-Analysis-
CAIRO — The impact of the assassination of historic Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, goes well beyond the military and symbolic dimensions associated with his iconography.
Nasrallah was one of the most successful fighters against Israel, and perhaps the fiercest enemy of Zionism in the past 40 years. We can also say that he may have been the most popular figure, notwithstanding sectarian differences, and even after his involvement in the quagmire of the Syrian civil war— due to his support of the Palestinian resistance.
The assassination last Friday night goes beyond its criminal nature as “one of the most important assassinations in the history of Israel,” as Defense Minister Yoav Galant boasted. Given Nasrallah’s role and charisma and his constant threat to the security of the Israeli occupation, the energizing effects of his missiles and speeches will be missed — and his loss reshuffles the power dynamics across the entire region.
The event ushers in a new, unipolar Middle East concept that is centered around opportunities for states to seek normalization with Israel. But it is carried out with tactics that go beyond the rules of engagement that took months of study by the parties and observers of the current war to establish.
It also appears to have pulled Iran into the “war trap” set off by the barrage of some 180 missiles it fired at Israel late Tuesday night in response to the Nasrallah assassination.
Hochstein’s role
As it is expanded in both time and space, what could the new regional war look like? It is based upon Israel’s carefully calculated response that nonetheless includes some bold decisions like the assassination of Fouad Shukr in Beirut and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in the heart of Tehran.
The assassination of Shukr and Haniyeh within a 48-hour span in late July was an apparent Israeli test of the extent of Iran and Hezbollah’s readiness, as well as their political and military will, to break the unspoken rules of engagement.
Special U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein resumed his trips to Beirut in mid-August with a clear message of confirmation and threat: Confirmation that Washington is still committed to the existence of rules of engagement that do not threaten Israel’s security in exchange for a rapid cease-fire in Gaza; and a threat that the U.S. will not stand in the way of any Israeli response to Hezbollah if those rules are broken.
Touching the upper ceiling of the rules of engagement without exceeding this ceiling.
This was reflected a few days later in Hezbollah’s response to Shukr’s assassination by targeting an airbase, an intelligence base in Tel Aviv, and sites in the occupied Golan Heights. The attacks appeared to touch on the upper ceiling of the rules of engagement without exceeding this ceiling.
Bunker busters
Before all of that, Hezbollah tried to maintain the general framework of Iran’s policy in managing the conflict. That supposed framework, however, was ultimately a black box that anyone who tries to open it finds endless weapons, tools and tricks inside.
It’s now becoming clear that the box has been deeply exposed and penetrated. Such exposure is pushing Iran to avoid escalation, especially after the death of its former president, Ebrahim Raisi, in a helicopter crash that increasingly looks like it was an attack, and then the assassination of Haniyeh, which represents, at best, a national insult.
Iran has been left behind. Some believed that it was preparing for a major revenge attack. But Israel took advantage of the current confusion at the White House, and seized the opportunity with the help of the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies. It imported more weapons from the U.S., including the MK84 bunker-busting bombs used in Nasrallah’s assassination.
Hochstein’s role apparently was to mislead Hezbollah through its multilateral meetings in Lebanon. It is now more likely that his meetings were meant to have the effect of “drugs,” as Druze leader Walid Jumblatt described it hours before Nasrallah’s assassination.
The logic of the “rules of engagement” was definitively broken with the success of the two operations to attack Hezbollah’s pagers and walkie-talkies, while almost simultaneously eliminating the leaders of the Radwan Unit on September 17-20. It could be claimed today that the two operations were a prelude to targeting Nasrallah, and he may have known for certain in his last speech when he hinted that the Israeli escalation would continue to neutralize Hezbollah.
Absence of accountability
Beyond the battle on the ground, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also deliberately bypassed the rules of political engagement, by brazenly timing of the Nasrallah assassination and his speech at the UN General Assembly.
It is the absolute confirmation of the absence of accountability and the failure of all international considerations that the Israelis had been calculating in previous eras, and which had sparked disputes between the prime minister, the army and the Mossad. This may be attributed to the fact that Netanyahu himself came to power by breaking any previous rules at the level of domestic politics or the Arab-Israeli conflict.
No one is able to stop Netanyahu.
The list of rules that Netanyahu has broken is long. But perhaps most important was the discarding of a kind of golden rule in Middle East politics: The international silence has limits and that the Occupation’s steadfast resistance, along with diplomatic action and political pressure, is sufficient to impose a truce, then a ceasefire, then negotiations, then reconstruction, and life goes on.
Is steadfastness enough?
It is an equation summed up by the late Druze Arab socialist leader Kamal Jumblatt in the midst of his war against Israel and the Syrian regime: “We are no longer alone in this world. But what is required is steadfastness.”
Sorry, Mr. Jumblatt. The resistance is alive despite the disappointment and painful blows, and the Palestinian cause now has 124 countries demanding an immediate end to the Israeli occupation, and international judicial rulings… voices, speeches, pleadings, and arrest requests… but no one is able to stop Netanyahu and the global Zionist forces behind him, in light of the expiration of the international system with all its components.
So, we’ve learned again, steadfastness is not enough.
Netanyahu’s vision
Netanyahu’s maps that he exhibited during his UN speech last week lay out his vision very clearly:
• 1. Israel on all Palestinian territories and the complete liquidation of the Palestinian cause. No Gaza. No West Bank. No special status for Jerusalem.
• 2. Israel is the main axis of power in the Middle East.
• 3. Peace can only be achieved through force and deterrence.
The truth is that there is no fundamental difference between Netanyahu, who will turn 75 later this month, and the same person who defeated Shimon Peres in May 1996.
He never tires of appearing in the media to address worldwide public opinion
Netanyahu was 47 years old at the time, representing a new generation of Israeli politicians. He was born in Tel Aviv a year and a half after the establishment of the State of Israel. He was enthusiastic about “Greater Israel,” refusing to give up the West Bank and Gaza or a single inch of Jerusalem, nor even the Golan Heights.
He made that clear in his book, A Place Among the Nations: Israel and the World. He argued that the Arab countries must recognize and accept the existence of Israel directly and unconditionally.
Traditional Israeli politicians believe that Netanyahu violated long-established rules of internal political engagement, losing respect and credibility with his propaganda campaigns. But he moved forward, not caring about such accusations that have become obsolete in the face of such consequential events.
Netanyahu broke another rule that Israeli governments have inherited in times of war. He never tires of appearing in the media to address worldwide public opinion, effortlessly repeating lies to justify crimes of genocide, massacres and assassinations in Gaza and elsewhere in the Middle East.
