What Are the Most Likely Scenarios After the Assassination of Nasrallah?

The Israeli assassination of Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, Hassan Nasrallah, has opened the door to numerous changes and potential scenarios in the Middle East, both politically and militarily. The likelihood of a broader regional war has increased.

The effects of Nasrallah’s assassination span from Israel and Lebanon to Gaza, impacting the potential for a prisoner exchange deal. It also extends to Yemen, where a new role for the Ansar Allah (Houthi) movement could emerge, and, naturally, to Tehran, the Iranian capital.

Iranian Intervention

Ron Ben-Yishai, a military analyst for the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, emphasized that Nasrallah’s assassination would have strategic repercussions in the near future. “The Iranians will intervene,” he said, “as they provided Hezbollah with a vast arsenal of heavy and precision missiles. They are likely to help their proxy in Lebanon retain its strategic capabilities and its ability to disrupt any Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear sites.”

He added that Nasrallah was also “a key member of the Iranian axis, on par with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. While Khamenei was the primary partner in the conflict, he always valued Nasrallah’s insights, considering him an expert on Israeli affairs.”

Ben-Yishai explained, “To the Iranians, Nasrallah was a Shiite leader and part of the Iranian nation, a valuable tool in spreading the Islamic Revolution across the region and the world. Iran is compelled to retaliate for his killing.”

This retaliation, according to Ben-Yishai, could take the form of a direct Iranian attack on Israel or through their proxies in Iraq and Syria. However, Israel must be prepared for the possibility that Iranian leaders may take control of Hezbollah’s forces and weapons, directing them in the conflict.

Ben-Yishai also pointed out that it is challenging to predict how these events will impact negotiations for the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. “Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas, saw what happened to Nasrallah and understands that he could face a similar fate,” Ben-Yishai remarked. “On the other hand, the assassination could spark a regional war, which was Sinwar’s hope from the start. In this case, there would be no incentive for him to agree to a hostage release deal.”

“Measuring the Consequences”

The Guardian highlighted the difficulty in gauging the fallout from Nasrallah’s assassination. Pessimists foresee a significant escalation, with Iran seeking to reassert its strength and avenge the death of one of its most critical assets abroad.

Optimists, on the other hand, might argue that Nasrallah’s elimination has removed a key player from the conflict, which could deter Tehran and pave the way for a de-escalation of hostilities, if not an end to them.

The paper noted that “finding a replacement for Nasrallah will be extremely challenging for both Hezbollah and Iran. Even without Israel’s recent targeting of senior leaders, no one within the movement possesses Nasrallah’s regional stature, experience, or influence.”

It also became clear that “Israel has demonstrated its ability to gather timely intelligence from deep within Hezbollah and act on it effectively. Any new Secretary-General is likely to have a very short lifespan.”

“What Will Israel Do?”

CNN analyst Nick Paton Walsh pointed out that “so far, we haven’t seen a barrage of rockets from Hezbollah causing significant and known damage to Israeli targets. This could occur if Hezbollah’s remaining leadership decides they must demonstrate some form of military strength to boost morale in the region.”

However, if Hezbollah tries and fails due to Israeli countermeasures, it would only further damage its standing.

Walsh added that “Iran has shown an immense ability to endure pain over recent months, and it may have a longer-term vision. The West and Israel should be wary of the shift in the pace of uranium enrichment in Iran and fear losing the broader war to prevent nuclear proliferation in a region that is dangerously close to the edge.”

The most important factor, however, is the next steps Israel should take. Israel has proven it has an intelligence advantage, military strength, and a tolerance for international condemnation over civilian casualties, allowing it to continue strikes whenever it deems necessary. However, this could turn two weeks of brutal strikes into another long-term loss of prestige for Israel.

Walsh noted that Prime Minister Netanyahu faces a critical decision: “Will the past two weeks bolster his domestic security reputation and put him in a better position to face the charges against him? Or will he once again calculate that a prolonged, directionless war is his best path forward?”

“A Dramatic Decision”

Experts at the Atlantic Council, a U.S.-based international affairs think tank, emphasized that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, since taking his position as Iran’s leader, has never faced such a dramatic decision. The assassination of Nasrallah places Iran in a “very difficult dilemma” between a harsh response against Israel, which could trigger a regional war, and inaction, which would severely damage its network of armed proxies in the “Resistance Axis.”

At the same time, the issue of Iran’s nuclear deterrence will likely come under scrutiny again. Hezbollah had served as Iran’s main deterrent against Israel, preventing an attack on its nuclear facilities.

The council noted that the consequences of this dilemma are crucial for Iran and its allies. Any Iranian response would put the country at risk of a war, possibly unwanted, with the U.S., yet it would send a message of commitment to the Axis, deterring Israel from further harm.

The Need for Two Plans

The Atlantic Council also argued that Israel needs not one but two plans for the post-war period in Lebanon. It hasn’t yet decided on a comprehensive plan for the aftermath of the Gaza war. However, regarding its conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israel must prepare not one but two post-war strategies.

The council concluded, “Hezbollah is certain to fire hundreds or even thousands of rockets and missiles at Israel within the next 96 hours in retaliation for Nasrallah’s death. The Israeli military and its missile defenses will face their greatest test since the events of April 13-14, when nearly all Iranian drones and missiles were intercepted.”

Israel will immediately face a choice: either launch a planned ground invasion of southern Lebanon to achieve what the UN Security Council failed to do in Resolution 1701 in 2006 — neutralizing Hezbollah’s capacity to fire short-range missiles and rockets at northern Israel — or pull back.

This ground campaign would have a modest objective: to destroy Hezbollah’s military sites and weapons caches south of the Litani River. Israel hopes this could lead to a ceasefire that would prevent Hezbollah from restoring its forces along the border and cease rocket attacks. Once Israel’s ground forces withdraw, Hezbollah would remain a dominant force in Lebanese politics, and a fragile peace would ensue, as happened after the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah.

However, the council warned that Israel’s campaign might not end as planned. If Hezbollah or Iran deals significant damage to Israel, Israeli leaders could face pressure from the ruling coalition and the public to escalate the war further, potentially launching a ground invasion of Hezbollah’s stronghold in the Bekaa Valley or even conducting air and ground operations in southern Beirut.

Israel must seriously consider having a viable post-war plan, one that sticks to its stated goal of fighting Hezbollah rather than the Lebanese state.

The council also pointed out that Nasrallah’s martyrdom is unlikely to derail Houthi operations despite their close ties to Hezbollah. Instead, the Houthis are likely to continue launching major attacks on Israel and shipping vessels in the Red Sea in retaliation for Nasrallah’s assassination.

Moreover, it is possible that ongoing large-scale operations, coupled with Hezbollah’s weakened influence following its leader’s death, could empower the Houthis and their leader, Abdul Malik al-Houthi, to assume a more prominent role in Iran’s network of proxies and allies.