Inside the Nasrallah Assassination

By Muhammad Abbas Azhar

How Israel Carried Out the Attack on Nasrallah and Its Impact on Hezbollah-Iran Relations

The killing of Hassan Nasrallah, the nearly three-decade leader of Hezbollah, marked an important turn in the long-drawn battle between Israel and Iranian-backed armed organizations. From a militia leader to the face of a major political organization in Lebanon and eventually, among the region’s most important figures, Nasrallah has changed the face of politics in the Middle East and continues to rewrite the rules that govern the intersection of politics and armed groups. His killing in an Israeli airstrike came after weeks of growing military operations which had weakened Hezbollah’s leadership and exposed Israel’s wide intelligence operations in Lebanon.

For years, Nasrallah had avoided assassination attempts by keeping a low profile and rarely appearing in public. However, Israel’s intelligence finally broke through this secrecy, leading to his assassination. This operation raised serious questions about Hezbollah’s internal security failures and increased tensions between the group and its main supporter, Iran.

After the assassination, divisions within Hezbollah emerged, particularly over whether to retaliate against Israel immediately or take a more cautious approach. This exposed a split within the organization on handling such a significant loss. At the same time, the event heightened the ongoing struggle between Israel and Iran, where both nations continue to engage in indirect conflict through missile strikes and covert operations, careful to avoid an all-out war.

Israel’s Infiltration of Hezbollah

Israel killed Hassan Nasrallah on the back of years of careful working of intelligence to infiltrate Hezbollah’s inner circle. For more than 20 years, the Israeli agencies, particularly Mossad, have concentrated efforts to infiltrate Hezbollah, gain access to its communications, and track its leadership. The last blow that killed Nasrallah was based on a well-established network of informants, surveillance, and knowledge of Hezbollah’s hidden command structures. Israel has been able to map out underground bunkers, communication centers, and weapons depots. 

In September, Israeli forces launched a highly coordinated attack remotely exploding booby-trapped communication devices—pagers and walkie-talkies Hezbollah fighters were using. This cut Hezbollah’s communications and incapacitated more than 1500 members creating chaos and disorder within the operational capabilities of Hezbollah and making it receptive to the airstrike that killed Nasrallah.

The strike itself was executed with incredible precision. Nasrallah’s location—a secret underground bunker in a residential area of southern Beirut—had been closely guarded, and his movements were highly restricted. However, Israeli intelligence managed to track him, likely through informants within Hezbollah. On the orders of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli forces dropped bombs on the bunker, killing Nasrallah and several top commanders.

This operation showed the extent of Israel’s intelligence reach within Hezbollah. In the weeks leading up to the assassination, Israel systematically dismantled much of Hezbollah’s leadership structure and communication networks. The assassination of Nasrallah also created internal concern within Hezbollah in the form of infiltration and perhaps the presence of high-ranking informants or spies within the organization. This led to growing mistrust within Hezbollah and its allies, including Iran.

The Execution of the Strike

The killing of Hassan Nasrallah is, therefore, the fruit of thorough planning of a coordinated attack by Israel; it symbolizes years of intelligent work and strategic precision. Known for his extreme caution and secretive lifestyle, Nasrallah avoided the possibility of assassination by keeping out of public view and making speeches through pre-recorded videos. Despite these measures, Israel was able to successfully track him, intensifying its efforts in the weeks leading to his death.

On the day of the strike, Nasrallah was inside an underground command bunker beneath a residential building in southern Beirut, meeting with other Hezbollah leaders. Israeli intelligence, using real-time information, targeted him precisely and ordered retaliatory strikes immediately. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in New York when he authorized the attack.

The airstrikes were swift. Israeli warplanes dropped U.S.-made 2,000-pound munitions, BLU-109 bombs fitted with JDAM guidance kits, and bunker-buster bombs meant to penetrate reinforced concrete for targeting underground facilities.

According to analysts, the strike involved multiple aircraft—specifically F-15s—carrying at least 16 of these heavy bombs. The precision and overwhelming firepower of the strike ensured that the underground hideout was effectively destroyed in mere seconds, killing Nasrallah and other top Hezbollah commanders. 

This was not an isolated event; it followed a series of Israeli strikes that had already weakened much of Hezbollah’s leadership. In the days before Nasrallah’s assassination, Israel had eliminated nearly all of Hezbollah’s senior military commanders, crippling the group’s ability to respond effectively.

The precision and speed of the operation were a significant blow to Hezbollah, which lost its leader and much of its military hierarchy. The strike revealed major vulnerabilities within Hezbollah, raising questions about how Israel managed to infiltrate the organization so deeply. The aftermath left Hezbollah scrambling to replace its leadership and dealing with internal suspicions about informants within their ranks. The strike also sent a massive message to Iran, indicating Israel’s range of intelligence and its capacity to dispose of key figures in the network of Iran’s allies that have, according to the Israelis, escalated the war between both countries.

Hezbollah’s Internal Strife: Talk vs. Action

The killing of Hassan Nasrallah not only shook the Hezbollah leadership but exposed growing divisions within the group. In the immediate aftermath of his death, it emerged that Hezbollah itself was seriously divided on whether to retaliate against Israel or wait and plan to avoid further destabilization.

For years, Nasrallah had carefully balanced bold rhetoric with restrained action, often holding back on immediate responses to preserve Hezbollah’s military strength. Nasrallah’s strategy, though supported by some within Hezbollah, was indeed a reflection of a necessity to fall in line with the larger regional interests of Iran. With Nasrallah gone, this strategy itself was brought into question, since most who were within the party felt that a powerful, prompt response was only needed in the interest of justifying the reputation of Hezbollah as a dreaded force and in terms of continuing the deterrent power of such a force against Israel.

Central to this internal conflict was Hezbollah’s relationship with Iran. The group has long depended on Iranian support, but Nasrallah’s assassination intensified tensions between Hezbollah’s need for quick retaliation and Iran’s preference for a more calculated, long-term strategy. While Iran urged caution, fearing that a full-scale conflict could lead to further Israeli attacks, many within Hezbollah felt compelled to act swiftly to avenge their leader and maintain their credibility.

This tension also exposed deeper rifts within Hezbollah. The group’s ability to respond was hampered by the loss of its top commanders and the internal suspicion that Israeli infiltration played a role in Nasrallah’s assassination. Trust among Hezbollah members was shaken, making it challenging for the organization to agree on a unified course of action. Taking into account the loss of Nasrallah and much of the senior leadership, it’s not a stretch to suggest that Hezbollah’s next action might be its last, particularly if it goes poorly. Hezbollah could collapse in the wake of these successful Israeli attacks. 

The debate between those advocating for immediate action and those urging restraint revealed the growing strain within Hezbollah’s remaining leadership. The death of Nasrallah is a symbol of vulnerability in Hezbollah and the challenges it faces between its dependency on Iran and taking time to show power while confronting Israel. As such, at the center of all these internal tensions within Hezbollah, whether to retaliate or exercise patience became a critical issue in shaping its future strategy.

The Hezbollah-Iran Dynamic

The assassination of Hassan Nasrallah left deep marks on the relationship between Hezbollah and Iran, as it unveiled underlying tensions within their partnership. It is an important historical fact that Hezbollah became Iran’s most powerful proxy in the region for many years, totally relying on Iran’s support to fulfill their military and political ambitions. The killing of Nasrallah has brought to light vulnerabilities in this alliance; hence, there is a pressing concern about internal security efficiency in cooperation.

After Nasrallah’s death, Iranian leaders grew increasingly worried about the potential for Israeli infiltration within their ranks. Reports indicated that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei cautioned Nasrallah to consider leaving Lebanon just days before the assassination, citing intelligence suggesting Israel had agents embedded in Hezbollah. This warning reflected Iran’s growing anxiety regarding its security and its relationship with Hezbollah. 

In response to the assassination, Iran called for a missile barrage against Israel to show solidarity with Hezbollah and avenge Nasrallah’s death. However, this response was carefully calculated. Where Iran wanted to supply arms and military supplies to Lebanon for Hezbollah, it did not want those to spark a wider conflict. Iran realized that such an escalation would not only compromise its strategic interests but also those of Hezbollah in the region as well.

The killing of Nasrallah further brought out uncertainties in Hezbollah’s leadership structure. With Nasrallah gone, the group faced challenges in selecting a successor, especially amid fears of continued Israeli infiltration. This crisis thrust Hezbollah into a sequence of trials to continue influencing and exercising power in the Axis of Resistance against Israel. Potential successors, such as Nasrallah’s cousin, Hashem Safieddine, now came under intense scrutiny since Hezbollah needed to grapple with the internal conflicts unleashed by the assassination.

Hezbollah’s diminished standing after Nasrallah’s death raised questions about its future military effectiveness and its alignment with Iran’s strategic objectives. While Iran was eager to continue supporting its ally, it needed to balance this with the reality that Hezbollah was now under considerable pressure. This situation might lead to a reassessment of their relationship, as Hezbollah’s losses could force Iran to rethink how it supports the group moving forward.

As the situation between Israel and Hezbollah intensified, the complexity of their alliance became more apparent. The killing of Nasrallah was a blow that threw Hezbollah off balance and, at the same time, put Iran in a difficult strategic situation: a desire to retaliate immediately, yet simultaneously not wanting things to get out of hand. This careful balance continues to shape the dynamics of the region as both Iran and Hezbollah navigate the consequences of Nasrallah’s assassination while seeking to maintain their influence against Israeli actions.

Iran and Israel: Posturing and Asymmetrical Warfare

The assassination of Hassan Nasrallah heightened the longstanding conflict between Iran and Israel, emphasizing the intricate nature of their ongoing struggle, which is characterized by posturing and asymmetric warfare. Neither country is likely to engage in a full-scale invasion due to the severe risks involved, leading both to rely on indirect means of conflict, such as missile attacks, air operations, and covert actions.

In response to Nasrallah’s death, Iran quickly launched a significant missile strike on Israel, firing at least 180 missiles as retaliation. This move not only served as a response to the assassination but also sent a clear message to both Israel and the region where Iran remains a formidable force capable of direct action despite the loss of its key ally. However, the magnitude of the response was carefully calibrated; Iran sought to assert its power without provoking a larger conflict that could further destabilize its position in the region.

Meanwhile, Israel’s approach involved demonstrating its military capabilities through strategic operations. Immediately following the assassination, Israel rapidly increased its raids against Iranian targets inside Syria. It prepared to face any hostility it could perceive was being taken against it. Such measures are part of Israel’s strategy for handling Iranian impacts on the region while continuing to uphold its interests.

The assassination of Nasrallah has introduced new complexities into this ongoing struggle. As Israel continues to target Iranian assets and their allies, the situation creates an unpredictable environment where both sides must carefully navigate their actions. The reliance on asymmetrical warfare—where smaller, agile forces engage larger, conventional armies—means that both countries will continue to use proxies, missile strikes, and covert operations to maintain their positions.

The conflict is part of the larger Middle East struggle, wherein Iran and Israel fight for regional influence. The killing of Nasrallah surely dealt a massive blow to Hezbollah, but this would also raise questions on how each nation will adjust to this new reality. No doubt Iran will reassess its support for Hezbollah, but Israel has to keep its head on its shoulders and remain vigilant for retaliation. Nasrallah’s death changes the game and opens a new chapter between Israel, Iran, and Hezbollah. Both sides will continue to posture and employ asymmetric warfare, which could lead to a major regional war involving outside major powers like the United States.  The implications will echo across the Middle East for decades.