On September 28, Israel carried out a high-stakes assassination that sent shockwaves across the Middle East. Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Hezbollah, was killed in a massive aerial strike on Beirut’s southern suburbs. This assassination marks a critical moment in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, and it raises a vital question: can Israel’s strategy of "divide and conquer" succeed in the face of such a complex regional power dynamic?
The Goal Behind Nasrallah's Assassination
Israel's recent actions, including the killing of Nasrallah, are part of a broader strategy. The goal is to force Hezbollah to stop supporting Hamas by escalating violence in Lebanon, thereby creating a rift within the "axis of resistance." This axis, which includes groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and their main supporter, Iran, has long posed a united front against Israeli influence in the region.
By removing Nasrallah, Israel hopes to weaken Hezbollah’s leadership, disrupt its chain of command, and ultimately create divisions among these allied groups. The thinking is that, without strong leadership, Hezbollah might be less effective in its military efforts and less able to support Hamas, which would help Israel focus on its offensive in Gaza without worrying about a northern front.
A Tactical Victory, But Strategic Challenges Remain
From a tactical standpoint, the assassination of Nasrallah and other high-ranking Hezbollah commanders might seem like a significant achievement. It gives Israel a temporary upper hand by disorganizing Hezbollah's leadership. The death of Ali Karaki, the commander of Hezbollah’s southern front, also symbolically weakens their morale.
However, international relations are rarely straightforward. The assassination may weaken Hezbollah temporarily, but it is unlikely to cause a complete breakdown in their ranks. In asymmetric conflicts, where one side has overwhelming conventional military power, and the other relies on unconventional warfare, killing a leader does not always produce the desired outcome. History has shown that groups like Hezbollah often have mechanisms in place for leadership succession to ensure continuity.
By decapitating the leadership, Israel risks making Hezbollah more unpredictable. New, potentially more radical commanders could take over, driven by revenge and a need to prove their strength. Instead of creating divisions, this move could actually bring Hezbollah closer to its allies, deepening their shared opposition to Israel.
The Paradox of Escalation
Israel's strategy to “divide and conquer” through escalation carries a paradox that makes it particularly risky. During the 2006 Lebanon War, Israel, despite being militarily superior, failed to achieve a decisive victory over Hezbollah. The reasons were rooted in the dynamics of asymmetric warfare. Hezbollah, as a non-state actor, leveraged its flexibility, familiarity with the terrain, and ability to inflict sustained costs on the Israeli military to draw out the conflict.
Similarly, in the current situation, the assassination of Nasrallah could provoke Hezbollah into a strategy of prolonged resistance. By simply maintaining its attacks on northern Israel, Hezbollah could frustrate Israeli attempts to stabilize its border and create lasting fear in nearby communities. The longer the conflict drags on, the more resources and political capital Israel will need to invest. This is exactly what Hezbollah might be betting on—a war of attrition where survival, not outright victory, is considered a success.
Potential for Backfire: Hezbollah's Next Moves
Hezbollah’s immediate response to Israel’s escalation has been relatively restrained. Instead of launching an all-out retaliation, they have focused on strategic responses, possibly waiting for Israel to overextend itself by initiating a ground invasion. Ground warfare would be favorable for Hezbollah, as they have developed an extensive network of tunnels and fortifications in southern Lebanon, giving them a home-field advantage that Israeli forces would struggle to counter.
Moreover, the presence of Israeli troops on Lebanese soil could limit Israel's reliance on airstrikes, its primary method of warfare. With the risk of friendly fire, Israel may not be able to deploy advanced aircraft like the F-35 in areas with active ground clashes. This limitation could significantly reduce Israel’s operational effectiveness, giving Hezbollah a chance to inflict heavier losses and, in turn, increase public pressure on Israel to withdraw.
Impact on the Axis of Resistance and Regional Dynamics
Israel's ultimate goal—decoupling Gaza and Lebanon—might be more challenging than anticipated. Hezbollah and Hamas are united not only by their mutual support for Palestinian resistance but also by shared ideological, political, and logistical ties fostered by Iran. The assassination of Nasrallah could further galvanize these groups, uniting them against a common enemy.
Instead of breaking the axis of resistance, Israel's aggressive tactics might, ironically, strengthen it. Nasrallah’s assassination may be seen by many in the Arab world as a martyrdom that boosts Hezbollah's legitimacy as a resistance movement. Already, Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian Civil War had eroded some of its credibility as a defender of Arab causes. However, this direct confrontation with Israel, particularly in light of Nasrallah’s killing, may restore some of that lost standing, portraying Hezbollah once again as a leading force resisting Israeli aggression.
In the broader context of international relations, Israel’s actions also have implications for its allies, particularly the United States. The current US administration has been supportive, replenishing Israel's military supplies. Yet, this support comes at a cost, both financially and politically. The more drawn-out this conflict becomes, the more pressure American politicians will face, especially from voters who oppose continued military aid to Israel. This could eventually lead to a situation where even Israel’s most crucial ally may urge a scaling back of its operations.
Can Divide and Conquer Succeed?
Israel’s strategy of “divide and conquer” after assassinating Nasrallah is a high-risk gamble that could easily backfire. While the killing of Hezbollah’s leader may have provided a short-term tactical advantage, it has also set the stage for a potentially prolonged and unpredictable conflict. Hezbollah, with its capability to adapt and endure, might turn Nasrallah’s death into a rallying cry, mobilizing further support and solidifying alliances within the axis of resistance.
In international relations, outcomes are often determined not by immediate military success but by the long-term ability to influence and maintain stability. Israel's escalation could fail to break the bonds between Hamas and Hezbollah and instead result in deeper regional entanglements and greater international scrutiny. Ultimately, the strategy of removing key leaders might weaken Hezbollah in the short run, but it risks fostering a stronger, more unified resistance movement in the long term.
As the conflict continues, Israel may have to choose between further escalation, with all the dangers that entails, or seeking a more sustainable diplomatic path. For Hezbollah, the goal will likely be to continue surviving and resist the pressure to retreat, because in the asymmetric battle they face, survival itself is victory.
