Lebanon’s wave of pager explosions is a message to Hezbollah

Tuesday’s wave of explosions in Lebanon will likely scar the Party, as they are often known, who pride themselves on secrecy, and the technological omerta their members adhere to. Yet it is their very bid to keep their secrets – using low-tech pagers and not more trackable smartphones – that appears to have led to several deaths and thousands of injuries.

It will have caused a seismic shock with Hezbollah members to now be asking not only if it is safe to contact their colleagues, but if those colleagues are unharmed?

Israel has characteristically not claimed responsibility, but if it was behind the attack as Lebanon and Hezbollah say, then the question is whether this vast and unprecedented assault was intended to presage a wider fight.

It would make strategic sense to dispense a moment of intense chaos like this just before a bigger onslaught on the group militarily.

The timing is telling. Just on Monday, the Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant said during a meeting with the US envoy Amos Hochstein that the time for diplomacy with Hezbollah had passed and military might could take center stage. Literally hours later, their enemy’s entire communications infrastructure was hit with an attack that, according to a Lebanese security source, used pagers purchased by Hezbollah in “recent months,” necessitating a long lead time in the operation’s planning.

The violence again spoke of a technological gulf between Israel and its opponents. We have seen this repeatedly in high-profile killings in Tehran over the past years: the precision of an apparent Mossad strike against an al-Qaeda leader in 2020. The wizardry behind the killing of nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, which reportedly used facial recognition to fire a machine gun. And the recent assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, which reportedly used a remote-controlled bomb hidden in a guest bedroom.

The same superior intelligence and capability was on display across Lebanon, where civilians appear to have been caught in widespread blasts that were not precise enough. The horror of hundreds of apparently simultaneous tiny but intimate explosions will be felt by ordinary Lebanese, a reminder of the damage inflicted nationwide by the 2006 war with their southern neighbor. The risk of widespread war with Israel again has become a pressing reality since the October 7 attacks.

It places Hezbollah, however, in another unenviable moment of frailty – plunged into chaos, with great pressure upon them to project strength again. The same dilemma was visited upon them after the assassination of senior commander Fu’ad Shukr in August. Hezbollah felt compelled to strike back, and maintain a sense of deterrence. Yet it became slowly clear they lacked enthusiasm for a larger conflict. Leader Hassan Nasrallah delayed their response to a time of his choosing, and enabled the muted exchange of rocket fire and airstrikes that followed on August 25 to not get out of hand.

At the same time, the given wisdom that Israel does not want a war either is eroding. Israeli airstrikes hit targets to their north almost daily, with a growing absence of concern about Hezbollah’s response. Tuesday’s wide-ranging attack on Lebanon will necessitate Hezbollah finding some means of projecting strength through retaliation, but again speaks to the gap between their capabilities and those of their southern neighbor.

A long ground war between the two would see Israeli forces, over-stretched and exhausted by a brutal year-long Gaza campaign, facing to their north an enemy fresher and better-trained than Hamas. Hezbollah will still be able to inflict significant damage upon Israel if a full-scale battle erupts. But Israel may have decided too cleanly that Hezbollah seeks to avoid war, and therefore can be goaded repeatedly.

It may be precisely the sort of miscalculation that leads to a widening of the conflict; the moment when Hezbollah determine Israel have dismissed them as a persistent threat will be the moment they feel compelled to act most violently.

The pager blasts could speak of a war where one side is confident in its huge advantage technologically, but also willing to absorb the risks that come with inflicting a wide-ranging embarrassment on its foe. We will learn in the coming days if the calculations behind the attack avoided escalation, or fomented it.