I largely agree with Paulo Aguiar’s analysis of the effects of Yahya Sinwar’s death on the war in Gaza in Geopolitical Monitor and for these reasons:
Hamas isn’t reliant on a single figurehead or a tight circle of leaders. It’s decentralized, with local commanders and a somewhat clear line of succession. This structure allows the group to continue operating even after losing prominent figures like Sinwar. Whoever steps into his shoes is likely to carry forward the same hardline stance, continuing Hamas’s resistance against Israel and their broader goal of reclaiming what they see as historic Palestine. In that sense, killing Sinwar is more of a symbolic victory than a strategic one – it may lift spirits in Israel, but it won’t dismantle Hamas or bring an end to the cycle of violence.
Furthermore, I think there’s a pretty simple reason that Israel’s “endgame” is so unclear. I don’t think the Israelis have a realistic plan for concluding the war. Hamas is the government of Gaza. The more militant it is, the more popular it becomes among Palestinians including on the West Bank.
I genuinely have no idea what the Israelis plan to do. Drive the Gazans out? Exterminate them? Fight wars with Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Iranians all at the same time?
My concern is that they’re escalating to draw the United States farther into the conflict than it already is.
It’s not for the US to be involved, it will be what it will be. We have been doing our best to resolve the issue, I believe this is where we are! Tomorrow will be another story.. if we get hit, that will change everything!!!
That’s certainly my view.
The long term objective may be to secure control over enough of Gaza to begin construction on the proposed Ben-Gurion
canal from Al Aqabah to the Mediterranean Sea, a route that would be an Israeli controlled alternative to the Suez and a financial boon for Israel and oil shipments. And of course, the elimination of Hamas as a political force.