The new leader of Hamas is expected to establish a group that is divided in Iran | Hamas

Khalil al-Hayya election as the new head of Hamas is much more than the filling of a position left by the war. The election by a single vote after nearly two years of joint leadership, reflects divisions within a party that has been replaced by deportations, regional unrest and growing ties with Iran.

Al-Hayya, Yahya Sinwar’s former deputy in Gaza and a member of the five-member council that has led Hamas since Sinwar’s assassination in October 2024, defeated former political bureau chief Khaled Meshaal in a 35-34 vote. That limited outcome includes a central question facing Hamas: whether it can reconnect its rival currents or whether al-Hayya’s victory will consolidate the influence of a camp more closely aligned with Tehran.

From Gaza to the diaspora

When Hamas was founded in December 1987, the person who stood at the head of the group was much smaller than today. His leadership was very simple before he grew up over the next two decades.

Although born in Gaza, the Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its Arabic name Hamas, was a joint project of several organizations operating under the umbrella of the Bilad al-Sham, or Levant, branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. This includes the Muslim Brotherhood organizations in Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan where they live as well as organizations abroad, especially in Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Initially, the Muslim Brotherhood’s leadership in Gaza controlled everything. Like Muslim Brotherhood organizations elsewhere, they were governed by an elected Shura Council representing various parts of the Gaza Strip. The board also elected an executive office from among its members.

It was this general office that met on December 9, 1987, and decided to transform the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza into the Islamic Resistance Movement. Its members were Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdulaziz al-Rantissi, Salah Shihada, Abdulfattah Dukhan, Muhammad Sham’ah, Ibrahim al-Yazuri and Issa al-Nashar.

That leadership model was soon undermined by the oppression of Israel. After Hamas announced a series of counter-terrorism operations, the Israeli army launched a series of counter-attacks. A campaign of mass incarceration prevented its first and second party leaders from moving.

The crackdown has worried Hamas’ support network outside Palestine. Mousa Abu Marzouk, who is studying medicine in the United States, was sent to Gaza to rescue the remnants of the hard-hit organization.

The expansion of Hamas’ external arms to rebuild the group is the beginning of the transfer of leadership from Gaza to the diaspora. Later Abu Marzouk moved to Jordan and became the head of the political organization of the administration. the management of the administration of the administration

A design that maximizes internal divisions

Under Meshaal, Hamas reorganized its leadership into three main divisions. Gaza, the West Bank and the diaspora. Each had a Shura Council appointed by its leadership.

The goal was to decentralize decisions and establish clear divisions of labor. Inevitably, however, the new system also created an overarching hierarchy, overlapping mandates, conflicting interests and constant conflict between the various branches of the movement.

The removal of Hamas from Jordan in the late 1990s was initially seen as a blessing in disguise. During the next 11 years when its leadership was established in Damascus, the group greatly expanded its international relations.

It was at this time that the so-called axis of resistance, which includes Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Palestinian groups, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, began to form. With many Arab governments aligned with the opposition camp, known at the time as the “central coalition”, Hamas’ cooperation and dependence on Iran and growing seem inevitable.

Since the early 1990s, Iran has sought, with little success, to turn Hamas into an ally similar to Hezbollah and, to a lesser extent, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Throughout Meshaal’s tenure, however, Hamas maintained its independence despite accepting Iranian economic and military support.

The outbreak of the Arab Spring

That relationship was severely tested by the Arab Spring. Hamas has welcomed and supported the popular uprising and rejected Iran’s demands to cooperate with the Syrian government as it seeks to end the uprising. The group instead moved from Damascus to Doha, abandoning what some of its members in Syria saw as the greatest political and political gains they had made over the past decade.

The departure from Damascus coincided with the end of Mesaal’s second and expected last term as head of the political office. The group’s constitution does not allow him to stand down for another term, and his deputy in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, is expected to succeed him.

Meshaal was still persuaded by allies inside and outside Hamas that regional developments made a leadership change unnecessary. A campaign was launched to change the rules and allow him to run for a third term.

The laws were changed, and Mesaala was reappointed. But the decision created a major internal crisis and opened a conflict between competing leaderships that continued to grow in the years that followed.

After the coup in Egypt and the success of the insurgents who crushed many aspects of the Arab Spring, Hamas found itself under pressure from both sides. Arab governments opposed to the uprising punished the group for their unquestioning support. Iran, meanwhile, has punished Hamas for refusing to represent the Syrian government.

By the time Haniyeh replaced Meshaal as head of the political organization, the group’s financial problems had worsened. The diaspora branch, which at that time was led by Meshaal, was deprived of much of the money it needed to advance its grand scheme of things.

Iran also said which parts of Hamas should benefit from financial aid, insisting that money should not be given to the Meshaal group. In fact, this allowed Tehran to strengthen Iranian influence within Hamas and weaken opposition power to Meshaal.

Sinwar’s rise to full leadership or the full leadership established after his assassination did not end the war.

Conquest without a valid license

Based on this, al-Hayya’s partial victory will be interpreted in some quarters as a victory for the pro-Iran camp. Until a few years ago, this modern system represented only a few people in this group. Since then it has been fueled by the idea that Iran is the only country in the region willing to support Hamas and by the belief among its supporters that Iran is emerging from the current US war strong and determined.

Yet the closeness of the results also shows that Hamas remains deeply divided. Al-Hayya may have won the presidency, but the one-vote margin does not mean that one of the incumbents will undermine the other.

For those who judge leadership primarily by charisma, Meshaal remains supremely dominant. Hamas, however, has historically relied more on individualism than on clarity of vision and consensus among them.

Criticism of Al-Hayya

Al-Hayya’s biggest challenge may not be to lead Hamas at a critical time. It will be working with his colleagues to fix the internal chaos that has existed for more than a decade, re-uniting the administration.

Whether they win will determine whether this election will be the beginning of a new alliance or another step in the consolidation of one camp due to its administration.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect Al Jazeera’s influence.