By outdoor-nature-child.com The ongoing conflict in Gaza has consistently held the potential for escalation. With frequent rocket attacks from Hezbollah, a Lebanese ally of Hamas, and retaliatory Israeli airstrikes, tens of thousands of civilians have been displaced on both sides of the border. Until recently, many analysts believed that neither Israel nor Hezbollah would engage in a full-scale escalation. However, recent developments have altered that perspective.
Last week, an unprecedented operation targeting thousands of Hezbollah operatives through the use of pagers and walkie-talkies reportedly shifted the dynamics. Many believe that Israel orchestrated these attacks. What prompted Israel to undertake such a significant operation at this moment? What does this reveal about the nature of modern warfare? Furthermore, how likely is it that a ground conflict could erupt between Israel and Hezbollah in the near future?
To comprehend the current situation, it’s important to trace the origins and evolution of Hezbollah. The group emerged in the early 1980s during the Lebanese civil war, primarily in response to Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon. Initially, Hezbollah presented itself as a resistance movement advocating for Lebanon’s Shia community, as noted by Lina Khatib, director of the Middle East Institute at SOAS University of London.
However, after Israel withdrew in 2000, Hezbollah retained its weaponry, disregarding a UN resolution that called for disarmament. It evolved into a formidable political force within Lebanon, exerting influence that extends beyond formal governance, backed by military capabilities that many analysts contend surpass those of the Lebanese Army. “Hezbollah essentially shapes Lebanon’s foreign policy and can declare war on its behalf,” Khatib observes.
The organization maintains strong ties with Iran, which serves as its primary arms supplier, as highlighted by Shashank Joshi, defense editor at The Economist. While there may not be a direct command structure, their goals and operational methods are closely aligned.
As for Israel’s precise role in the recent attacks, it remains officially ambiguous, reflecting a long-standing policy among Israeli officials. Investigative journalist Ronen Bergman from the New York Times points out that while Israel often claims responsibility for operations in the West Bank and Gaza, it refrains from doing so regarding Lebanon or Iran. This ambiguity has led many to associate the attacks with Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, which carries out operations that include intelligence gathering, sabotage, and targeted assassinations.
In the week following the initial pager attacks, walkie-talkies used by Hezbollah also came under fire. Gaining insight into these events is crucial.
Hezbollah alleged that Israel was involved in producing the pagers, though Israel has not claimed responsibility. It appears that Mossad executed a supply-chain operation, creating front companies that manufactured authentic pagers. According to Bergman, explosives were embedded in these devices intended for Hezbollah’s use. This operation traces back to 2018, when a young intelligence officer identified Hezbollah’s use of pagers and suggested infiltrating their supply chain, resulting in the delivery of approximately 4,500 booby-trapped devices.
There are claims suggesting Mossad had prior knowledge regarding the owners of these pagers before detonating the explosives. However, Joshi expresses skepticism towards these assertions, emphasizing that this was not an elaborate cyber-attack but rather a calculated strategy to exploit Hezbollah’s dependency on specific communication devices.
Media coverage of the explosions has further unveiled the internal dynamics of Hezbollah, a group typically known for its secrecy. Khatib mentions that many members are not even known to their immediate families, and the strikes have exposed key individuals within their ranks, a development that has already benefitted Israeli intelligence.
While some observers might view these attacks as a novel form of warfare, Joshi questions the overarching intent behind such tactics. While the act of embedding explosives within communication devices isn’t a groundbreaking concept, the implications could raise concerns about the precedent it establishes.
Experts suggest that Israel’s ability to execute such an operation will likely prompt Hezbollah to implement enhanced security measures, such as inspecting communication devices for explosives. As a result, Joshi posits that similar incidents may be rare in the future, framing this event as a unique, high-stakes operation.
Additionally, discussions within Israel’s defense establishment have surfaced regarding the timing of these attacks, with some officials expressing frustration over the decision to act now. There is growing concern that this might mark a shift in Israel’s approach to engagement with Hezbollah, contradicting earlier expectations of caution to avoid a multi-front conflict while addressing the situation in Gaza.
Despite the strategic implications of these attacks, many Israeli military leaders remain opposed to a ground invasion into Lebanon, wary of the historical pitfalls of past occupations. Bergman theorizes that the intent behind these operations could be to pressure Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, into agreeing to a ceasefire, even as Nasrallah pledges solidarity with Hamas, contingent on Israel’s military actions in Gaza.
Ultimately, the operations targeting Hezbollah’s communication infrastructure could reshape the dynamics of the conflict, enabling the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to refocus on Gaza. Yet, as Bergman cautions, this calculated move could equally escalate tensions, potentially leading to broader conflict rather than fostering a negotiated resolution.