By Patrick Kingsley
Analysts suggest that Israel’s strike on Hezbollah’s pagers and similar devices proved tactically efficient but lacked any apparent strategic consequence.
Despite causing embarrassment to Hezbollah and seemingly hindering numerous operatives, the strike has yet to reshape the military dynamics at the Israel-Lebanon border, where over 100,000 civilians are displaced as a result of ongoing low-intensity conflicts. The Israeli military and Hezbollah maintained their established routine, launching missiles and artillery exchanges on Wednesday, consistent with the daily confrontations that have persisted since October.
While the Tuesday operation showcased Israel’s advanced technological capabilities, it has not pursued to take advantage of the disarray it induced by delivering a significant blow to Hezbollah and instigating an invasion of Lebanon. Another series of explosions were reported across Lebanon on Wednesday, attributed to detonating walkie-talkies and other gadgets, but indications of an imminent ground invasion from the Israeli military were absent.
Moreover, although the pager strike impressed a portion of the Israeli population, including critics of the government’s handling of Hezbollah, the underlying frustration persisted: Hezbollah remains firmly established along Israel’s northern frontier, preventing the return of numerous northern Israeli residents to their homes.
“This is an extraordinary tactical occurrence,” remarked Miri Eisin, a fellow at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism, an Israel-based research body.
“Yet, no Hezbollah combatant will shift due to this,” Eisin, a former high-ranking intelligence officer, asserted. “Possessing exceptional capabilities does not equate to having a strategy.”
The sophistication of the attack has reinstated some measure of respect and mystique that Israel’s intelligence services lost on October 7, when Hamas executed an unexpected strike against Israel, which caught the Israeli military off guard. The destruction wrought by Hamas’ offensive has since eroded public confidence in military leadership, leading to the resignations of both the military intelligence chief and the head of its primary signal intelligence agency.
Nonetheless, there exists division among Israelis regarding whether the assault was a product of immediate opportunism or if it stemmed from long-term strategy. Some analysts believe Israeli commanders were concerned that their Hezbollah counterparts might have become aware of Israel’s capability to disrupt the pagers, prompting immediate detonation to preserve that capability.
Others argue that Israel had a defined strategic goal in mind. The attack’s boldness and technical finesse might have aimed to prompt Hezbollah toward a cease-fire in the forthcoming weeks, if not sooner.
“The operation’s aim, if orchestrated by Israel as Hezbollah claims, might have been to demonstrate to Hezbollah that it would incur significant consequences for continuing its aggressions against Israel instead of pursuing a settlement,” stated Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israel’s military intelligence agency.
Hezbollah commenced its assaults on Israel in early October in solidarity with Hamas following the latter’s incursion into southern Israel, which provoked a broad Israeli retaliation against the Gaza Strip. Since then, Hezbollah has aligned its fate with Hamas, asserting that it will persist in fighting until Israel withdraws from Gaza.
Given this alignment, officials from both sides of the border have for months hoped that a ceasefire in Gaza could parallel an agreement in Lebanon. U.S. and French mediators, led by U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein, have been negotiating between Beirut and Jerusalem, laying the groundwork for a potential truce between Israel and Hezbollah should a deal be reached in Gaza.
The anticipation was that hostilities involving Hezbollah would conclude without necessitating a larger Israeli action in Lebanon, as long as a resolution was achieved in Gaza.
As discussions concerning Gaza have stalled, the Israeli leadership faces increasing domestic pressures to adopt alternative strategies to compel Hezbollah to cease its operations.
Consequently, the Israeli leadership has heightened its public focus on Hezbollah, with Defense Minister Yoav Gallant cautioning this week that “military action” was “the only way” to resolve the conflict.
The pager incident seemed to fulfill that warning. Analysts suggested it was an effort to persuade Hezbollah to separate its fate from Hamas and, as a result, conclude the northern conflict without awaiting resolution in the south.
“The purpose is to sever the warfare Hezbollah initiated against Israel from the conflict with Hamas,” Yadlin noted.
The operation provides Hochstein “additional leverage when coordinating with Hezbollah: ‘You better make a deal or be prepared for more substantial and unforeseen attacks,’” Yadlin elaborated.
However, skepticism remains, with some arguing that Hezbollah is unlikely to alter its approach, even if the organization has faced setbacks and confusion due to the assault.
Avi Issacharoff, an Israeli columnist, commented Wednesday that the strike “will not lead Hezbollah to halt its attacks on Israel’s northern civilian areas, but may prompt an escalation of them.” Issacharoff added, “It seems we are on the brink of days and possibly weeks of intensified hostilities that might ultimately compel the army to initiate a ground operation, even while it continues its operations in Gaza and is incurring losses.”
According to Sima Shine, a former senior Mossad officer, Hezbollah perceives itself as Iran’s most significant ally in the Middle East and will attempt to prevent the impression of abandoning Hamas.
“I don’t foresee such a shift occurring,” stated Shine, who is currently an analyst at the Institute for National Security Studies, an Israeli research entity. “It is crucial for them to maintain their status as the leading proxy in the region, guiding others and occasionally providing training.”
More broadly, the attack underscored the divergence between the strategic discipline of Israel’s intelligence apparatus, capable of orchestrating operations well in advance, and the short-sighted immediacy often characteristic of Israel’s political leadership.
The incident followed days filled with reports in Israeli media about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s considerations to dismiss his defense minister, all while Gallant directed the planned operation in Lebanon.
“This represents a very peculiar situation,” Shine commented. It highlights “such a divide between the political sphere and the security framework.”
