On 7 October, Hamas executed a series of devastating attacks on Israel that sent shockwaves throughout the region and the world. Yet, a crucial question remains unanswered: What did Hamas think would happen if it struck Israel on such a massive scale?
Initially, many analysts, including myself, subscribed to what came to be known as the chaos theory. This theory posited that Hamas had planned a limited operation aimed at hitting Israeli military targets and taking high-value hostages, but the mission spiraled out of control. The unexpected collapse of Israel’s Gaza Brigade apparently led to unanticipated successes for Hamas. According to chaos theory, Hamas expected that most of the 1,400 fighters it sent over the fence would be killed, but most returned alive instead.
As Hamas and other armed groups ran out of their preordained targets, they inadvertently came across a music festival they did not know was taking place. The resulting chaos and carnage, which left many dead and wounded, became what one Gulf diplomat aptly termed “the mother of all miscalculations.”
Reconsidering the Chaos Theory
However, as each month of the war drags into the next, I find myself questioning the validity of this initial theory. While it gained considerable traction in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, its credibility has waned over time.
One of the key points supporting the chaos theory was the lack of immediate follow-through from Hamas’ allies. For instance, on the day of the attack, Hamas’ military commander, Mohamed Deif, called on the “axis of resistance” allies, including Lebanon, Iran, Yemen, Iraq, and Syria, to join the struggle. “This is the day when your resistance unites with your people in Palestine,” he declared in a pre-recorded audio message.
But the anticipated coordination and support never materialized. One notable example is Hezbollah, which appeared less than eager to jump into a conflict not of its timing or choosing. Much like Israel’s Gaza Brigade, Hezbollah was caught off guard by the attacks. Fighters in villages near the border with Israel were not even on alert. “We woke up to a war,” said one Hezbollah commander. This tepid response from Hezbollah was certainly not part of what Hamas had envisioned.
This discrepancy raises important questions about Hamas’ calculations and expectations. If the goal was to trigger a broader regional conflict by rallying other militant groups into the fray, why did it believe this strategy would work? Why did Hamas think that a large-scale attack on Israel would force its usually cautious and strategic allies to respond with full-scale military engagement?
Perhaps Hamas misjudged the readiness and willingness of its allies to engage in a conflict of this magnitude. Or maybe it overestimated the immediate impact its actions would have on galvanizing the so-called “axis of resistance.” This lapse in strategic foresight, coupled with the surprisingly successful raid, resulted in an unplanned and chaotic escalation that shocked even their closest partners.
The long-term consequences of these miscalculations are profound. The continued fighting has only served to deepen the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, while the Israeli military’s response has been relentless. The suffering inflicted on Palestinian civilians has been immense, overshadowing any tactical or strategic gains.
Moreover, the failure to secure immediate backing from other militant factions points to a fundamental flaw in the operational planning and geopolitical calculations of Hamas. It highlights the isolation that militant groups like Hamas face, often overestimating their ability to control complex and interwoven dynamics on the ground.
As we reevaluate the events of 7 October and their aftermath, it becomes clear that a more nuanced understanding is needed. Rather than attributing the attacks solely to chaos or miscalculations, we must consider the possibility that internal dynamics within Hamas and differing objectives among its leadership could have played significant roles.
Additionally, the broader geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, characterized by competing interests and shifting alliances, further complicates the narrative. The reluctance of other militant groups to jump into the fray may reflect deeper strategic considerations and a more cautious approach to conflict escalation.
The unanswered question of what Hamas thought would happen when it launched the 7 October attacks against Israel continues to haunt the narrative. While initial theories of chaos and miscalculation provided some explanation, the passage of time and the unfolding events suggest a more intricate web of strategic missteps and flawed assumptions.
If anything, this episode serves as a stark reminder of the unpredictable and volatile nature of conflict in the Middle East. It underscores the importance of understanding the multifaceted motivations and calculations of all parties involved, and the often-devastating consequences of those calculations going awry.
As the war wages on, bringing with it unimaginable human suffering and political turmoil, we are left to sift through the fragments of these complexities, seeking answers in a landscape where certainty remains perpetually elusive.
