Impact of Haniyeh’s death on the Beijing Declaration on Palestinian unity
Kazakhstan academic Yerkin Nazarbay notes that Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh’s death could be seen as a message from Iran to the world that there is no room for “traitors” who work with outside forces, and that there are consequences for those seen as betraying Iran.
Amid the cheers and pride in China’s state media over the signing of the Beijing Declaration on Ending Division and Strengthening Palestinian National Unity (23 July 2024), the sudden news of the death of Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh in an airstrike in Tehran on 31 July was a bolt from the blue, instantaneously drawing China into a historical dead end that has lasted over a thousand years.
Within a week, it has been seen clearly that the Palestinian issue is not simply a matter of multilateral geopolitical risk management or bilateral historical legacy. The sacred city of Jerusalem, with the three Abrahamic religions and the convergence of layers of complex, emotional and historical entanglements over a thousand years, is truly a “graveyard of empires”.
In resolving crises, Abrahamic religious leaders and secular rulers have had no option but to compound upon the earlier entanglements and complexities, and warn posterity that there is to be no meddling or intervention in the affairs of the Holy City by those not of biblical faith, or spark hell’s fury.
This will entrench Han territories in the Rome-Iran-Turan geopolitical conflict, from which it will be difficult to extricate itself.
Although Iran is currently an Islamic revolutionary regime with a theocratic system, it has consistently upheld an Aryan worldview inherited from the Persian Empire, which is distinct from the Arab peninsula across the sea and the Indian subcontinent just across the mountains. This perspective is key to understanding the geopolitics of the Middle East and Central Asia.
The unrelenting conflict in the Holy City
In reality, the signing of the 2024 Beijing Declaration has not convinced seasoned Middle East experts of China’s growing international influence. On the contrary, attention has shifted to how the interactions between the Middle East and East Asia, that is, the various forces in West Asia, might affect China’s future development.
In other words, China and the Han territories have never been so closely scrutinised by Middle Eastern powers throughout thousands of years of history.
The traditional East Asian notion of the internal cycle of “division leading to unity” (久分必合) will inevitably be overtaken by the radical West Asian perspective of an external cycle of “decline leading to demise” (久衰必亡). This will entrench Han territories in the Rome-Iran-Turan geopolitical conflict, from which it will be difficult to extricate itself.
In this context, “Rome” refers to the Western Christian world, including the First Rome (Latin Catholic) and the Second Rome (Greek Orthodox Constantinople), as well as the Third Rome (Rus Moscow), and civilisations of Protestant maritime power.
“Iran” refers to the Aryan world, spanning the Tigris and Euphrates rivers of Mesopotamia in West Asia and the Syr Darya and Amu Darya rivers in Central Asia. Its western centres were connected to “Rome” in the north and Arabia in the south, while its eastern centres were linked to “Turan” in the north and Hindustan in the south.
Unlike “Rome” and “Iran”, “Turan” stretches from the Hungarian plains in the west to the Manchurian plains in the east, encompassing the Eurasian Steppe that includes the Kipchak plains, the Tibetan plateau and the Mongolian plateau.
As the Central Asian portion was the birthplace of the Aryan civilisation of ancient “Iran”, the peoples of “Turan” regarded those of “Iran” as blood brothers and, having marched into Constantinople, considered themselves the successor to “Rome”.
China has inevitably seriously underestimated and misjudged the abilities and resolve of the three traditional power bases to resist external impacts and correct any efforts to reverse the current direction...
The immutable tripartite balance
The geopolitical significance of the 2024 Beijing Declaration lies in presenting a fourth party to the Middle East through the Palestinian issue, potentially reshaping the conventional geopolitical order and strategies in the Middle East and Eurasia.
China has inevitably seriously underestimated and misjudged the abilities and resolve of the three traditional power bases to resist external impacts and correct any efforts to reverse the current direction, especially “Iran’s” efforts against unification, that is, not allowing a fourth party to exert westward pressure on its only remaining space for strategy and survival.
To Tehran, the republic’s current territorial might is at its weakest historically.
Looking at the current political situation in Iran, it is clear that Iran’s current Shia mullah regime, which came to power after the Islamic Revolution, controls only the Persian Plateau of the ancient “Iran”, but continues the spiritual heritage and foundation of the ancient civilisation and empire.
The loss of both the eastern and western centres of “Iran” as well as the encroachment of “Turan” has only strengthened the present-day Islamic Republic of Iran in its sense of mission and responsibility in rejuvenating and protecting the country. Its sense of crisis surpasses even China’s.
To Tehran, the republic’s current territorial might is at its weakest historically.
Significant parts of lands in the east have been permanently annexed by the Turkic forces of “Turan”. Only the greater Tajik regions in the southeast maintain a fragile connection with eastern Khorasan of ancient “Iran”; even this is under threat from the Taliban’s Pashtun forces in adjacent Hindustan, who are attempting to sever what remains of their geopolitical identity and historical bond.
The majority of the centres in the west are occupied by the Arabs — who are regarded as “southern barbarians” — with only Khuzestan province remaining under direct Iranian control.
The northward expansion of influence from the Arabian peninsula and the accelerated process of regional Arabisation, significantly undermined Iran’s control over its western territories within the traditional tripartite balance of power. This also increased the influence of the “southern barbarians” in both Iran and adjacent “Rome”, continuing until Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948.
Consequently, to the Shahs of Persia and the Ayatollahs, the end of the Jewish diaspora and the beginning of the Return era were seen as the “Rome” component in the regional tripartite balance initiating a process of re-legitimisation, presenting a historic opportunity to restore the traditional boundaries between the spheres of influence of “Rome” and “Iran”.
Despite relentlessly adversarial relations, Iran has sought to strengthen strategic alignment with Israel. This involves leveraging the Shiite axis centred in Tehran, along with various anti-central forces, to weaken and suppress the outward expansion of Arab unification movements and Sunni local forces on the peninsula.
To Iranian revivalists, the signing of the 2024 Beijing Declaration by the Hamas delegation was a total betrayal, creating something that should not exist and letting a figurative wolf into the home, or exposing themselves to attack.
Paying for subordinates’ misdeed
Taking the above into account, the death of Haniyeh may not be so much a reflection of the conflict between Israel and Hamas but the lesser-known tussle in recent years between Iran and China, as well as the unpredictable unique relations between Russia, China, India and Iran.
To Iranian revivalists, the signing of the 2024 Beijing Declaration by the Hamas delegation was a total betrayal, creating something that should not exist and letting a figurative wolf into the home, or exposing themselves to attack.
So it is entirely possible that Tehran felt compelled to make an example of Haniyeh and warn the organisations it is known to support, including the Houthi rebels in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon, against being a collaborating “traitor” and to neutralise all negative influences. The message to the world is that Haniyeh, as head of Hamas’s political bureau, had to pay with his life for his decisions and actions, just like Field Marshal Erwin Rommel of the Third Reich.
For Israel, the death of Hamas leader Haniyeh aligns with current national security interests and contributes to regional stability, thus requiring no further response or comment. For the Tehran authorities, with the gradual collapse of Hamas’s internal power structure and the destruction of its external forces, the practical value of Haniyeh’s role has diminished significantly.
But the matter of drawing Beijing’s influence into the core triangle of “Rome, Iran, and Turan” is an intolerable affront and a serious humiliation that must be completely eradicated to prevent future repercussions.
This article was first published in Lianhe Zaobao as “哈尼亚之死冲击《北京宣言》 ——是 “斩首示众”还是“斩草除根”？”.
