Israel's detonation of Hezbollah's communication devices: The beginning of a full-scale war or an ongoing battle of attrition?

Just hours after Israel's security cabinet announced a new objective in its war efforts—“returning the residents of northern Israel to their homes”—thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah members across Lebanon exploded on Tuesday, September 17, 2024.

The nightmare continued into Tuesday, with reports indicating that scores of Lebanese citizens were injured in similar explosions to those the day before. The Lebanese Ministry of Health announced that "25 people were killed, and over 608 were injured" following the new detonation of wireless communication devices (walkie-talkies) that took place Wednesday afternoon in the southern suburbs of Beirut and areas across South Lebanon.

Just hours after Israel's security cabinet announced a new objective in its war efforts—“returning the residents of northern Israel to their homes”—thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah members across Lebanon exploded on Tuesday, September 17, 2024. The nightmare continued into Tuesday, with reports indicating that scores of Lebanese citizens were injured in similar explosions to those the day before, this time involving wireless radios (walkie-talkies).

Wednesday’s attack marks the second of its kind within 24 hours, following a series of explosions targeting the pagers used by Hezbollah members. The unprecedented attack on Tuesday killed 12 people, including medical workers and children, and injured approximately 2,800 others, 300 of whom remain in critical condition. In total, Israel killed 37 people within just two days across Lebanon.

Reuters quoted a security source saying that "the communication devices that exploded across Lebanon are hand-held radios (walkie-talkies), different from the pagers that exploded yesterday." According to Reuters, the hand-held radios were purchased five months ago, around the same time as the pagers.

Commenting on the death toll from the first day, Lebanese Health Minister Firas Abiad stated that 1,343 of the injured were in medium or critical condition, with injuries primarily affecting the face, hands, and abdomen.

Escalation scenarios

The United States was quick to deny involvement in the attacks. US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said, "The United States was not involved and had no prior knowledge of this incident."

Following the pager attack, which many analysts considered a global first and a test of the ethics of future wars—questioning whether the world would accept the use of "peace-time technologies in warfare"—tensions between Israel and Hezbollah, backed by Iran, have continued to escalate. Both American and Israeli media have speculated about potential scenarios for future relations between the parties, ranging from de-escalation to full-scale confrontation.

Some who believe in the possibility of a full-scale war tie this likelihood to the outcome of the upcoming US presidential elections. They suggest that Netanyahu might hasten the war if the chances of Donald Trump’s re-election diminish, so he would not have to face obstacles to “retreat” in the event Kamala Harris wins.

The gravest and most alarming political projection is that this attack may only be a prelude to something much larger, with the ultimate goal of cutting off communication among Hezbollah members in Lebanon and physically disabling them to pave the way for a broader plan.

A more distant outlook suggests that “the likelihood of peace increases as the likelihood of pre-war conditions rises.” However, comprehensive de-escalation does not seem to be on the table in most American and Israeli analyses, unless it comes in the form of a total ceasefire—something that most politicians deem unlikely under current circumstances.

What is most likely, according to the majority, is a state of "neither peace nor war," from which Lebanon will suffer more than Israel due to the stark contrast in their economic situations.

The worst-case scenario: Escalation beyond the point of return

Many believe that severing communication between Hezbollah members cannot be the sole objective. Strategic expert Brigadier General Samir Ragheb, in exclusive statements to Al Arabiya Net, argued that this operation is merely a prelude to a broader strike on the southern suburbs of Beirut, with Netanyahu wanting to act swiftly before the US elections conclude.

The gravest and most alarming political projection is that this attack may only be a prelude to something much larger, with the ultimate goal of cutting off communication among Hezbollah members in Lebanon and physically disabling them to pave the way for a broader plan.

Proponents of this scenario argue that domestic pressure in Israel could push the government toward launching a full-scale war against Hezbollah to destroy its strategic capabilities—especially its precision missiles and military infrastructure in southern Lebanon. Such a scenario would have dire consequences, potentially leading to direct Iranian intervention and possibly the involvement of other Iran-aligned militias from Iraq and Yemen, thereby increasing the likelihood of broader US involvement.

Based on these analyses, the possibility of de-escalation remains, particularly with ongoing US diplomatic efforts to reduce tensions. However, the risk of escalation into a full-blown war persists, especially if there are miscalculations or if diplomatic efforts fail.

Some who believe in the possibility of a full-scale war tie this likelihood to the outcome of the upcoming US presidential elections. They suggest that Netanyahu might hasten the war if the chances of Donald Trump’s re-election diminish, so he would not have to face obstacles to “retreat” in the event Kamala Harris wins.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies are closely intertwined with US politics, especially as the 2024 presidential elections draw near. During his recent visits to Washington, Netanyahu sought to leverage Israel's strategic relationship with the US to strengthen his domestic and international standing, focusing on "common threats" such as Iran and Hamas.

Comprehensive de-escalation does not seem to be on the table in most American and Israeli analyses, unless it comes in the form of a total ceasefire—something that most politicians deem unlikely under current circumstances. What is most likely, according to the majority, is a state of "neither peace nor war," from which Lebanon will suffer more than Israel due to the stark contrast in their economic situations.

From the perspective of US politics, Netanyahu’s position has become increasingly controversial and divisive. Israel, which was once a unifying issue for both Democrats and Republicans, has become a partisan topic, especially with the rise of a new generation of younger Democrats who are less supportive of Israel compared to older politicians. At the same time, Netanyahu views the potential return of a Republican administration, whether led by Donald Trump or another right-wing candidate, as an opportunity to ease US pressure on Israel regarding issues like settlements and the Palestinian issue.

Hezbollah, which has suffered a severe blow to its members, some of their family members, and its communication capabilities, issued a statement saying: “We hold the Israeli enemy fully responsible for this criminal aggression,” adding that Israel “will certainly receive its just retribution for this heinous attack.”

The 10-year-old daughter of a Hezbollah member was killed in the Bekaa Valley, eastern Lebanon, when her father’s pager exploded in her hands, according to her family and a source close to the group. Among those killed was also the son of a Hezbollah MP, Ali Ammar. In addition, the Iranian ambassador in Beirut was injured in one of the explosions, though his injuries were reportedly not serious, according to Iranian media.

“No war, no peace”: Economic and developmental stalemate

The coming period could witness limited military campaigns targeting Hezbollah sites near the Lebanese border, with Israel attempting to avoid targeting large population centers in Lebanon, thereby minimizing broader backlash. Hezbollah, on the other hand, might continue sporadic missile launches at Israel but at a lower frequency, perhaps awaiting a ceasefire agreement in Gaza.

Many analyses indicate that both Hezbollah and Israel seem keen to avoid an all-out war, primarily due to the high costs, both in terms of lives and economic impact. Despite frequent border clashes and missile attacks, these engagements appear more as maneuvers to assert control and influence rather than ignite a full-fledged conflict.

In this scenario, the likelihood of an all-out war diminishes, but the situation remains unstable, hinged on the success of international diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions. If the analyses suggesting that Hezbollah is not interested in a wider conflict are accurate, Hezbollah might exert pressure on Hamas—potentially through Iran—to accept ceasefire terms.

According to several sources, including Axios, US policy leans closer to this scenario than the others, especially given the failure to free the hostages, which serves as a pressure point on Hezbollah—an ally of Hamas—but without the cost of a major war.

Following the Israeli attack, US President Joe Biden warned Israel against launching a war on Lebanon, stating that the US supports a "diplomatic solution" to end the escalation on Israel’s northern border. Likewise, US envoy to Lebanon Amos Hochstein issued a similar warning, according to the Times of Israel.

Many analyses indicate that both Hezbollah and Israel seem keen to avoid an all-out war, primarily due to the high costs, both in terms of lives and economic impact. Despite frequent border clashes and missile attacks, these engagements appear more as maneuvers to assert control and influence rather than ignite a full-fledged conflict.

Hezbollah is particularly wary of a full-scale war with Israel, given the current economic and political crises gripping Lebanon, which a war would only exacerbate. Israel, too, is not ready for a prolonged war on two fronts, with Gaza remaining a priority. However, the increasing use of advanced weapons could push the situation closer to the brink.

But if both sides choose this path, any miscalculation in military tactics or targeting civilians on either side could lead to an unplanned escalation, where the level of violence rises and the scope of clashes expands. The fear here is that inaccurate strikes could result in a large number of civilian casualties, further fueling retaliatory actions and trapping both parties in a spiral of revenge that would be difficult to escape from.