The July 31 assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau, in Tehran has thrown Masoud Pezeshkian’s presidency into a crisis: focus has changed from the newly elected president’s reform agenda to the conflict with regional adversary Israel, the suspected perpetrator. In defense of Pezeshkian, reformist media outlets criticize the unpreparedness of Iran’s intelligence and security services and warn against the risk of a war with Israel and potentially the United States. 

• August 5: Reformist columnist Saeed Harasani wrote on the frontpage of Shargh Daily:  
  • “Why wasn’t the possibility of the assassination of Haniyeh predicted? Security protocol of individuals is based on an assessment of the assassination risk. Should any factor show an increase in the risk of assassination of individuals, it will be reflected in increased physical protection, change of transportation routes, identification of the sources of threat, and the like. The question is, why didn’t the authorities manage to connect the risks of Israel’s attempts at entangling Iran in a war, Kamala Harris’ increased pressure against Netanyahu, the Zionist regime’s operations in Beirut … to the risk of assassination of Haniyeh … ? In general, a government conducting an operation on the presidential inauguration day is an unlikely event … Nevertheless … the fundamental question remains unanswered: How did the security services fail to assess the risk of assassination of a foreign guest?” 
• August 5: Discussing different theories concerning the assassination of Haniyeh, reformist Etemad newspaper interviewed Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, former parliamentary National Security and Foreign Policy Committee member, and Seyyed Javad Hosseini-Kia, a former parliamentarian: 
  • Falahatpisheh warned of the risk of Iran being infiltrated by foreign enemies and said: “Unfortunately, national television is offering theories concerning the assassination of martyr Ismail Haniyeh, which not only add to confusion, but are psychologically harmful to society. There are those who speak of launching a missile from outside or inside of the country. There are also those who put forward the usual microdrone scenario. A third group claims a foreign fighter plane was to blame, and foreign media put forward the theory that a bomb was planted in the building … Certain individuals and groups are trying to push the country into a fast retaliatory act, without raising the slightest criticism against the performance of the government. Such media and currents are not asking why the issue,” of Haniyeh’s safety in Tehran, “had not been properly assessed.” Falahatpisheh concluded: “Individuals and currents who are pushing the country toward unknown horizons are acting to promote the interests of enemies of the state and not the national interests of Iran.” 
  • Hosseini-Kia: “There is no need for shaping the domestic atmosphere with the theories on likelihood of infiltration of Iran. The central issue is that the Zionists martyred Ismail Haniyeh, Iran’s guest, and Iran must answer this.” 
• August 5: Mohammad-Ali Sobhani, former ambassador to Qatar, Lebanon, and Syria, in a conversation with Shargh Daily, warned President Masoud Pezeshkian against entangling Iran in a war:  
  • “I believe there are some, certain currents within Iran, Israel, and other enemies of the Islamic Republic, who, by creating crises, are trying to change the reformist path of the Pezeshkian Cabinet … I am therefore urging the Pezeshkian Cabinet to ignore such manufactured crises and concentrate on the main issue … As for Iran’s response, should we entangle Iran in an all-out war, the very thing that Netanyahu desires … ? The reaction must be controlled and intelligent … in order to avoid confrontation with the United States.”