Beirut Airstrikes: Israel’s recent assault kills Hezbollah leader Nasrallah, marking a major escalation in regional conflict with lasting implications.

The recent Israeli airstrikes on Southern Beirut, which took place on Friday, September 27, 2024, marked a significant shift in Israel’s ongoing aggression against civilian populations. Among these strikes was the targeted attack that killed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, at their central headquarters in Beirut. This action formed part of a broader series of intense airstrikes that devastated the city’s southern suburbs, with reports indicating that they were among the deadliest in recent history.

According to Seamus Malekafzali, a journalist specializing in Lebanon and the broader Middle East, these airstrikes specifically targeted the Dahiya neighbourhood, which was claimed by Israel to be known as a Hezbollah stronghold. The stated objective of these attacks was the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, an action that resulted in extensive collateral damage due to the attacks carried out using bunker-buster bombs, which are highly destructive, particularly in densely populated urban areas.

In terms of the timeline, it is crucial to understand the larger historical context of this incident. Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon are not a new phenomenon. For example, during the 2006 Lebanon War, South Beirut experienced significant devastation at the hands of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). This war is often seen as a foundational moment in the development of what has come to be known as the ‘Dahiya Doctrine,’ a strategy adopted by the IDF that intentionally targets civilian infrastructure to pressure populations into turning against militant groups like Hezbollah.

This doctrine explicitly aims to cause maximum suffering to civilian populations, under the belief that such tactics will weaken support for groups like Hezbollah. This doctrine has been referenced in multiple sources, including analyses from the Lebanese journalist Rania Abouzeid, who has extensively covered the impact of Israeli military operations in Lebanon over the years.

The airstrikes that killed Nasrallah represent the latest manifestation of this doctrine. While initial reports from Israeli sources estimated that around 300 people may have been killed in the attack, only a fraction of that number of bodies have been recovered from the rubble. However, emergency physicians on the ground have noted that many bodies were likely “evaporated” due to the intensity of the blasts, making it challenging to determine the exact casualty count.

This is a tactic that aligns with the IDF’s historical use of overwhelming force, as documented by the United Nations Human Rights Council’s reports on past conflicts, which have frequently criticized the IDF for disproportionate use of force in civilian areas.

In the wake of Nasrallah’s assassination, Israel justified the strikes by claiming that Hezbollah leaders, including Nasrallah, were hiding in a command center situated beneath residential buildings. This echoes similar justifications used in previous conflicts, where the IDF has accused groups like Hezbollah and Hamas of using civilian areas as ‘human shields.’ This justification fails to address the IDF’s deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure, which has been extensively documented by organizations such as Human Rights Watch.

The airstrikes on Beirut did not end with the death of Nasrallah. Further strikes continued throughout the night and into the morning, complicating efforts by emergency crews to enter and assist those affected. This continuous bombardment left fires raging across the neighbourhood, with no emergency personnel able to intervene, a pattern consistent with the tactics observed during the 2006 conflict. The Guardian, reporting on the aftermath of the 2006 war, had noted similar obstacles faced by rescue workers, who were often unable to reach victims due to ongoing Israeli military operations.

The evacuation orders issued by the IDF before these strikes are another significant point of contention. These orders were given only minutes before the attacks commenced, making it nearly impossible for residents to escape in time. This tactic mirrors the Israeli military’s operations in Gaza, where evacuation orders have often been issued just before bombings, leaving civilians little time to react.

Amnesty International’s reports on Israeli military conduct in Gaza have previously condemned these tactics as contributing to civilian casualties, arguing that they create panic and confusion rather than providing genuine opportunities for evacuation.

Understanding Nasrallah’s role is essential for contextualizing the significance of his death. As a highly charismatic figure, Nasrallah had led Hezbollah since the 1990s, following the assassination of his predecessor by Israel. Under his leadership, Hezbollah evolved from a relatively small militant group into a formidable non-state actor capable of challenging Israeli military forces directly.

This transformation has been covered by sources like Al Jazeera, which noted how Nasrallah’s strategic vision and charismatic leadership made Hezbollah one of the most powerful non-state actors in the world. The reaction to his death has been telling: streets in Beirut filled with mourners, and reports from news outlets such as Reuters showed that people were openly grieving, crying, and expressing deep sorrow, illustrating how central Nasrallah had become to the resistance narrative in Lebanon.

As for Hezbollah’s operational capabilities following the death of Nasrallah, the organization has lost several senior figures in recent weeks. This situation raises questions about how effectively Hezbollah can respond to future Israeli aggression. In a recent interview with Al-Mayadeen, a Hezbollah spokesperson hinted that the organization might use this moment to rejuvenate its leadership, suggesting that younger, more experienced fighters might step into senior roles. Nevertheless, the loss of such experienced leaders undoubtedly presents challenges for Hezbollah’s future operations, especially if Israel proceeds with a ground invasion, a possibility that The Times of Israel has reported as increasingly likely.

Shifting focus to Iran, which has been a significant supporter of Hezbollah, has played a long game in the region. Iranian state media, including Press TV, has often highlighted the strategic alliance between Tehran and Hezbollah, framing it as a bulwark against Israeli and Western influence. However, Iran’s reluctance to engage directly in recent conflicts suggests that it is still wary of an all-out war with Israel and it’s western allies.

This situation raises broader questions about the role of the United States in the region. Israel looks to be seeking to provoke a wider regional conflict, confident in its ability to rely on unwavering US support. This aligns with the observations of veteran journalist Robert Fisk, who noted in The Independent that the financial and military backing provided by the US gives Israel a sense of impunity in pursuing its military objectives, even when these actions result in significant civilian casualties.

Just as Hassan Nasrallah himself pointed out, the idea that Israel controls America is misleading. He once famously noted, “It is America that controls Israel. The story about the Jewish and Zionist lobby is—a joke invented by the Arabs so that they do not have to fight Israel. They do this so that they can go to America, deposit their money there, and establish relations with America, under the pretext that they are establishing an Arab lobby. After 75 years, we can see what came out of the Arab lobby. The Arab money is piling up in the American coffers, but that’s it.”

This perspective underscores that the power dynamics between the US and Israel are far more intricate, rooted in broader geopolitical and economic interests. Hassan Nasrallah’s analysis challenges the simplistic narrative often propagated by Western anti-war activists and journalists, who often claim that Israel controls Western governments.

Nasrallah argued that it’s actually the US that holds the decision-making power, driven by an alliance of major corporations, the oil industry, the weapons sector, and Christian Zionism. He emphasized that Israel, far from being the puppet master, acts as a tool for American interests, much like it once did for the British.

This entire situation raises profound questions about the US’s standing in the Middle East. America’s reputation has suffered considerably, with many in the region viewing its unconditional support for Israel as tacit approval of the killing of Arab civilians. This sentiment was captured in a recent piece by The Washington Post, which reported that anti-American sentiment is at its highest levels in decades across the Arab world. The damage to America’s reputation is likely to last for generations, as the people in the Middle East increasingly see the US as complicit in what they view as Israeli aggression.

The most recent wave of Israeli airstrikes in Beirut, particularly the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, is a continuation of a long history of conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. This escalation, marked by the ‘Dahiya Doctrine’ and other aggressive tactics, has been perpetuated by strategies that prioritize military objectives over civilian lives. The potential for further escalation is significant, and the implications for Lebanon, Hezbollah, Iran, and the broader Middle East remain uncertain. However, what is clear, is that this incident will have lasting ramifications not only for the immediate parties involved but also for the perception of US involvement in the region’s ongoing conflicts.