Military

The killing of Izz al-Din al-Haddad, the recently appointed head of Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, has dealt a symbolic blow to the Palestinian group in Gaza, but the impact on its military operations is far from certain.

Al-Haddad was killed on Friday in a sophisticated dual-strike on a residential apartment in Gaza City’s Remal neighbourhood and a vehicle attempting to flee the scene. The delivery of heavy munitions into a densely populated area, packed with displaced civilians, killed seven other Palestinians, including women and children, and wounded 50 people.

Yet, despite Israeli claims that the killing will cripple the group’s operational capacity, analysts argue that its decentralised nature is built to absorb such shocks. As the region watches to see how the resistance faction will respond, al-Haddad’s death raises critical questions about the future of the fragile “ceasefire” and who remains to lead the Qassam Brigades.

Operational impact: Will the Qassam Brigades collapse?

The killings of Qassam Brigades commanders, including Mohammed Deif, Marwan Issa, and Yahya Sinwar’s brother Mohammed, left al-Haddad as the key military figure managing the fight against Israel.

Saeed Ziad, a Palestinian political analyst, told Al Jazeera that while the loss is a “massive symbolic and moral blow” to Palestinians, the immediate operational impact on Hamas’s armed wing will be limited.

“The Qassam Brigades are not built on a hierarchical, sequential structure, but a parallel one,” Ziad explained. “Over the past two decades, Hamas has transitioned into a decentralised guerrilla force. Units operate as isolated, self-sufficient groups with their own logistical supply lines and combat doctrines.”

“If a brigade or battalion loses its commander, the group already knows its mission and has the resources to execute it independently,” he said. Reorganising the Qassam Brigades’ central command to cope with the loss will likely take mere days, not months.

Furthermore, al-Haddad had successfully utilised the October ceasefire with Israel to rebuild the group’s infrastructure. “Over the past 200 days, he reconstructed the resistance’s capabilities – its tunnels, weaponry and combat formations – making it capable of defending itself once again,” Ziad noted.

Who is left in the Hamas military leadership?

Israeli officials have boasted that they are close to dismantling Hamas’s central command, claiming that only two members of the military council before the pre-October 2023 attacks on Israel – Mohammed Awad and Imad Aqel – are alive.

However, analysts point out that Hamas’s military wing, which boasted roughly 50,000 fighters before the war, possesses a deep bench of cadres and a strict protocol for leadership succession that enables it to quickly recover when commanders are killed.

“The resistance typically appoints a first, second, and third deputy for every active commander, from the general commander down to the platoon leaders,” Ziad said. “Filling these voids happens rapidly.”

Hamas immediately confirmed Haddad’s death, with spokesperson Hazem Qassem officially mourning him as the “General Commander” of the Qassam Brigades. He stressed that despite his death being a “massive loss”, the group’s “long journey of resistance continues”.

The ‘Ghost’ of the Qassam Brigades

Born in the early 1970s, al-Haddad joined Hamas upon its inception in 1987. He rose through the ranks from an infantry soldier to commander of the group’s Gaza City Brigade, overseeing six battalions – each consisting of 1,000 fighters plus 4,000 support personnel.

He played a foundational role in establishing al-Majd – Hamas’s internal security apparatus designed to track down Israeli intelligence collaborators. But it was his ability to survive multiple assassination attempts – including bombings of his home in 2009, 2012, 2021, and three separate times during the current genocidal war on Gaza – that earned him the moniker “Ghost”.

Al-Haddad left an indelible strategic mark on the movement as a primary architect of the October 7, 2023 attacks. He personally oversaw the breach of the eastern fence, directed elite units that stormed the Re’im military base and the Fajja outpost. According to intelligence reports, it was al-Haddad who handed localised commanders a paper hours before the attack detailing the operation and ordering the capture of Israeli soldiers.

In January 2025, an Israeli air raid killed his son, Suhaib, but al-Haddad survived and continued to command operations and oversee the detention of Israeli captives until a deal was reached.

A fragile ‘ceasefire’ on the brink

Shortly after Friday’s strike, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Israel Katz issued a rare joint statement, boasting that the killing was carried out under their direct orders.

Mohannad Mustafa, an analyst of Israeli affairs, said al-Haddad’s killing shows that Israel is attempting to “normalise” blatant violations of the “ceasefire” agreement, while the Netanyahu-Katz statement was an appeal to Washington to allow it to continue the killing campaign. At least 871 Palestinians have been killed since the “ceasefire” was announced on October 10, 2025, most of them civilians.

“Netanyahu is pitching this to the US administration as a necessary step to ‘disarm Hamas’ under the Trump plan,” Mustafa told Al Jazeera. “But the reality is that Israel never wanted this ceasefire. It was imposed on them.”

By systematically killing civilians, police, and military figures without offering immediate justifications for “ceasefire” breaches, Israel aims to provoke a response. “The ultimate goal is to force Hamas to retaliate, leading to the collapse of the agreement and giving Israel the green light to launch ‘Gideon 2’ – a military operation to occupy the entirety of the Gaza Strip,” Mustafa added.

With Netanyahu lacking a definitive strategic victory, such as the total surrender of Hamas, Ziad said the Israeli leadership is now leaning heavily on a “philosophy of assassinations” to project a “picture of victory” to its domestic base.

But history has shown that killings of leading military figures, such as al-Haddad, rarely have a significant long-term impact on armed Palestinian movements like Hamas.

“For the fighters and the society in Gaza, these killings create a blood covenant,” Ziad said. “It hardens their resolve. Retreating after the loss of leaders like Deif, Sinwar, or Haddad is viewed as a betrayal of that blood.”

Istanbul, Turkiye – When investigations by Al Jazeera and other media outlets in 2024 revealed that Israeli-linked artificial intelligence (AI) systems such as Lavender and Gospel had helped generate thousands of military targets in Gaza, critics warned that warfare was entering a new era – one driven not only by soldiers and bombs, but by algorithms, data, and surveillance technology.

Then, in September 2024, thousands of pagers and walkie-talkies used by members of Hezbollah exploded in coordinated attacks in Lebanon, widely attributed to Israeli intelligence operations that had turned ordinary communication devices into weapons.

And, last year, reporting by Al Jazeera also raised concerns about the use of cloud and data infrastructure linked to major US technology companies in Israeli surveillance operations involving Palestinians.

For a growing number of scholars, economists and political thinkers, such developments reflect more than just the changing nature of conflict. They show how power in the modern world is increasingly exercised not just through military force, but through technology, finance and control over information.

That argument has revived broader debates around decolonisation – a term historically associated with the dismantling of European empires after World War II, when countries across Asia, Africa and the Middle East gained formal independence.

But many proponents of what is termed “decolonial theory” – a school of thought arguing that colonial-era systems of power and hierarchy still shape modern politics, economics and knowledge – argue that colonial power structures never fully disappeared. Instead, they evolved, embedding themselves in global financial systems, technology platforms, media networks and even the production of knowledge itself.

Dependence of Global South countries on Western technology, digital infrastructure and global markets can create new forms of political and economic vulnerability, particularly across the Global South.

“A generation may have grown up believing they had never experienced colonialism or exploitation,” Esra Albayrak, board chair of the NUN Foundation for Education and Culture and daughter of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, told Al Jazeera during the World Decolonization Forum in Istanbul on May 11-12.

“Yet, mentally, they may still be living under colonial influence.”

The war in Gaza marked a turning point, Albayrak says, shining a spotlight on how international principles are not applied equally. Global institutions have so far failed to stop what many countries and rights groups have described as genocide against Palestinians.

“The world is sounding an alarm, and we can no longer afford to remain indifferent to it,” she said.

A techno-feudal era

Albayrak argues that a handful of technology companies are emerging as new, invisible centres of power, shaping how information is produced, circulated and consumed in the digital age.

She describes the digital sphere as the realm of what she calls “future colonialism”, warning that AI systems trained largely on Western-centric data risk reinforcing existing global inequalities.

“When AI systems are run by those tech companies and trained on Western sources, they risk carrying the hierarchies of the past into tomorrow’s digital world, as they now have personalised data, suppressing identity,” Albayrak said.

By this, she means that most major AI models are still trained largely on English-language and Western-produced data – a pattern critics say risks sidelining non-Western languages, cultures and perspectives.

On social media platforms, algorithms tend to amplify some conflicts while rendering others nearly invisible, effectively shaping what billions of users see, discuss and remember online.

Walter D Mignolo, professor at Duke University, argues that while what we historically see as “formal colonialism” may have largely ended, systems of Western dominance continue through economics, culture, technology and knowledge production.

“Coloniality is not over. It is all over the world,” Mignolo said, arguing that modern ideas of development and progress often have the effect of pressuring societies to conform to Western norms.

Rather than simply resisting those systems, he said, societies must find a way to “re-exist” by rebuilding intellectual and cultural autonomy outside dominant global frameworks.

Colonisers in the financial age

The March 2026 Global Debt Report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reveals that 44 countries face severe debt burdens, often aggravated by global conflicts, forcing some governments to spend more on interest payments than on health or education.

This is not a new phenomenon, as developing countries have been labouring under the weight of foreign debt for decades.

But British political economist and author Ann Pettifor told Al Jazeera that modern forms of domination are now increasingly embedded not in empires or nation-states, but in financial systems operating beyond democratic oversight.

Pettifor points to the growing influence of “shadow” banking networks – financial institutions operating largely outside traditional banking regulations – and giant asset managers such as BlackRock, which manages $13 trillion in assets.

Much of the global financial architecture now functions largely outside the regulatory control of governments, she says, including that of Western states themselves.

“This is not a state colonising other states,” Pettifor said. “This is the financial system colonising the whole world, including my country and the US.”

She argues that elected governments increasingly struggle to control key economic realities – from energy prices to commodity markets – because those systems are dictated by global financial actors operating far beyond public accountability.

In Nigeria, for example, Pettifor says, efforts to expand domestic refining capacity continue to face pressure from international financial institutions and global energy markets to keep fuel prices tied to global markets and maintain reliance on imported refined oil products, despite its vast oil reserves.

Coordinated cooperation between developing nations may be necessary to challenge the dominance of Western-centred financial systems, Pettifor says, pointing to growing efforts across parts of West Africa to expand regional refining capacity and reduce dependence on imported fuel. Yet such ambitions can also leave critical sectors dependent on the decisions and influence of a small number of powerful private actors.

Global financial markets, algorithm-driven platforms, and foreign-controlled digital infrastructure increasingly define everyday life – from fuel and food prices to the information people consume online and the technologies governments and societies depend on, observers say.

A ‘mastery complex’

As wars become increasingly influenced by AI, digital infrastructure and financial dependency, debates around colonisation are focusing less on territorial control and more on who influences energy prices, lending systems, access to technology and the flow of information across borders, observers say.

Albayrak draws a parallel between today’s debates around technology and global power and Rudyard Kipling’s 1899 poem “The White Man’s Burden”, published as the US took control of the Philippines following the Spanish-American War. The poem framed colonial expansion as a moral obligation to “civilise” other societies rather than an exercise of domination.

Albayrak said such traces of “mastery complex” still survive today, though in different forms – not necessarily through military occupation, but through technological, financial and informational influence.

But what the world really needs, she argues, is a global order built not on hierarchy, but on shared responsibility.

“The burden should belong to humanity collectively.”

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced tough questions Tuesday from Republican and Democratic lawmakers about the Trump administration’s end game for the Iran war, the cost of the conflict and its impact on diminishing U.S. weapons stockpiles.

For his part, the Pentagon chief softened his tone from hearings before Congress nearly two weeks ago, notably avoiding the same pointed criticism of lawmakers in his opening remarks as he outlined the Trump administration’s efforts to ramp up production of weapons and other military capabilities.

Even so, Hegseth insisted that the military has plenty of missile defense systems and other munitions for the Iran war or future conflicts as both Republicans and Democrats hammered him with those concerns.

“I take issue with the characterization that munitions are depleted in a public forum,” Hegseth said. “That’s not true.”

The cost of the Iran war has risen to about $29 billion, the vast bulk of which — $24 billion — is related to replacing and repairing munitions but also includes operational costs to keep forces deployed, Pentagon comptroller Jay Hurst said. That’s up from $25 billion that he told lawmakers nearly two weeks ago.

The powerful House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees that oversee defense spending are holding back-to-back hearings to review the Trump administration’s 2027 military budget proposal, which calls for a historic allocation of $1.5 trillion. The discussions in the House quickly veered into the handling of a war that appears locked in a stalemate as higher fuel prices pose political problems for Republicans in the midterm congressional elections.

Hegseth and Caine face bipartisan pushback on munitions stockpiles

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, told Hegseth that the “question must be answered at the end of this crisis: What have we accomplished and at what cost?”

“This administration has not presented Congress with any kind of clear or coherent strategy week to week, day to day, hour to hour,” DeLauro said. “The rationale shifts, the objectives change. The end game is ill-defined when it is defined at all.”

California Republican Rep. Ken Calvert, the House subcommittee’s chair, also asked about the impact of the Iran war on military funding as well as the U.S. military’s weapons stockpiles.

“Questions persist about whether we are building the depth and reliance required for a high-end conflict,” Calvert said.

Minnesota Rep. Betty McCollum, the defense subcommittee’s ranking Democrat, pressed Hegseth on whether the military has a plan to draw down troops in the Middle East if Congress passes so-far-unsuccessful efforts to end the Iran war.

“We have a plan to escalate if necessary,” Hegseth said. “We have a plan to retrograde if necessary. We have a plan to shift assets.”

He said he would not reveal any next steps publicly. Noting repeated questions from lawmakers over the military’s weapons stockpiles, drawn down from the Iran war, Hegseth said the concerns have been “unhelpfully overstated” and that “we have plenty of what we need.”

He said the defense industry has been told to “build more and build faster,” blaming the military industrial base’s inadequate capacity on previous administrations and U.S. aid to Ukraine in its war with Russia.

Trump administration faces pressure from impact of the Iran war

President Trump is facing increasing pressure from the economic shocks of Iran effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping corridor where 20% of the world’s oil normally flows. The U.S. military in turn has blockaded Iranian ports and the two sides have traded fire, with American forces thwarting attacks on their warships and disabling Tehran-linked oil tankers.

Trump said Monday that the ceasefire is on “massive life support” and criticized Iran for its latest proposal, pointing to his demands that Iran significantly limit its nuclear program.

“I would call it the weakest right now after reading that piece of garbage they sent us,” Trump said.

The Republican president also said he wanted to suspend the federal gas tax to help Americans shoulder surging fuel prices. He has previously said higher costs are worth it to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Tuesday’s hearings are giving a mostly new group of lawmakers the chance to grill or applaud Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the planning and execution of the war.

The Senate hearing later Tuesday will include Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican whose reelection this year is far from guaranteed. She voted with Democrats on an effort to halt the conflict late last month, saying she wants to see a defined strategy for bringing the war to a close.

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, another Republican on the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, has voted against the string of unsuccessful war powers resolutions but spoken of the need for congressional authorization so Americans will know the war’s limits and objectives.

He also will face plenty of friendly Republicans, including the Senate subcommittee’s chair, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and perhaps the Iran war’s biggest booster in Congress, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

Finley, Toropin and Barrow write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta.

Russia has held one of its most scaled-back Victory Day parades in years, citing the threat of attack from Ukraine, where a decisive victory for Moscow’s forces has remained elusive more than four years into the deadliest conflict in Europe since World War II.

The May 9 parade on Moscow’s Red Square is Russia’s most revered national holiday, a moment to celebrate the Soviet Union’s defeat of Nazi Germany and to commemorate the 27 million Soviet citizens, including many from what is now Ukraine, who were killed during the war.

Once used to showcase Russia’s military might, including its nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missiles, this year’s parade featured no tanks or other heavy military hardware rolling across the cobblestones of Red Square.

Instead, weapons including a Yars intercontinental ballistic missile, the new Arkhangelsk nuclear submarine, the Peresvet laser weapon, the Sukhoi Su-57 fighter jet, the S-500 surface-to-air missile system and a range of drones and artillery were displayed on giant screens on the square and broadcast on state television.

Soldiers and sailors, some of whom have served in Ukraine, marched and chanted as President Vladimir Putin looked on, seated alongside Russian veterans in the shadow of Vladimir Lenin’s Mausoleum. North Korean troops, who have fought against Ukrainian forces in Russia’s Kursk region, also took part in the march.

Fighter jets flew above the Kremlin’s towers and Putin delivered an eight-minute address, promising victory in the war in Ukraine, which the Kremlin refers to as a “special military operation”.

“The great feat of the victorious generation inspires the soldiers carrying out the tasks of the special military operation today,” Putin said. “They are confronting an aggressive force armed and supported by the entire NATO bloc. And in spite of that, our heroes march forward.”

Israeli attacks killed at least 31 people in southern Lebanon on Friday, including a rescue worker, Lebanon’s official National News Agency said.

Warring sides accuse each other of violations as attacks continue across front lines.

Russia and Ukraine have accused each other of breaching a short ceasefire announced by Moscow to coincide with Victory Day commemorations marking the Soviet Union’s defeat of Nazi Germany.

The Kremlin said its forces downed 264 Ukrainian drones early on Friday, with officials in Moscow reporting attempted attacks on the capital and in the Perm region in the Ural Mountains.

The truce, declared from May 8 to May 10, was intended to cover annual celebrations that include a military parade in Moscow.

Russia had warned that any disruption would trigger a large-scale missile response against Kyiv, urging foreign diplomats to leave the Ukrainian capital before potential escalation.

In a separate announcement, the Russian transport ministry said on Friday that 13 airports in Russia’s south halted operations due to drone attacks.

“Operations at the regional centre in Rostov-on-Don, which manages air traffic in southern Russia, have been temporarily suspended after Ukrainian drone struck the administrative building of the ‘Southern Russia Air Navigation’ branch,” the ministry said.

There were no casualties, it added.

Victory Day commemorations mark the Soviet Union’s loss of 27 million people in World War II, as it drove Nazi forces back to Berlin, where Adolf Hitler died, and the Red Army’s Soviet Victory Banner was raised over the Reichstag in May 1945.

‘We will defend our people’s lives’

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Russian forces continued to attack positions overnight, dismissing the ceasefire as ineffective.

He said Russia had carried out more than 140 attacks on front-line positions by early morning, alongside 10 assaults and more than 850 drone attacks.

“As we did over the past 24 hours, Ukraine will respond in kind today as well. We will defend our positions and people’s lives,” Zelenskyy said.

Ukraine also reported striking a Russian oil facility in Yaroslavl, deep inside Russian territory, in what Kyiv described as retaliation for attacks on its cities.

“Ukraine’s long-range sanctions continued in response to Russian strikes on our cities and villages,” Zelenskyy said.

Kyiv had proposed an open-ended ceasefire beginning on May 6, which it said Russia ignored. Moscow did not adopt that proposal, and neither side accepted the other’s terms.

In remarks before the truce, Zelenskyy criticised Russia’s approach to the commemorations, saying Moscow sought a pause “to hold their parade, to go out onto the square safely for an hour once a year, and then continue killing, killing our people and waging war”.

“The Russians are already talking about strikes after May 9. Strange and certainly inappropriate of the Russian leadership,” he added.

“Just as 81 years ago, so now America can help peace with a just and strong stance against the aggressor,” Zelenskyy said. “And it is important that the American people now view Russia precisely in this way – as an aggressor.”

May 7 (UPI) — U.S. Central Command said Thursday that American forces struck Iranian military sites responsible for “unprovoked” missile, drone and boat attacks on U.S. warships in the Strait of Hormuz.

“U.S. forces intercepted unprovoked Iranian attacks and responded with self-defense strikes as U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers transited the Strait of Hormuz to the Gulf of Oman,” CENTCOM said in a statement.

CENTCOM said Iran had targeted the USS Truxtun, the USS Rafael Peralta and the USS Mason.

“No assets were struck,” it said.

The U.S. strikes targeted the Bandar Abbas and Qeshm ports near the strait, CBS News and CNN reported, each citing unnamed U.S. officials.

The attacked Iranian facilities included “missile and drone launch sites; command and control locations; and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance nodes,” according to CENTCOM.

After the U.S. vessels had transited the strait, President Donald Trump promptly took to social media to post a warning to Iran.

“Missiles were shot at our Destroyers, and were easily knocked down,” he wrote. “Likewise, drones came, and were incinerated while in the air. They dropped ever so beautifully down to the Ocean, very much like a butterfly dropping to its grave! A normal Country would have allowed these Destroyers to pass, but Iran is not a Normal country. They are led by LUNATICS.”

Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy said in a statement carried by Iranian state-owned outlet Press TV that it attacked the U.S. warships in response to an alleged U.S. cease-fire violation as well as a U.S. attack on an Iranian tanker near the Iranian city of Jask.

Iranian forces caused “significant damage” to the U.S. warships, it said.

A spokesperson for the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters also said the Iranian strikes were in response to the “aggressive, terrorist and outlaw” U.S. military, Press TV reported.

The attacks come after Trump earlier this week called off Project Freedom, a U.S. military operation to escort ships through the Strait of Hormuz, as Washington and Tehran try to reach an agreement to end the war.

Despite the attacks, Trump told reporters that the fragile cease-fire that halted the war that began in late February was still intact.

“They trifled with us today. We blew them away,” Trump told reporters Thursday evening.

“If there’s no cease-fire, you’re not going to have to know. You’re just going to have to look at one big glow coming out of Iran.”