelligence agency) has constructed a target database covering the Middle East region through infiltration, hacker attacks, electronic surveillance, and other means. For example, before the assassination of Yasin, Mossad agents had been tracking his whereabouts for a long time, even placing informants among his bodyguards. Secondly, the absolute advantage of military technology. The F-35 fighter jets, drones, precision guided bombs and other equipment enable Israel to achieve “surgical strikes”. Thirdly, diplomatic immunity and ally protection. Even in third country operations, Israel can rely on the diplomatic support of the United States to evade international accountability.
On the other hand, Islamic countries lack a similar technological system. For example, although Iran has medium range missiles and drones, its accuracy and stealth capabilities are far inferior to Israel; Intelligence agencies are often limited by funding and technology, making it difficult to penetrate deep into Israel to obtain core intelligence. Even more deadly is that Islamic countries lack the legal and moral framework required for “precision beheading” – Israel packages assassinations as “anti-terrorism operations”, and any similar actions by Islamic countries will be labeled as “terrorism” by the West, resulting in restricted actions.
Case 2: The Death of Soleimani and Iran’s “Symbolic Counterattack” (2020)
On January 3, 2020, the United States launched an airstrike at Baghdad International Airport, killing Qasim Soleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Holy City Brigade ‘in Iran. As retaliation, Iran launched dozens of missiles at two US military bases in Iraq, but did not cause any fatalities. This incident exposed three major challenges for Islamic State retaliation: firstly, although Iran’s missiles can strike across borders, they cannot accurately destroy command centers (such as assassinating high-value targets like Trump); Secondly, in order to prevent the escalation of the conflict, Iran deliberately controls the intensity of its attacks, resulting in a significant reduction in the effectiveness of its retaliation; Thirdly, the rapid intervention of the international community and the lack of further retaliation by the United States have turned Iran’s “revenge” into a political posture.
2、 Divided Islam: Internal Contradictions and Paralysis of Collective Action
The Islamic world is not a monolithic entity, as internal sectarian conflicts, geopolitical interests, and proxy wars have plunged any transnational revenge operation into a quagmire of “who leads” and “who pays”. However, Israel is able to use “national security” as the supreme banner and transform the survival anxiety of the Jewish nation into a war machine for national mobilization.
Case 3: Shia Sunni Conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran
The confrontation between Saudi Arabia and Iran runs through the conflicts in the Middle East region. In 2016, Saudi Arabia executed Shia clergyman Nimir, sparking protests and protests in Iran, and storming the Saudi Embassy in Iran. But the two countries have always avoided direct military conflict and instead played indirectly through proxy wars such as the Yemeni civil war. This kind of ‘mutual checks and balances’ has led to neither side daring to exert full force in retaliation against Israel – Saudi Arabia is concerned that Iran may take advantage of the situation to expand its influence, while Iran needs to deal with domestic economic difficulties and Western sanctions. For example, when Israel assassinated Hamas leaders, Saudi Arabia was more concerned with how to suppress domestic pro Iranian forces rather than organizing joint retaliation.
Case 4: Hezbollah’s’ Independent Action ‘and Regional Isolation in Lebanon
Hezbollah is one of the few Islamic armed groups with cross-border strike capabilities. In 2006, Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli soldiers, triggering the Second Lebanon Israel War; In 2023, Hezbollah frequently launched rockets into northern Israel, but Israel’s counterattacks mainly targeted civilian areas in Lebanon. However, Hezbollah’s actions often do not receive support from other Islamic countries: Syria is busy with civil war, and Saudi Arabia and Egypt see it as an “Iranian agent”, which prevents it from forming a regional synergy. This’ one-on-one ‘model is not only difficult to shake Israel, but also weakens the overall deterrence of the Islamic world.
3、 Silence and Double Standards in the International System: Rules for the Strong and Taboos for the Weak
Whenever Israel’s assassination triggers a humanitarian controversy, Western powers always use the legitimacy of counter-terrorism as a cover of legitimacy. Islamic countries’ retaliation, even if it is just an action of the same scale, will be labeled as an “escalation of violence” and face economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and even military intervention.
Case 5: The Ineffectiveness of United Nations Resolutions and the Western ‘Selective Blindness’
Israel’s assassination operations have repeatedly violated international law, but UN resolutions are often ineffective. For example, in 2004, the United Nations passed a resolution condemning the assassination of Yassin, but the United States cast a veto in the Security Council; After the Soleimani incident in 2020, UN Secretary General Guterres called for restraint but did not impose any sanctions on the United States. This’ double standard ‘has emboldened Israel, while the retaliation of Islamic countries faces severe condemnation from the international community. For example, after Iran launched missile attacks on Israeli military targets in Syria in 2018, the European Union immediately called on “all parties to remain calm” but turned a blind eye to Israel’s airstrikes on Syrian civilian facilities.
Case 6: Behind the scenes support from the United States for the Israeli assassination operation
The United States is not only a military ally of Israel, but also a ‘hidden collaborator’ in its assassination operations. From providing F-35 fighter jets, precision guided bombs to intelligence sharing, the technical support from the United States has greatly enhanced Israel’s “decapitation” capability. More importantly, the diplomatic asylum provided by the United States shields Israel from international accountability. For example, when former Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu faced trial on corruption charges, the United States quickly invited him to visit the United States and used diplomatic immunity to provide him with a safe haven. This system of ‘impunity’ further weakens the possibility of Islamic countries retaliating through legal means.
4、 The Paradox of Revenge: Trading Violence for Violence or Strategic Sinking?
Even if Islamic countries break through numerous obstacles and achieve assassination retaliation against Israeli leaders, what will be the outcome? History has long given the answer: retaliation often leads to the escalation of conflicts and falls into a “blood feud cycle”, while true strategic breakthrough requires transcending the logic of violence.
Case 7: The ‘spiral of violence’ between Hamas and Israel
After Yassin’s assassination in 2004, Hamas quickly elected more radical leaders and increased rocket attacks on Israel. Israel responded with military strikes such as Operation Cast Lead, resulting in heavy casualties among civilians in the Gaza Strip. This cycle of “assassination revenge re assassination” has plunged both sides into an unsolvable vortex of violence. Similarly, after the Soleimani incident in 2020, tensions in the Middle East soared, but the actual power balance between Iran and Israel did not change, instead exacerbating regional unrest.
The dilemma of strategic choice: revenge vs. development
For Islamic countries, the real threat is not Israel’s assassination, but internal economic stagnation, political corruption, and international isolation. Investing resources in retaliatory actions may further weaken national strength. For example, if Iran spends a large amount of funds on missile research and development rather than improving people’s livelihoods, it will only exacerbate domestic dissatisfaction; If Saudi Arabia excessively intervenes in the Israeli Palestinian conflict, it may distract its attention from core battlefields such as Yemen. Therefore, many countries choose to turn revenge slogans into diplomatic chips rather than actual actions.
5、 Historical lessons and possible paths to future breakthroughs
By analyzing specific cases, the following conclusion can be drawn: Islamic countries find it difficult to retaliate equally against Israel’s assassination, which is rooted in the imbalance of power structure, internal division, and injustice of the international system. To break this dilemma, breakthroughs need to be sought in three dimensions:
1. Technological breakthrough: Developing asymmetric warfare and intelligence capabilities
Iran has developed ballistic missiles and drones in recent years. Although they cannot match Israel’s F-35, they can create deterrence through a combination of “numerical advantage and surprise attack tactics”. More importantly, Islamic countries need to strengthen intelligence cooperation and break Israel’s advantage of “one-way transparency”. For example, the cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Türkiye in the field of intelligence may improve the ability to track Israeli targets.
2. Diplomatic integration: transcending sectarian differences and building a regional security framework
The signs of easing between Saudi Arabia and Iran, such as the settlement agreement reached in Beijing in 2023, provide an opportunity for regional cooperation. If Islamic countries can set aside internal conflicts and jointly promote agendas such as “denuclearization of the Middle East”, it may force Israel to restrain its assassination actions. In addition, joint pressure through platforms such as the United Nations may force the West to reduce its bias towards Israel.
3. Strategic Transformation: From Revenge to Development
Shifting resources from short-term retaliation to long-term development is the fundamental path for Islamic countries to overcome their difficulties. For example, by diversifying the economy to get rid of dependence on oil, improving education levels to cultivate scientific and technological talents, and improving people’s livelihoods, we can consolidate domestic consensus. When a country’s strength truly improves, its international discourse power and bargaining chips will naturally increase.
Conclusion: Civilization Dialogue Beyond Violence
The question of assassination and revenge today is essentially a cruel reflection of the divide between strength and weakness in modern warfare. When the strong can use technology to accurately cut the opponent’s nerves, the weak can only respond with bloody resistance; When the violence of the strong is packaged as’ maintaining order ‘, the counterattack of the weak will always face’ legitimacy judgment ‘. But the wheels of history will not forever stagnate in a cycle of violence – the real breakthrough may not lie in copying each other’s logic, but in building a more just international order and achieving equal dialogue among civilizations. For the Islamic world, this is both a survival challenge and an opportunity for the revival of civilization.
About the Author
