Hamas's New Leadership Confronts Internal Divisions Over Iranian Alignment
The recent election of Khalil al-Hayya as the new head of Hamas, decided by a single vote, signifies more than a mere leadership transition. This close contest, occurring after nearly two years of collective leadership, underscores profound internal divisions within the organization, which has been reshaped by exile, regional instability, and an increasingly significant connection with Iran.
Al-Hayya, who previously served as Yahya Sinwar’s deputy in Gaza and was a member of the five-person council leading Hamas since Sinwar's death in October 2024, secured a 35-34 victory against former political bureau chief Khaled Meshaal. This razor-thin margin brings to the forefront a critical question for Hamas: can it reconcile its divergent factions, or will al-Hayya's ascension solidify the influence of those most aligned with Tehran?
From Inception to Diaspora Leadership
When Hamas was founded in December 1987, the identity of its leader held less significance than it does today. Its initial leadership structure was relatively straightforward, evolving into a more complex system over the subsequent two decades. Though formally established in Gaza, the Islamic Resistance Movement, or Hamas, was a collaborative effort involving several organizations under the umbrella of the Muslim Brotherhood's Levant branch. These included Muslim Brotherhood entities in Gaza, the occupied West Bank, Jordan, and diaspora affiliates in locations such as Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.
Initially, the Muslim Brotherhood's leadership in Gaza maintained overall control, governed by an elected Shura Council representing various parts of the Gaza Strip. This council, in turn, elected an executive office. It was this executive office that, on December 9, 1987, decided to transform the Muslim Brotherhood's Gaza organization into the Islamic Resistance Movement. Its founding members included Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdulaziz al-Rantissi, Salah Shihada, Abdulfattah Dukhan, Muhammad Sham’ah, Ibrahim al-Yazuri, and Issa al-Nashar.
This leadership model faced rapid disruption due to Israeli repression. Following Hamas's claims of responsibility for several resistance operations, Israeli occupation forces initiated severe crackdowns. A widespread detention campaign effectively neutralized most of the movement's first and second-tier leaders. This suppression prompted Hamas's external support networks to intervene. Mousa Abu Marzouk, then pursuing a doctorate in the United States, was dispatched to Gaza to help rebuild the severely damaged organization. This marked the beginning of a shift in leadership from Gaza to the diaspora, with Abu Marzouk eventually heading the movement's political bureau from Jordan until his arrest in 1995. Khaled Meshaal succeeded him, serving multiple terms until 2017.
Structural Changes and Deepening Divisions
Under Meshaal, Hamas restructured its leadership into three main components: Gaza, the West Bank, and the diaspora. Each had its own elected local Shura Council and executive leadership. This decentralization aimed to distribute decision-making and clarify responsibilities. However, this new structure also inadvertently fostered a larger bureaucracy, overlapping mandates, conflicting interests, and recurring disputes among the movement's various branches.
Hamas's expulsion from Jordan in the late 1990s initially seemed beneficial. During the subsequent 11 years, with its leadership based in Damascus, the movement significantly expanded its international connections. This period saw the emergence of the 'axis of resistance,' which included Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Palestinian factions like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. As most Arab governments aligned with the opposing 'axis of moderation,' Hamas's alliance with, and increasing reliance on, Iran became increasingly prominent. Since the early 1990s, Iran had sought, with limited success, to transform Hamas into a proxy similar to Hezbollah and, to some extent, Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Nevertheless, throughout the Meshaal era, Hamas largely maintained its independence despite receiving financial and military aid from Iran.
The Arab Spring and Its Aftermath
The Arab Spring presented a significant challenge to this relationship. Hamas supported the popular uprisings, rejecting Iranian pressure to back the Syrian government's suppression of the revolution. Consequently, the movement relocated from Damascus to Doha, abandoning what some members considered substantial privileges and political gains accumulated over the previous decade.
This departure coincided with the end of Meshaal’s second, and supposedly final, term as political bureau chief. Although the movement's rules prevented him from seeking another term, and his Gaza-based deputy, Ismail Haniyeh, was expected to succeed him, Meshaal was persuaded by allies, both within and outside Hamas, that regional circumstances necessitated his continued leadership. A campaign successfully amended the rules, allowing him to run for and win a third term. This decision, however, caused a serious internal crisis, creating a rift between competing leadership currents that intensified in subsequent years.
Following the coup in Egypt and the broader success of the counter-revolution against the Arab Spring, Hamas faced pressure from all sides. Arab governments that opposed the uprisings penalized the movement for its unequivocal support. Simultaneously, Iran sanctioned Hamas for its refusal to align with the Syrian government. By the time Haniyeh eventually succeeded Meshaal as head of the political bureau, Hamas's financial situation had deteriorated significantly. The diaspora branch, then led by Meshaal, faced severe funding shortages. Iran began to dictate which parts of Hamas would receive its financial support, explicitly withholding funds from Meshaal's team. This strategy effectively bolstered a pro-Iran faction within Hamas while weakening the opposing current led by Meshaal. Neither Sinwar’s subsequent rise to overall leadership nor the collective leadership established after his death fully resolved this underlying power struggle.
A Narrow Victory, A Divided Mandate
Against this backdrop, al-Hayya’s narrow victory is likely to be interpreted by some as a win for the pro-Iran camp. Until recently, this faction represented a minority within the movement. Its influence has grown due to the perception that Iran is the only regional state willing to support Hamas, coupled with the belief among its proponents that Iran is emerging stronger and more resolute from the current US-led conflicts.
However, the closeness of the election result also clearly indicates that Hamas remains deeply divided. While al-Hayya has secured the leadership, a one-vote margin does not provide a decisive mandate for one faction to marginalize the other. For those who prioritize charisma in leadership, Meshaal remains a more commanding figure. Yet, Hamas has historically relied less on individual charisma and more on clarity of vision and internal unity.
Al-Hayya’s Defining Challenge
Al-Hayya’s primary challenge will extend beyond navigating an exceptionally difficult regional landscape. His crucial task will be to collaborate with his colleagues to mend an internal rift that has developed over more than a decade, to reunite the movement’s competing currents, and to safeguard the clarity and independence of its political vision. His success in these endeavors will determine whether this election ushers in renewed cohesion or merely marks another stage in the consolidation of one camp at the expense of the movement's overall unity.
Source: Original Article
