Assassination of Fuad Shukr: Was Hezbollah’s Response Underwhelming?

I thank Sayed Hasan, of Resistance News Unfiltered

On July 30, 2024, Israel carried out a targeted airstrike on an apartment building in Haret Hreik, a densely populated suburb of Beirut known as a Hezbollah stronghold. The strike resulted in the death of Fuad Shukr, a senior Hezbollah commander crucial to the group’s military operations. Alongside Shukr, Iranian military adviser Milad Bedi and five Lebanese civilians, including two children, were killed, and 80 others were wounded.

The assassination of Fuad Shukr, a figure of immense importance to Hezbollah, was widely expected to provoke a fierce response. However, Hezbollah’s immediate retaliation on August 25 left many observers disappointed, as they had anticipated a more severe and dramatic reaction.

Hezbollah’s counterattack, dubbed “Operation Arbaeen,” (because it took place on the 40th day after the martyrdom anniversary of Imam Hussein) unfolded in two meticulously planned phases. In the first phase, 340 Katyusha rockets were launched at 11 Israeli military bases in Upper Galilee and the Syrian Golan, primarily as a decoy to deplete Israel’s air defenses. Although all these bases were hit, the true impact came in the second phase when tens of armed drones of various sizes and models penetrated deep into Israel, targeting critical military sites: the Ein Shemer air defense base and the Glilot base near Tel Aviv, home to the infamous Unit 8200 and Aman headquarters. These two flagship units of Israeli military intelligence were the main targets of the operation because of their role in the assassination.

This operation demonstrated Hezbollah’s advanced military capabilities and its determination to target the most important Israeli bases, achieving a new level of strategic penetration (110 kilometers from the Lebanese border and only 1,500 meters from Tel Aviv) and signifying a notable escalation in the conflict. Yet, it also raised questions about whether the group had lost its capacity—or its will—to deliver a signifcant blow to Israel or continue to do whatever is necessary to ensure the victory of the Resistance in the Gaza Strip.

However, this sense of disappointment stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of Hezbollah’s strategy and the significance of figures like Fuad Shukr. As Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah noted after the assassination of Qassem Soleimani in January 2020, the value of such leaders transcends any immediate act of retribution. Nasrallah famously stated that Soleimani’s single shoe was worth more than the entire Trump administration, emphasizing that the only fitting ‘just retribution’ for his assassination was to expel all U.S. forces from the Middle East—a mission with a clear long-term focus. Similarly, an appropriate response to the assassinations of leaders like Imad Moghniyeh or Fuad Shukr cannot be merely the elimination of a single Israeli figure of equivalent stature, as none exist, nor can it be confined to just one military operation, regardless of its scale or success. Instead, it must be a strike that paves the way to the Resistance’s broader objectives—namely, the Liberation of Palestine and the entire Middle East.

Leaders like Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi, who reportedly sought refuge in underground bunkers for weeks during heightened tensions, are viewed by Hezbollah as strategically inept. Their decisions and actions, rather than deterring Hezbollah or significantly weakening its morale or capacity, are seen as contributing to Israel’s long-term decline. Even if their immediate elimination were possible, it would be counterproductive to the Resistance’s broader goals, as keeping such figures in power accelerates Israel’s downfall—especially Netanyahu, famously dubbed by Nasrallah as fallback successor to “The Last King of Israel”, namely Ariel Sharon. It would also contradict Hezbollah’s vision that all Israeli leaders are effectively the same as regards Palestine, Colonization and Zionism, rendering the politics of assassination futile.

For this reason, the Lebanese Resistance focused on high-value military targets without employing its most advanced capabilities, using only Katyusha rockets and drones while reserving its ballistic and/or high-precision missiles for another battle. The primary objective of this operation, which may include a second phase in the future, was to uphold the rules of engagement and demonstrate that Hezbollah remains committed to supporting the battle for Gaza, initiated on October 8th, 2023, regardless of the cost. This mission was largely—if not spectacularly—accomplished.
Achievements of Hezbollah’s Retaliation

Hezbollah’s “Operation Arbaeen” achieved several critical objectives, each contributing to its broader strategic goals:

Demonstration of Ability: The operation showcased Hezbollah’s capacity to conduct its most significant military action since October 8th, 2023, at a time when Israel was on its highest alert. Despite Israel’s access to the full support, intelligence, and advanced technology of the U.S., NATO, and regional vassals, Hezbollah successfully executed its plan, proving that it remains a formidable force in the face of overwhelming opposition, even after the loss of Fuad Shukr, the very man who should have led such operations. The ongoing and even intensified daily actions supporting Gaza since his assassination highlight that Hezbollah’s capabilities remain undiminished.
Display of Resolve: The operation directly rebuked the numerous threats from Israeli, U.S. and EU officials, who had vowed total war, destruction, and the return of Lebanon to the Stone Age. Hezbollah’s actions demonstrated its resolve to uphold the rules of engagement and continue supporting Gaza, undeterred by these bombastic warnings. The group made it clear that it would not be cowed by rhetoric or threats.
Maintaining the Moral High Ground: Unlike Israel, which deliberately targeted Lebanese civilians in its assassination of Fuad Shukr, Hezbollah was careful to avoid “civilian” targets (in Hezbollah’s view, Zionist settlers encroaching on Palestinian land—whether through illegal settlements, in Haifa, or Tel Aviv—are not considered “civilians.”) and infrastructure. The operation specifically targeted elite Israeli military units involved in the assassination, underscoring Hezbollah’s emphasis on striking military rather than civilian targets, thereby preserving its moral standing in the conflict, while showcasing its ability to strike the country’s most heavily defended targets..
Strategic Focus: While Israel has been desperate to provoke an all-out war and draw the U.S. into the conflict—largely due to its dead-end entanglement in the quagmire of Gaza—Hezbollah kept the situation controlled. The group calibrated its response precisely to avoid triggering a full-scale war, responding to aggression in a proportionate manner, and demonstrating that it prioritized strategy over tactics, bombast and posturing— the complete opposite of Israel.
Pre-Strike Exhaustion: In the weeks leading up to the operation, Israel, for perhaps the first time in history, was struck by fear from Kiryat Shmona to Eilat. The nation experienced a widespread standstill as it anxiously awaited Hezbollah’s response and potential retaliations from Yemen and Iran, yet to come. The evacuation of settlements, the suspension of production, and the economic slowdown took a heavy toll on Israel, both economically and psychologically. The mere anticipation of the attack became a form of punishment, as Israel struggled—and continues to struggle—to move past the looming threat.
Post-Strike Humiliation: Following the operation, Israel’s panic forced millions into shelters, paralyzing the entire country for 72 hours. Israeli officials made exaggerated claims that they had thwarted Hezbollah’s attempt to launch thousands of rockets and precision missiles at civilian targets in the North and Tel Aviv. However, this narrative was a blatant lie, but it played into Hezbollah’s war of nerves against the entire nation. These theatrics were designed to create an illusion of success, with Israel portraying itself as having achieved a major tactical victory by supposedly dealing a severe blow to Hezbollah’s capabilities. However, Nasrallah—whom many Israelis trust more than their own leaders—set the record straight. He clarified that the entire operation involved only about 300 Katyusha rockets and drones, and that not a single rocket launcher or drone platform was hit before it had fired. Only two of these launchers were struck afterward, along with several others that weren’t involved in the operation. No drones were intercepted over Lebanon. Additionally, there were no Hezbollah casualties before the operation, and only two afterward, along with a combatant from the Amal movement. Israel’s hysterical reaction, reminiscent of a high-budget Hollywood production, revealed its desperation to save face and recover from the intelligence failure of October 7th. However, their rushed actions made it clear that they had no prior knowledge of the operation until a significant movement of fighters was detected, and they were entirely unaware of the operation’s specifics or its targets.

Although no images of the impacts were released due to stringent Israeli military censorship—and while Hezbollah’s drones were likely equipped with cameras and may be reserving these images for future release—, Hezbollah’s “Operation Arbaeen” adeptly achieved its strategic goals by showcasing its military capabilities, demonstrating restraint and maintaining ethical standards. The operation effectively countered Israeli and U.S. threats while inflicting psychological and economic stress on Israel. By avoiding broader conflict and mocking Israel’s exaggerated post-strike claims, Hezbollah not only reinforced its strategic position but also exposed the vulnerability and desperation within Israeli ranks.

What About Gaza?

Why did Hezbollah not escalate its response more forcefully to alleviate the Gaza resistance and its population from the prolonged 11-month assault that has devastated the Strip and resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, predominantly women and children? The answer lies in the balance of power and Hezbollah’s—along with the entire Resistance Axis—strategic focus. The organization deliberately chose to maintain a supporting role rather than engage in a full-scale conflict, underlining that their primary objective is to aid Gaza in achieving its goals, and avoid opening new fronts that could be detrimental to their cause.

One reason Hezbollah held back for so long was the ongoing ceasefire negotiations on August 15th, which the U.S. touted as decisive. However, these talks turned out to be yet another empty promise, with no outcome due to Netanyahu’s unrealistic demands. Hezbollah needed to show that it gave negotiations every chance and that Israel was the acting as the rogue state.

Some might argue that a full-scale war could potentially save countless Palestinian lives, given the tens of thousands of casualties and the biblical destruction in Gaza. However, the opposite could be true. After October 7th, we witnessed the extreme reaction from the “civilized West” when 1,200 Israelis were killed, with comparisons to the Holocaust being drawn, genocidal mass hysteria and so forth. If Hezbollah engages in a full-blown war, the Israeli death toll would increase tenfold, which would significantly revive the narrative of Israel as a victim and undermine diplomatic and public pressure for a ceasefire in Gaza. Israel’s already extensive leeway in targeting Palestinian lives in Gaza and the West Bank with total impunity would only expand further. In the event of a war with Hezbollah, a force far more formidable than the Palestinian Resistance, Israel would likely seize the opportunity to escalate its actions against the Palestinians and intensify ethnic cleansing, while global attention would shift to Israeli casualties and the Lebanese front.

As Nasrallah pointed out in his first speech after October 7, Hezbollah and the Resistance Axis don’t possess yet the capability to defeat Israel in a single, decisive blow. Engaging in all-out war wouldn’t necessarily help the Palestinian people or their resistance—in fact, it could do the opposite. Hezbollah operates as a guerrilla force, and their strategy is one of attrition, the very kind of war Israel isn’t able to fight to the end, as its entire history has relied on strategies of swift blitzkriegs aimed at decisive victories. Therefore, it is in Hezbollah’s interest to persist with this war of attrition, which many Israeli officials and analysts view as an existential threat to the Israeli state. As an Israeli general recently announced,

“Israel is sinking deeper into the Gazan mud, losing more and more soldiers as they get killed or wounded, without any chance of achieving the war’s main goal: bringing down Hamas.

The country really is galloping towards the edge of an abyss. If the war of attrition against Hamas and Hezbollah continues, Israel will collapse within no more than a year. […]

Terror attacks are intensifying in the West Bank and inside the country, the reservist army is voting with its feet following recurring mobilizations of combat soldiers, and the economy is crashing. Israel has also become a pariah state, prompting economic boycotts and an embargo on arms shipments.

We are also losing our social resilience, as the growing hatred between different parts of the nation threatens to ignite and bring to its destruction from within. […]

After 2,000 years of exile, we returned and established a glorious country. We paid a high price in tens of thousands of dead and wounded [of course he only speaks of Jewish lives, as Arabs don’t count]. And now the country is disintegrating in our hands through the fault of Netanyahu, Gallant, Halevi, and their pawns.”

This view, shared by many in the Israeli establishment, supports Hezbollah’s perspective and strategic approach by highlighting Israel’s growing difficulties, such as military losses, internal unrest, economic decline, and international isolation. This trend will only intensify as long as the war of attrition in Gaza continues. However, it could shift if a new, open conflict were to arise with other forces of the Axis of Resistance. Hezbollah’s strategy is to amplify Israel’s problems to precipitate its collapse “bit by bit” while maintaining control of the situation. The polarization of Israeli society has reached unprecedented levels, with growing risks of civil war, particularly due to the forced conscription of ultra-Orthodox Haredim. Recent events, including the recovery of six Israeli prisoners’ bodies in Gaza and the historic nationwide general strike led by the Histadrut trade union—a longstanding pillar of Zionism—demanding Netanyahu halt his headlong rush in Gaza and now the West Bank, where the Israeli army is dangerously committed, and push for a ceasefire and prisoner exchange, underscore the effectiveness of Hezbollah’s strategic patience.

Conclusion

Since October 7th, almost a million Israelis have left the country, with many unlikely to return. The likelihood of further emigration is high, particularly if a ceasefire is declared, which would be viewed as a significant victory for Hamas and Gaza. Such a scenario would starkly highlight Israel’s failure to protect its citizens from ongoing threats, even from a relatively small and besieged enclave—so what about the prospect of war against Hezbollah or Iran, with the entire Axis of Resistance at their side, which aims to dismantle the State of Israel, Nasrallah has repeatedly emphasized that the destruction of Israel is a fundamental obligation for the Axis of Resistance. He has stated that this goal must be pursued as soon as the conditions are favorable.

After the terror induced by the possibility of such a regional war, coupled with the closure of airports and the lasting paralysis of daily life, Israel will emerge from this conflict weaker than ever. This weakened state would pave the way for its eventual collapse or destruction in the foreseeable future—a scenario that would likely come at a much lower cost than if the entire Resistance Axis engaged in full-scale war now.

Hezbollah’s strategy is centered on the ultimate destruction of Israel, but not through immediate, large-scale warfare. Instead, the group seeks to gradually erode Israel’s confidence, morale, and military capability while depleting its economy and weakening it from within. The goal is to make as many Israeli settlers as possible realize that they will never achieve the stability and security promised to them. Instead of the alluring vision of a “land of milk and honey,” they will face the harsh reality of a “land of terror and ruin.”

Israeli military chief Moshe Dayan once boasted that even the Tsahal musical fanfare could conquer Lebanon. Nasrallah’s final remark in his August 25 speech served as a pointed reminder that such boasts are now obsolete: “The day may come when Hezbollah invades Israel with a musical fanfare.” While some might dismiss this as mere bravado or “Nasser-style” rhetoric, the Great War of Liberation is destined to occur on the terms and timeline set by the Axis of Resistance, not Israel.