Blowing up Hezbollah’s communications devices: a preemptive step or a prelude to a comprehensive war?
After the “severe” blow that Hezbollah received through targeting the communications devices of its members, which its leader Hassan Nasrallah acknowledged, the conflict between it and Israel entered a new phase of escalation.
Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Galant announced in a statement that “the center of gravity is shifting to the north,” while the commander of the northern region in the Israeli army, Uri Gordin, stated that Israel intends to change the current security situation in the north of the country.
These statements coincided with the movement of the 98th Division to the northern region, according to Israeli media, including the Jerusalem Post, which indicated that this step comes “in anticipation of the possibility of an expansion of the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.”
For its part, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that “the Israeli army has transferred in recent days a unit of commandos and paratroopers, which includes thousands of soldiers, from the southern part of the country to the north, after operating for several months in Gaza.”
The attacks on Hezbollah communications equipment killed 37 people, including 20 members of the party, according to Hezbollah, and wounded thousands. After blaming Israel, Hezbollah vowed to respond. However, there were no official comments from the Israeli side about the attacks.
The series of bombings targeting Hezbollah members raises questions about whether they are paving the way for a large-scale war that Israel will wage against Lebanon, with the aim of “bringing the residents of northern Israel back to their homes safely,” as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stresses.
On Thursday evening, the Israeli army carried out air strikes on various areas in southern Lebanon, which it said targeted Hezbollah sites.
After the bombings
“The effort made by Israeli cyber forces over the past six months, from purchasing and distributing the devices to booby-trapping and detonating them, was intended to be invested in the beginning of a military campaign,” says military expert, retired Brigadier General Naji Malaeb, stressing, “If this campaign does not begin within two days, there is a possibility that the information reported in the New York Times about two Hezbollah members’ suspicions about the communications devices, which prompted Israel to detonate them preemptively to confuse the party, is correct.”
There are two theories currently on the table, according to what Malaeb told Alhurra, “The first is that the United States seeks to end military operations and move towards a diplomatic solution. Here the question arises as to whether the Israeli government’s bombing of communications devices aims to restore the morale of its army and people, especially after failing to achieve the goals it set in Gaza, such as returning prisoners and defeating Hamas, before moving towards the diplomatic path.”
The second theory relates to “the strategy drawn up by the Israeli Chief of Staff, Herzi Halevi, which he announced during the visit of the Commander of the US Central Command, Michael Eric Kurilla, to northern Israel. It revolves around drying up Hezbollah’s logistical and missile sources, starting from the open Lebanese field and reaching the Syrian depth, by increasing strikes against the party without resorting to a ground operation that could have dangerous consequences, especially since the war on the Lebanese front could expand if the axis that Hezbollah follows is sincere in its cooperation with it.”
For his part, the military and strategic analyst, retired Brigadier General Yarab Sakhr, considers Israel’s targeting of Hezbollah’s communications devices as part of an attempt to create chaos and confusion within the party’s ranks. He explains that “the signal weapon, which includes communication and contact between elements and leaders, constitutes a fundamental pillar for maintaining the cohesion of armies and armed groups. Therefore, if this weapon is exposed to any damage, it leads to the loss of communication and the dispersion of command.”
Regarding whether Israel’s move is a prelude to a comprehensive war, Sakhr indicated in an interview with Alhurra that “there are American restrictions that prevent Israel from escalating into a comprehensive war, despite its support for its steps against Hezbollah. In this context, Israel deals with Hezbollah through cyber warfare, which is an area in which it excels. The evidence is what happened two days ago when it was able to create a state of confusion and loss among Hezbollah, which enables it to implement its plans within a specific framework imposed by the United States in advance.”
Sakhr confirms that “Israel is preparing to implement a step aimed at forcing Hezbollah to withdraw from southern Lebanon in line with the implementation of international resolution 1701,” adding, “Israel will not be satisfied with that, as it is determined to continue its strategy, because Hezbollah, which is considered the strongest arm of Iran, poses a major future threat to it.”
What happened in the past two days is similar to what the head of the Middle East Center for Studies and Public Relations, retired Brigadier General Dr. Hisham Jaber, described in an interview with the Alhurra website, “a hurricane and a tsunami and represents a mass killing. However, I do not believe that it is preparing for the outbreak of a large-scale war. Rather, it seems to be an alternative to a ground war that most countries in the world reject, including the United States of America.”
According to the Wall Street Journal, “American officials stressed that they have not yet seen any signs, such as a call-up of Israeli reserves, that an invasion is imminent. Even after a decision is made, it could be weeks before Israeli forces are in a position to launch a major attack. But American defense officials said Israel could order a smaller operation more quickly, without requiring other major military moves.”
Israel aims, as Sakhr says, to “weaken Hezbollah by reducing its resources and capabilities, so it is striking its warehouses, stores, and tunnels, in addition to targeting its logistical points and supply lines. It will continue to carry out its operations daily but with a gradual escalation to increase pressure on the party, as an alternative to a comprehensive war.”
Despite the current American pressures preventing escalation, Sakhr believes that “Israel may exploit the strategic vacuum resulting from the upcoming American elections to intensify its operations, and may repeat the scenario of the 1982 war, but without a ground invasion, as it is not in its interest to invade Lebanon by ground. It will continue to dismember the party and carry out painful qualitative strikes until Hezbollah reaches a stage where it cannot compensate for its losses.”
However, Sakhr stresses that Hezbollah’s insistence on linking the Gaza front to the Lebanese front, and its continuation of what it calls the “support front” “did not benefit Gaza or harm Israel but rather destroyed southern Lebanon, and its insistence on stubbornness and populism gives Israel the pretext to launch a comprehensive war on Lebanon. This strategic mistake by Hezbollah gives Netanyahu the pretext he wants to implement his military plans against Lebanon, especially in light of the decline in American pressure on him.”
Wars are divided into several types, according to Jaber, “including psychological warfare, cyber warfare, and security intelligence warfare. What we have witnessed over the past two days is a combination of intelligence warfare and cyber warfare. Therefore, I believe that we have entered a new phase of warfare, which represents an alternative to ground invasions that carry many risks.”
However, Jaber believes that the possibility of a ground war is real but unlikely, and explains, “I do not think that Hezbollah will be dragged into opening a large-scale war, because Israel is waiting for it to start it, and the party does not want to bear responsibility for that.”
In contrast, “some Israeli officers,” according to Malaeb, “criticize the political authority for not having a clear strategy in its war with Lebanon, pointing out that the Israeli army cannot fight on multiple fronts from Gaza to the West Bank to southern Lebanon at the same time. These officers believe that the war should remain confined to Hezbollah, with no legitimacy for entering into a comprehensive war with Lebanon that might provoke Lebanese hostility toward Israel.”
Discover more from MegaloPreneur Magazine
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.