In a report published by “The Economist,” the magazine delved into the impact of the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary-General of Hezbollah, on Lebanon and the broader Middle East. The party now faces a critical moment after Nasrallah’s assassination, leaving its leadership under intense pressure amid the rapidly changing circumstances.
The magazine, in its report translated by “Arabi21,” noted that “the party was shocked after the Israeli army announced the killing of Nasrallah. Hezbollah remained silent for over 24 hours, making no statements regarding his fate or the massive bombardment that targeted his headquarters in the southern suburbs of Beirut. Even the party’s affiliated media were in a state of disbelief. Finally, the group confirmed his death at around 2:30 PM.”
The magazine added that “by that time, Israeli planes had carried out a series of additional airstrikes across Lebanon. Their objective was to destroy more of Hezbollah’s missile and rocket stockpiles, including anti-ship missiles that could be launched at natural gas platforms in the Mediterranean Sea. Israel sees itself in a race against time to destroy as much as possible before its enemy can regroup.”
The Question of Retaliation
The magazine explained that “Hezbollah launched dozens of rockets at northern Israel the morning after Nasrallah’s killing, but this was no different from its previous tactics, reflecting the party’s state of chaos.” It pointed out that “it’s too early to predict how Hezbollah will seek revenge, as even its surviving leaders might not know the appropriate means of retaliation yet. However, it’s easy to infer that Nasrallah’s assassination will reshape Lebanon and the region in ways unimaginable a year ago.”
The magazine stated that “since October 8, when Hezbollah began firing rockets at northern settlements in solidarity with Gaza, Nasrallah envisioned maintaining an open but limited border conflict. The implicit rules of engagement held until July 27, when a Hezbollah missile, intended for an Israeli military base, missed its target and killed 12 children on a soccer field.”
By that time, Israeli operations in Gaza had concluded, and the Israeli government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, seized the opportunity to change the rules with Hezbollah. Just three days after the incident, Israel assassinated Hezbollah’s military commander, Fuad Shukr. That strike was merely a prelude to a series of attacks in September, including the detonation of thousands of booby-trapped devices and a campaign of air raids targeting Hezbollah’s missile and rocket arsenal.
The magazine noted that the Israeli army had begun preparing for the strike that killed Nasrallah two days earlier. When they learned that Hezbollah’s leader had arrived at his headquarters for a meeting, the strike was approved. This was the culmination of 18 years of planning, following a failed assassination attempt by Israel during the 2006 war. Since then, Israel had invested significant intelligence resources to penetrate Hezbollah’s operations and its communications with Iran.
The magazine listed some of Nasrallah’s potential successors, including his deputy, Naim Qassem, and another deputy, Hashem Safieddine, who heads the party’s executive council. The former, aged 71, is seen as an unsuitable choice, while Safieddine is viewed as the frontrunner. He is a decade younger than Qassem, a cousin of Nasrallah, and has close ties to Iran, being related by marriage to the late Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, assassinated by the US in 2020.
A Critical Moment
The magazine emphasized that whoever takes charge will face the most perilous moment in Hezbollah’s four-decade history. The threat isn’t just because Israel has decimated nearly all of its military leadership, wiping out centuries of combined experience in just two months. It also stems from the party’s weakened standing in Lebanese public opinion, which had begun to resent its dominance over national politics.
For years, Hezbollah has been a close ally of Iran, playing a pivotal role in supporting Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria and providing training and guidance to other Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Yemen.
This track record gave Nasrallah every reason to expect Iran to come to his aid, especially after Israel carried out the shocking assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas, in Tehran. But this did not happen, partly because Iranian leaders fear that Israel may have penetrated their ranks as well. They are also concerned about how openly supporting groups like Hezbollah might impact their standing at home. With growing public discontent over a collapsing economy, Iran’s regime is hesitant to appear as if it’s investing more resources in a proxy that seems to be losing its battle against Israel.
The magazine pointed out that on September 28, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei announced that he would issue a “significant statement” regarding developments in Lebanon. However, the statement turned out to be “hollow.” Khamenei claimed that Israeli strikes would not harm Hezbollah’s “solid structure” and that the party would continue to lead the fight against Israel.
The magazine suggested that the events of the past two weeks could reshape Iran’s security policy in the long term. For decades, Iran viewed its militias as the primary deterrent against any Israeli or American attack. Now, it watches as its most powerful arm is decimated without a proper response. Some Iranians are already arguing that the country should build and test a nuclear bomb, as conventional deterrence appears to have failed, leaving nuclear deterrence as the only option.
The magazine stated that Khamenei has always preferred sheltering under the protection of a nuclear bomb, but recent events may change his mind. Even if it doesn’t, at 85 years old, the decision may soon be out of his hands. However, such a move would leave Iran in a predicament. It once relied on Hezbollah to protect its nuclear facilities from attack, but with Hezbollah’s capabilities now diminished, those facilities would be left vulnerable if Iran pursued nuclear ambitions.
According to the magazine, an Arab official, upon watching the news on Saturday morning, drew parallels between these events and the Six-Day War of 1967. This was not only because Israel delivered a swift and harsh blow to Hezbollah but also because both conflicts shattered long-standing illusions that had shaped the region.
The magazine elaborated that Gamal Abdel Nasser, the charismatic ruler of Egypt in the mid-20th century, had cultivated the myth of military prowess. However, Israel’s swift victory in 1967 obliterated this illusion, with half of Egypt’s army bogged down in a futile war in Yemen at the time. That marked the beginning of the end of Arab-Israeli wars and the collapse of the Arab nationalism championed by Nasser.
The magazine concluded that Nasrallah spent years speaking of the “axis of resistance,” claiming they were strong and united. Yet, Israel decapitated this axis within weeks, while Iran remained passive.
The report closed by noting that Hezbollah is not on the verge of disappearing. It still commands thousands of armed fighters, a large arsenal of long-range missiles, and a significant base of popular support. But the forces emerging from this conflict will be vastly different from those that entered it.
