On Friday, Sept. 27, 2024, Israel conducted an airstrike in Beirut, the capital of Lebanon, killing Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's leader for the past 32 years, along with a significant portion of the group's senior leadership.

These high-profile assassinations, targeting Nasrallah and more than 20 key Hezbollah figures, along with last month's incidents of exploding pagers and handheld radios used by Hezbollah commanders, represent the latest round of the brinkmanship strategy adopted by the Israeli leadership. Despite the depletion of Hezbollah's upper leadership, this did not significantly diminish the group's fighting capability, as demonstrated by the recent clashes with Israeli commandos that resulted in multiple casualties among them.

Over-ambitious expansion

Hezbollah's recent vulnerabilities are the result of its shift from a tightly knit guerrilla force to a pan-regional state actor involved in multiple conflicts, most notably the war in Syria. Founded in 1982 as a resistance organization, Hezbollah has deviated from its original purpose, evolving into an entity that competes with the Lebanese state across political, economic, social, educational, health and media sectors. The group's expansion beyond its traditional strongholds in southern Lebanon extended first into other parts of the country, then into regional affairs across the Gulf states, North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. By overextending its influence, Hezbollah has undermined its own operational effectiveness and opened itself to infiltration and manipulation.

Its gravest error was its decision to intervene in the Syrian civil war to support the Assad regime. This intervention exposed Hezbollah's security frailties, as it allowed infiltrators – both from within the Assad regime and external actors – to compromise the group's military structure, decision-making and tactics. Moreover, Hezbollah's dependence on Iran and the Revolutionary Guard, which has also been penetrated, further exacerbated the exposure of the group's leadership and security framework.

Initially, the group's rise in Lebanon, fuelled by resistance to Israeli occupation, symbolized national liberation and defiance. However, its unchecked expansion has caused a shift in its founding principles. What was once regarded as a liberation movement has now strayed from these ideals, gradually diminishing its support base.

Hezbollah's steadfast alliance with Iran, once seen as a high-level strategic partnership, is now viewed as prioritizing Tehran's regional ambitions over Lebanon's national interests. Hezbollah's involvement in foreign conflicts, particularly in Syria, deepened this perception. Once a protector of Lebanon's sovereignty, the group is increasingly seen as a tool for advancing Iran's geopolitical goals, prioritizing regional influence over the welfare of the Lebanese people.

Furthermore, Hezbollah's participation in the Syrian civil war has damaged its standing among most of the Arab World. Accused of perpetuating sectarian violence, Hezbollah has alienated many supporters, including those who once sympathized with its resistance to Israel.

Incompetence or betrayal?

On the other hand, the recent wave of high-profile assassinations targeting Hezbollah's leadership, other high-level Iranian military dignitaries and other allies has triggered a critical question: Does this series of intelligence blunders reflect mere failures in the intelligence apparatus, or does it suggest a power struggle within Tehran's ruling elites?

Some observers view these assassinations as clear evidence of Iran's inability to safeguard its core values, framing them as a broader intelligence failure. They cite Iran's previous failures to protect high-ranking Revolutionary Guard officials, including Qassem Soleimani, arguing that Nasrallah's assassination is a straightforward intelligence failure. They contend that Hezbollah's security apparatus, heavily reliant on Iranian support, has been compromised, exposing its leadership to critical vulnerabilities and characterizing the situation as a fundamental state failure.

Conversely, others propose a more troubling possibility: internal betrayal within Iran. As the balance of power shifts among Tehran's elite, speculation arises that certain factions, perhaps dissatisfied with Hezbollah's role or regional strategies, may have played a part in these targeted eliminations. This theory of some quarters at the highest echelon willing to sacrifice the "revolutionary" elements in the Middle East for warmer relations with the West has raised unsettling questions about the nature of the Iran-Hezbollah relationship.

Time will ultimately reveal which hypothesis holds true. However, the broader implications of these assassinations are undeniable. They cast significant doubt on Iran's strategic positioning in the region and call into question its reliability as a "powerful" or "trustworthy" partner.

Horns of a dilemma

Hezbollah's response to the assassination of Nasrallah and its subsequent military and political actions will be crucial for both its own future and that of Lebanon. Three critical factors will shape the organization's future trajectory. First, the group's armed struggle against Israel, which lies at the core of its identity and mission, is unlikely to waver even after Nasrallah's eventual death, as its founding purpose is rooted in resisting the Zionist occupation of Lebanese land. Second, Hezbollah's alliance with Tehran faces growing strain, and similar concerns arise regarding its strategic partnership with the Assad regime, whose silence during the region's upheavals is increasingly unsettling. Third, Hezbollah's dominance in Lebanese politics is now under question. Many Lebanese factions, still bitter over the group's political hegemony since the end of the civil war, have seen their resentment deepen after the assassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005. This lingering discontent, combined with Lebanon's inherent religious and sectarian divides, poses a risk of further fragmentation and instability in the country.

The assassination of Hassan Nasrallah marks a pivotal moment in Hezbollah's history, and the group's response will determine not only its future but also the stability of Lebanon. While the armed struggle against Israel will likely continue, the strain on Hezbollah's alliances with Tehran and the Assad regime, as well as its declining dominance in Lebanese politics, signals a period of uncertainty.

As Hezbollah navigates this complex landscape, its ability to maintain internal cohesion and manage external pressures will be critical. Ultimately, the organization's future actions will shape both its role in the region and Lebanon's trajectory as the delicate balance of power teeters on the edge of disruption. The question now is whether Hezbollah can adapt to these challenges or if its overreach will lead to its unraveling.