In the past 48 hours, Lebanon has experienced a significant geopolitical event that may have far-reaching implications for the entire region. This moment is likely to be recorded as a decisive chapter in the region’s history. Why?

Firstly, the decision to assassinate Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, was made while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in the United States, specifically during the United Nations General Assembly session. The location and timing are symbolic for two reasons: it suggests that the decision was made with American consent, and it implies that the principles of international justice, as represented by the UN, are subordinated to Israeli interests. This signals that we are living in an era where power overrides justice.

Secondly, Nasrallah’s assassination would represent a significant blow to Hezbollah. Even the group’s most loyal supporters cannot ignore this reality. Nasrallah was a charismatic leader, a skilled military commander, and a master strategist. Replacing him would not be easy, as he was a unique figure within Hezbollah. His leadership style and capabilities would be difficult, if not impossible, to replicate.

Moreover, this event occurred amid an ongoing existential struggle with Israel. Drawing historical parallels, it is akin to the hypothetical assassination of Joseph Stalin during World War II or Salahuddin Ayyubi before the conquering of Jerusalem. Such a loss, in the midst of a crucial conflict, could be devastating for Hezbollah’s popular base.

Thirdly, Hezbollah’s recent involvement in the conflict with Israel followed the events of October 7, when Israel decided to ethnically cleanse Palestinians. When this policy failed, the Israeli government, under Netanyahu, shifted toward more aggressive actions (genocide). Given Hezbollah’s religious and moral doctrine, intervention became inevitable. The group views its role as a protector of the Palestinians, and its leadership sees participation as both a religious and moral obligation.

However, a key question arises: Did Hamas coordinate its October 7 actions with its allies? Available intelligence suggests that neither Hezbollah, Syria, nor Iran had prior knowledge of the operation. This raises serious concerns, as one would expect coordination in such a significant conflict. Opening a new front against Israel without informing key regional allies could be seen as a strategic misstep.

There is also speculation that Israel may have had prior knowledge of the October 7 attack. Given Israel’s sophisticated intelligence capabilities, it is difficult to believe that the attack caught the country by surprise. Some argue that Netanyahu may have allowed the attack to unfold to justify the brutal crimes against the Palestinians.

Looking ahead, if Hezbollah loses this conflict, it could have dire consequences for the region, with Damascus and Tehran possibly becoming the next targets. There are historical parallels here as well. Since 2011, Western and Israeli intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA and Mossad, sought to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power because of his support for Hezbollah. Assad was viewed as an obstacle to their regional objectives, and they armed radical insurgents to topple his government. The rise of ISIS, in this context, is seen as a product of American and Israeli efforts to destabilize their adversaries. When this plan failed, Israel intervened directly to achieve its goals.

Therefore, the region is either headed to a grand compromise or a big regional war with global ramifications.

Only time will tell.

Disclaimer: nothing in the above text indicates or should be seen to be encouraging, support for any group designated as a terrorist organisation by the German government.

Vir: Kevork Almassian via X