The two consecutive operations carried out by Tel Aviv, involving the detonation of electronic devices used by Hezbollah members - military, security, and civilian personnel - can be described as acts of mass extermination. This is due to the high number of casualties, nearing 4,000 injured and dozens killed within minutes.
It marks the first operation of its kind in modern history, where scientific advancements were used unethically, transforming civilian knowledge into a lethal weapon. This shocked what remains of the relatively neutral international public opinion regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, given the methods employed.
Tel Aviv has not yet claimed responsibility for the incident and is unlikely to do so in the near or medium term. However, its unspoken responsibility is evident in the demeanor of its leaders and elites, and the objectives are clear. The Israeli leadership, which has shifted much of its military focus to the northern part of occupied Palestine, conducted this operation as part of its preparations to launch a military strike against Hezbollah, under the pretext of protecting its northern borders.
Thus, a northern battle could erupt at any moment, and Tel Aviv is deliberately provoking Hezbollah by all means to force it into retaliation. Hezbollah’s response would provide Israel with the opportunity to undermine the US-Iranian understanding to avoid regional escalation and prevent a full-scale war - something both Washington and Tehran wish to circumvent. However, despite Hezbollah’s discipline and adherence to the rules of engagement, Tel Aviv is determined to push the region toward confrontation, showing little regard for US efforts to restrain its leadership. This conveys to Tehran and Hezbollah’s base in Haret Hreik that Washington is unable to secure real guarantees from Israel against further escalation.
Tel Aviv may refrain from direct confrontation with Tehran, which has not yet retaliated for the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh on its soil. This seems to be part of its efforts with Washington to limit regional escalation. However, Israeli actions might compel Tehran to take retaliatory measures, and Hezbollah could respond in proportion to the losses it has suffered.
The objectives of Israel’s far-right government are clear and do not require further justification. After the war on Gaza, one of its main goals is entering Lebanon. Although there may be some differences with Washington regarding a potential war with Lebanon, these likely only concern its scope. The recent Israeli operations can be seen as serious preparation for such a conflict.
Israel first disabled Hezbollah’s signal and communication systems, a significant blow in modern warfare, akin to Egypt’s air force being destroyed on the ground at the start of the 1967 war, leading to the country’s defeat. Additionally, Israel has successfully incapacitated many Hezbollah fighters, removing them from the battlefield. Most troubling is if these casualties include elite forces or experienced field commanders.
A Hezbollah response is likely, and this is a serious possibility. The pressure on Tehran this time may be more geographically contained rather than extensive. Hezbollah needs to restore its footing and recover whatever remains of its deterrent capability. Meanwhile, Tel Aviv, with or without pretexts, seems driven by the extreme recklessness of both its seasoned and new leaders from the political and ideological far-right. They appear to be betting on a third Lebanon war to secure internal legitimacy and reshape power within an entity increasingly leaning toward extremism, equipped with a massive war machine and lethal technology.
