Hassan Nasrallah: Assassinated by Israel in 2024 – A Turning Point in the Israel-Hezbollah Conflict

Introduction

The assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, by Israeli forces in 2024 marked a pivotal moment in the long-standing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. Nasrallah's death, a result of an airstrike in Beirut, intensified an already volatile situation and carried profound implications for the region's political and military dynamics. This article delves into the background, details of the assassination, and its potential consequences.

Background

Nasrallah was born in 1960 in Beirut and emerged as a prominent figure in Lebanon's political landscape. He joined Hezbollah shortly after its formation in the early 1980s, following the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. In 1992, Nasrallah became the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, leading the organization through significant confrontations with Israel, including the 2006 Lebanon War. Under his leadership, Hezbollah evolved from a militia into a powerful political and military force with regional influence.

Tensions between Israel and Hezbollah intensified in 2023, with both sides engaged in cross-border skirmishes and exchanges. This escalation culminated in widespread violence, with significant loss of life and property damage on both sides. The conflict drew in other regional actors and raised concerns about the possibility of a broader confrontation.

Lead-Up to the Assassination

In the months preceding Nasrallah's assassination, the Israel-Hezbollah conflict saw a series of aggressive actions. Hezbollah's involvement in the conflict, prompted by their solidarity with Hamas following the October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel, put further pressure on Israel’s military resources. There were over 10,000 cross-border attacks between Hezbollah and Israeli forces from October 2023 to September 2024. This included Israeli airstrikes, Hezbollah rocket attacks, and ground incursions, which displaced hundreds of thousands of people on both sides of the border.

The assassination occurred after a series of setbacks for Hezbollah in September 2024, including the explosion of its handheld communication devices and the assassination of Ibrahim Aqil, commander of the elite Redwan Force. Israel's campaign against Hezbollah intensified in late September, setting the stage for the strike on Nasrallah's headquarters.

The Assassination

On September 27, 2024, Israeli forces launched an airstrike targeting a Hezbollah headquarters in Dahieh, a suburb of Beirut known for being a stronghold of the organization. The underground facility was hit in a precision strike, killing Nasrallah and several of his top lieutenants. The operation was reportedly carried out with high-level intelligence and advanced military technology, underscoring Israel's determination to neutralize Hezbollah's leadership.

The strike was part of a broader campaign by Israel to degrade Hezbollah's military capabilities and weaken its leadership structure. Despite this, Israel’s government maintained that their actions were in response to Hezbollah’s continuous aggression and attacks on Israeli territory. The airstrike drew immediate condemnation from the Lebanese government and other regional actors, who viewed it as a significant escalation of the conflict.

The Impact on Hezbollah and Lebanon

Nasrallah’s assassination sent shockwaves through Hezbollah and its supporters. As the organization’s leader for over three decades, Nasrallah was not only a political and military strategist but also a symbol of resistance against Israel. His death left a significant leadership vacuum, raising questions about the future direction of Hezbollah.

Internally, Hezbollah faced challenges in maintaining its cohesion and morale following Nasrallah's assassination. The loss of other senior commanders in the preceding months had already weakened the organization’s command structure, making Nasrallah’s death even more destabilizing. In the short term, Hezbollah responded with a series of retaliatory rocket attacks on northern Israel, signaling that it was far from defeated.

Lebanon, already struggling with political and economic crises, faced further instability as a result of the assassination. The airstrikes led to widespread displacement and destruction, exacerbating the humanitarian situation in the country. The Lebanese government, which had condemned Israeli actions, found itself under pressure from both domestic and international actors to manage the fallout from the escalating conflict.

Regional and International Reactions

The assassination of Nasrallah drew mixed reactions from the international community. Israel justified the strike as a necessary action against a terrorist organization that posed a direct threat to its security. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated Israel’s commitment to defending itself against aggression from Hezbollah and other militant groups.

Conversely, the Lebanese government, backed by Iran and several other countries, condemned the assassination as a violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty and an act of aggression. The Arab League and United Nations called for restraint and urged both sides to avoid further escalation, but diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the situation made little headway in the immediate aftermath.

The United States and European Union, while generally supportive of Israel’s right to self-defense, expressed concerns about the potential for the conflict to expand. Both called for a ceasefire and urged Israel and Hezbollah to return to negotiations. The assassination thus heightened tensions between regional powers and underscored the risk of a broader conflict.

Implications for the Israel-Hezbollah Conflict

Nasrallah’s assassination had far-reaching implications for the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. In the short term, it intensified military confrontations, with Hezbollah launching retaliatory attacks and Israel responding with further airstrikes. The possibility of a wider war loomed as both sides showed little willingness to back down.

For Israel, the assassination achieved a significant strategic objective by eliminating Hezbollah’s long-standing leader. However, it also risked provoking a more aggressive response from Hezbollah and its allies, potentially drawing Iran and other actors into the conflict.

Within Hezbollah, Nasrallah’s death created uncertainty about the organization’s future leadership and strategy. While Nasrallah had been a unifying figure, his assassination raised questions about whether his successor would maintain his approach or adopt a different stance toward Israel and regional politics.

Conclusion

The assassination of Hassan Nasrallah in 2024 marked a turning point in the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, escalating tensions and raising the stakes for both sides. While Israel succeeded in eliminating a key figure in its long-standing adversary, the repercussions of this act are still unfolding, with the potential for broader regional instability.

As Hezbollah navigates the aftermath of losing its leader, the future of the organization and its role in the region remains uncertain. The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is likely to persist, but Nasrallah's assassination has undeniably altered the dynamics of this complex and deeply entrenched struggle.

Saddam Hussein was hanged by the Shiites

Saddam Hussein, the former President of Iraq, was executed by hanging on December 30, 2006. However, the execution was carried out by the Iraqi government that was in power at the time, which had a Shiite majority, but it wasn't just Shiites who conducted the execution. The Iraqi government itself, established after the U.S.-led invasion of 2003, was multi-ethnic and included various sects, but it did have a significant Shiite influence, reflecting Iraq's Shiite majority population.

The execution took place during the period of intense sectarian conflict, which likely contributed to the perception that it was an act by Shiites against the former Sunni leader. Nonetheless, the formal process was conducted by the Iraqi state's judiciary and executive branches.

Khomeini and the 1979 Iranian Revolution

The 1979 Iranian Revolution was a transformative event that led to the overthrow of Iran's monarchy under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and the establishment of an Islamic Republic led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Khomeini, a Shia cleric, became the figurehead and leader of the revolution, reshaping Iran's political, social, and religious landscape.

Key Background

Discontent with the Shah's Regime:

The Shah was perceived by many Iranians as being overly aligned with Western powers, especially the United States, which provided him with strong political and military support.

His efforts to modernize and secularize Iran through reforms (like the White Revolution) alienated large segments of society, including the religious establishment and the working class.

Economic inequality, political repression (particularly by the secret police, SAVAK), and perceived cultural decadence fueled discontent across various sectors of Iranian society.

Ayatollah Khomeini's Rise:

Khomeini had long been a vocal critic of the Shah’s regime, denouncing its Westernization policies and its infringement on Islamic values.

He was exiled in 1964 due to his opposition but continued to mobilize resistance from abroad, gaining a massive following through his writings and sermons, which were smuggled into Iran.

Khomeini advocated for an Islamic government based on the principle of Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), where religious leaders would guide the political system.

The Revolution

Widespread Protests:

By late 1978, protests against the Shah had grown widespread, encompassing various social groups: intellectuals, students, workers, and the clergy.

The demonstrations were initially focused on economic grievances but quickly took on a revolutionary character, with calls for the Shah’s ouster and Khomeini’s return.

Shah’s Departure:

On January 16, 1979, the Shah left Iran, ostensibly for medical treatment but never to return.

Khomeini returned triumphantly to Iran on February 1, 1979, after 14 years in exile. His return was greeted by millions, solidifying his status as the leader of the revolution.

Islamic Republic:

Following the Shah's departure, Khomeini and his supporters quickly dismantled the monarchy. A referendum was held in April 1979, in which the majority of Iranians voted to establish an Islamic Republic.

Khomeini became the Supreme Leader, wielding ultimate religious and political authority.

Aftermath

Theocratic Rule:

The revolution replaced a secular monarchy with a theocratic state. The new government was based on Islamic principles and law, with clerics occupying key positions of power.

Political parties that were not aligned with the revolution were marginalized or eliminated, including leftist groups and other opposition movements that had participated in the revolution.

Hostage Crisis:

In November 1979, Iranian students stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took 52 American hostages, leading to a 444-day crisis. This marked a complete break in U.S.-Iran relations and signaled Iran’s new anti-Western, anti-American stance.

Legacy:

The revolution profoundly changed the Middle East. It inspired Islamic movements across the region and established Iran as a theocratic state that has influenced geopolitics ever since, particularly in its confrontations with Western powers and its support for Shia movements throughout the Muslim world.

Khomeini’s ideology continues to shape Iran’s internal policies and foreign relations, especially its stance toward the U.S. and Israel.

The 1979 Iranian Revolution was not just a national event but a significant shift that reverberated across the globe, with Khomeini emerging as a symbol of Islamic resurgence against perceived Western imperialism.

What is The Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light?

The Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light is a relatively recent offshoot of the larger Ahmadiyya movement, distinct from the mainline Ahmadiyya Muslim Community founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. It traces its origins to a faction that claims to follow a divinely guided leader, but it differs significantly in its theology and leadership structure. This group has caused confusion due to its name’s similarity to Ahmadiyya Islam, but it operates independently from the mainstream Ahmadiyya movement.

Key Beliefs and Characteristics of The Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light:

Divine Leadership and Imamate:

The central belief of the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light is that it follows a divinely appointed leader, often referred to as the Imam Mahdi. The group claims that this leader is a continuation of the prophetic lineage and provides spiritual guidance to the community.

They consider their leader to be the true representative of God on Earth and the rightful successor to past prophets and reformers, including figures such as Jesus and Muhammad.

Break from Mainstream Ahmadiyya Islam:

This movement separated from the main Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, which follows the leadership of the caliphs after Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light diverged due to theological differences, particularly regarding leadership and the nature of the divine mission.

The group does not align itself with the caliphate system established by the mainstream Ahmadiyya community.

Messianic and Mahdist Claims:

Much like Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's original claim of being the Mahdi (the awaited messianic figure in Islam), the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light believes that the true Mahdi has emerged in their leadership. This Mahdi is seen as the person who will lead the world into an era of peace, justice, and spiritual enlightenment.

This belief distinguishes them from mainstream Muslim communities that either await a future Mahdi or reject such claims outright.

Emphasis on Peace and Light:

As the name suggests, the religion emphasizes the concepts of peace and light, promoting a message of spiritual enlightenment and non-violence. The group often presents itself as a community focused on inner peace, moral reformation, and the betterment of society.

They promote these ideals through preaching, missionary work, and humanitarian efforts.

Global Outreach and Small but Growing Community:

Although it is a smaller movement compared to mainstream Ahmadiyya Islam, the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light has followers across several countries. They emphasize missionary work, aiming to spread their message globally and recruit followers from both Muslim and non-Muslim backgrounds.

They are known for their internet presence, using online platforms to propagate their teachings and reach out to potential followers.

Distinction from Islam and Ahmadiyya:

While the name suggests an affiliation with Islam, many of the beliefs and practices of this group differ from both mainstream Sunni/Shia Islam and traditional Ahmadiyya teachings. Their claims to divine leadership, messianic authority, and unique interpretations of Islamic theology have led to criticism and rejection from both Muslims and mainstream Ahmadis.

They operate independently from traditional Islamic institutions, and their leadership structure is not recognized by other Islamic denominations.

Controversy and Reception:

The Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light, much like other splinter groups, has faced skepticism and criticism from both the mainstream Ahmadiyya community and the broader Muslim world. They are often seen as a fringe group with beliefs that diverge from traditional Islamic teachings.

Mainstream Ahmadi Muslims, who already face persecution for their own beliefs, typically distance themselves from this group due to theological differences and the confusing similarity in names.

In summary, the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light is a small religious sect that believes in a divinely guided leader, claiming to follow the true Mahdi. It is distinct from both mainstream Ahmadiyya Islam and traditional Sunni/Shia Islam, with a strong emphasis on spiritual enlightenment, peace, and messianic leadership.

According to Trita Parsi, Iran co-operated with Israel behind the scene during Khomeini era

Yes, Trita Parsi, an expert on Middle Eastern geopolitics, has written extensively on the complex and often surprising relationships between Iran and Israel, particularly during the early years of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In his book Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States, Parsi explores the covert cooperation between Iran and Israel during the Khomeini era, despite the public hostility between the two nations.

During the 1980s, particularly in the context of the Iran-Iraq War, Iran found itself in need of military supplies and support. Israel, despite being publicly denounced by the Iranian leadership, saw Iran as a counterbalance to Iraq, which was viewed as a greater threat to Israeli security at that time. As a result, there was a pragmatic, though covert, cooperation between the two nations. This included arms deals, facilitated in part by the United States, and other forms of military and intelligence cooperation.

This relationship was paradoxical because, while the Iranian regime publicly condemned Israel and Zionism, it was willing to engage in covert cooperation when it served its strategic interests. Parsi's work highlights the complexity and pragmatism that often characterize international relations, even among nations that appear to be staunch enemies.