Support truly
independent journalism
The Biden administration has repeatedly denied US involvement or knowledge in the apparent assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, a political leader of Hamas heavily involved in ceasefire negotiations.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke to Channel News Asia on Wednesday during a two-day stop in Singapore as part of a weeklong swing through southeast Asia, making some of the first comments from a high-ranking American official regarding the death of Haniyeh, who was reportedly killed in Tehran along with an Iranian security guard late Tuesday evening Washington time.
“Well, I’ve seen the reports, and what I can tell you is this: first, this is something we were not aware of or involved in,” said the US’s top diplomat. He added: “It’s very hard to speculate, and I've learned never to speculate, on the impact one event may have on something else. So I can't tell you what this means."
He would go on to reiterate the US’s position that it would work to try and prevent the conflict in Gaza from escalating into a regional war.
At the daily State Department press briefing in Washington, however, reporters pressed further on the issue and drew a semi-heated response from Vedant Patel, the agency’s deputy spokesman.
Patel was questioned repeatedly on various issues related to the impact of the killing and refused to speculate as to whether Israel was responsible for carrying out the attack. The Israeli government has not claimed credit for the killing nor publicly denied it; Hamas and Iranian officials have meanwhile both insisted that Israel is behind Haniyeh’s killing.
Blinken says he doesn't know what the assassination of Haniyeh means for the ceasefire negotiations. Feel like it's the Secretary of State's job to know these things?
— Ken Klippenstein 📎 (@kenklippenstein) July 31, 2024
Q: Haniyeh was involved in ceasefire talks in Gaza; what impact is his death going to have?
BLINKEN: "I've… pic.twitter.com/PSbP3MO09O
“We have of course seen the news, and the statement from Hamas, but I don’t have anything additional to offer on that and I don’t want to speculate at this time on this incident or possible reactions, we of course continue to be in touch with governments in the region,” Patel offered initially.
That failed to satisfy reporters in the room, and the questions Patel went on to face included the basic philosophical question of how the US could continue to state publicly that Hamas was the main obstacle to a successful ceasefire deal from being reached if Israel was behind the attack and was therefore responsible for killing a lead negotiator for a possible peace agreement. Patel deflected, and wouldn’t offer a path forward for peace negotiations either — stating a desire to keep such talks private.
He also faced a sharp line of interrogation from Said Arikat of Al-Quds, a Jerusalem-based news service, regarding whether Iran, as a sovereign nation, had the right to defend itself from an act of “aggression” as an attack on its soil could be taken. The questioning inferred that the US may have a double standard when it comes to Middle Eastern countries given the self-defense justification that US politicians and the State Department have given for the Israeli siege of Gaza.
“In principle, as a sovereign nation, does Iran have the right to defend itself?” asked Arikat. As Patel began to hesitate in responding, Arikat pressed: “It’s a simple question. Does Iran, as a sovereign nation, [like] any other nation, have the right to defend itself?”
Patel responded: “Iran is a regime that time and time again since 1979 has, one, been the largest exporter of terrorism, not just in the Middle East but broadly. And it has a clear track record of not just suppressing its own people but funding, promoting, encouraging, malign destabilizing actions across the region. And our opinion and point of view on the Iranian regime is quite clear.”
“We will not hesitate to not just stand with our allies and partners when it comes to defending against threats from Iran but taking appropriate action from the United States,” said the spokesman.
Arikat would go on to press Patel several times further. He pointed out the deaths of not just Haniyeh but much of his extended family, including his children and grandchildren, and later asked the State spokesman point-blank whether the Hamas leader’s death was “good”, “indifferent” or “bad” in terms of reaching a ceasefire deal in the region. The questions drew an increasingly irritated response from Patel, who refused to answer for what he said “is probably now the fifteenth time” in the briefing.
Overall, it comes as the Biden administration has now said for months that it sees a ceasefire deal within reach and has largely avoided any major shifts in policy regarding its monetary support for Israel’s offensive in Gaza, where more than 30,000 are now presumed dead.
As the months have passed, the administration has increasingly faced criticism at home from progressives over seemingly taking a passive, reactionary role to the conflict and the Israeli strikes in areas including Beirut and now, possibly, Tehran. While the president takes accusations from the right over the supposed “daylight” between his view on the war and Israel’s, his administration faces questions as to whether Israel is purposely undermining the US president.
Adding fuel to that fire was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s most recent visit to the US, where he spoke on Capitol Hill and accused protesters demonstrating against his speech as being possibly funded by Iran. Netanyahu met with Biden at the White House during his visit but also traveled to meet Donald Trump, his political ally, in Florida.
