With the world now looking ahead to a future for Lebanon and the Middle East without long-time Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, many are hopeful for a brighter outlook for the country and the region.
Hanin Ghaddar, a Friedmann Senior Fellow in The Washington Institute, said Israel’s assassination of long-time leader “constitutes a shattering moment for the group that could alter the Lebanese political landscape as well as dynamics across the region”.
His death was the culmination of a 10-day campaign by Israel which had assassinated the group’s top leadership and infiltrated its communications systems while dismantling masses of its military infrastructure.
“On paper at least, replacing Nasrallah will not be difficult, and Hezbollah will take up the task alongside Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC),” said Ghaddar, with likely successors including deputy leader Naim Qassem and executive council head Hashem Safieddine, Nasrallah’s nephew.
But she says that on a deeper level, "replacing the charismatic longtime leader will be very difficult”.
“He has become inseparable from the group’s brand, and is identified with successes such as Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 and the perceived summer 2006 “divine victory” against Israel,” she added.
Hezbollah’s sponsor, Iran, now has two options, to escalate the situation or to back down, containing its biggest proxy’s losses. That may involve taking a US-France led truce but after the failings of the UN Resolution 1701 in 2006, what Israel will be willing to accept remains in question.
She says it is the chance for the Lebanese Armed Forces to pull back control now that Hezbollah has been seriously curtailed. “But the LAF itself must answer to an independent Lebanese government, not one in thrall to Hezbollah,” she added. “A post-ceasefire Lebanon must above all be anchored in state sovereignty and independence.”
Iranian-born Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment and adjunct professor at Georgetown, agreed that the assassination “is hugely consequential for the Middle East”.
Writing on X, he said: “Hezbollah is the crown jewel of the Islamic Republic of Iran-the one effective enterprise Iran’s revolutionaries have built since 1979-and Nasrallah has been crucial to Iran’s power expansion.
“Arab Hezbollah has been Persian Iran’s bridge to the five failing Arab states-Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza-that Tehran has been dominating. Iran provides the resources, but it was often Hezbollah, under Nasrallah’s leadership, that set up and trained these proxies.”
While his death will not change the course of Iran’s mission to annihilate the Jewish state, It has thrown Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei into “a dilemma of his own making”, he says.
“By not responding strongly, he keeps losing face. By responding too strongly, he could lose his head. Like all dictators, Khamenei wants to be feared by his people. These humiliations will fuel talk about succession in Tehran.”
While Nasrallah’s death is huge, he says the true impact will take years to assess. “The key to change in the Middle East remains a government in Iran whose organizing principle is not revolutionary ideology (‘Death to America, Death to Israel’), but Iran’s national and economic interests.”
Gabriel Noronha, a former official in the Trump administration, emphasized the importance of Israel continuing its efforts to dismantle Hezbollah. He noted that alongside the war objectives of returning the 101 hostages held in Gaza and destroying Iran-backed Hamas, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government has also prioritized the return of the 63,000 Israelis displaced from the north to their homes.
“Israel should ignore calls for urgent de-escalation from weak-kneed Western leaders who know nothing of victory and are stewards of decline,” he wrote on X.
“Israel should instead press their clear advantage to decimate as much of Hezbollah as they desire - and stop when they wish. And if Iran is foolish enough to strike Israel from its territory, appropriate response targets should include the IRGC headquarters, MOIS headquarters, and nuclear sites - particularly clandestine sites and those associated with weaponization activity.”
After nearly one year of Hezbollah’s bombardment of northern Israel in the wake of the Hamas invasion on October 7, Israel is finally pushing back on the US’s diplomatic approach. On Sunday, there was confirmation from Israeli officials of the military having begun limited incursions into southern Lebanon.
“The Islamic Republic’s shield of Hezbollah has been torn through like rice paper. The Axis of Resistance is reeling and off-balance,” Noronha said, while calling for more sanctions on Iran along with tougher military pressure on Hezbollah.
Michael Singh, head of the Washington Institute, warned that Iran’s policy of illegally flooding Lebanon with arms, undermining its sovereignty and using it as a shield against retaliation with no regard for the lives or interests of the Lebanese people, “may have finally run its course”, offering a brighter future for the country whose capital was once known as the Paris of the Middle East.
But while Hezbollah may have been markedly weakened, offering the chance to Lebanon for a future beyond the grips of Tehran, Yemen expert Thomas Juneau, a professor at the University of Ottawa and former department of defense analyst, warned that this may merely see a passing of the baton to Iran’s Yemeni proxy. The Houthis have become ever more powerful in the last year amid the blockade of the Red Sea region.
Since November, the Houthis have targeted commercial shipping in a bid to force a ceasefire in Gaza, initiated by Iran’s Khamenei. While it aimed to target Israeli-linked vessels, it has however, seen dozens of international seamen taken hostage and international vessels targeted in drone and missile attacks.
“With Nasrallah confirmed dead and Hezbollah suffering so many losses (and Hamas even more), expect the Houthis to become even more prominent as a key Iranian partner. This matters, especially as Houthis are possibly the least risk averse member of the 'Axis of resistance',” Juneau warned on X.
The conservative newspaper Jomhouri Eslami condemned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, likening him to historical figures such as Genghis Khan and Hitler. The paper also criticized the United Nations for allowing a "war criminal" to address the General Assembly, accusing it of giving Netanyahu a platform to "distort history" and make "false claims" in his defense.
Jomhouri Eslami called for Netanyahu’s prosecution at the International Criminal Court (ICC), noting that governments worldwide, along with the ICC, recognize him as a “war criminal.” The editorial urged for “decisive” international action, and stated that governments should jointly “seek justice to prevent further atrocities.”
On September 27, the Israel Defense Forces announced air strikes on Hezbollah's main headquarters in Beirut, in an operation aimed at assassinating Hassan Nasrallah. The following day, Hezbollah confirmed his death.
Vatan-e Emrooz, a hardline daily, focused on what it saw as the consequences of inaction following the earlier assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. In a commentary titled "Escape from War, an Inevitable War," columnist Hamid Malekzadeh argued that Israel’s actions were a result of two factors: confidence in Western support, particularly from the US, and a lack of political will in Tehran to respond effectively to hostile actions against Iran and its allies.
Malekzadeh criticized Iran’s restraint after Haniyeh’s death, describing it as a “misinterpretation of diplomacy” that led to inaction. He contended that Iran should have issued a “firm ultimatum” to Israel, rather than engaging in what he called an “ineffective policy of restraint.” The columnist concluded that Israel’s killing of Nasrallah reflected the failure of this approach and underscored the necessity of internal unity and preparedness for conflict in international relations.
The IRGC-affiliated Javan newspaper reported on Hezbollah’s official response to Nasrallah’s death, stating that the group confirmed his martyrdom 18 hours after the attack in Beirut’s Dahiyeh. It said Hezbollah’s statement emphasized that the leadership remains committed to continuing its "jihad" against Israel and supporting Gaza and Palestine as confirmed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Kamyar Behrang, journalist told Iran International that "There is a significant difference between Khamenei's message regarding the death of Hassan Nasrallah and his previous messages. In January 2020, after the killing of Qasem Soleimani, Ali Khamenei explicitly referred to hard revenge in his message. But today, like a religious leader, he only issued a call for jihad."
In contrast to hardline stances, the moderate reformist daily Ham-Mihan cautioned against the dangers of media-driven hype and “raising unrealistic expectations.” The newspaper stressed that pushing for “military confrontation” or creating the perception that war is the only option would not benefit the country or its leaders.
It called for calm, measured policy-making in foreign affairs, warning that either “unfulfilled demands” would lead to “public disappointment” or the country would be forced into a “weak negotiating position,” with “predictable negative outcomes.” Ham-Mihan also pointed out that Israel, aside from its attack on Iran’s embassy in Damascus in April, has attempted to distance itself from direct actions against Iran. The paper warned of the risks of escalating regional tensions, as Israel’s “ultimate goal is to involve global powers in the conflict, changing the dynamics in its favor.”
In recent days, ultra-hardliner social media activists, largely supporters of former nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, have been criticizing President Masoud Pezeshkian and his government for their "inaction" against Israel, despite its recent deadly operations in Gaza and Lebanon. They have suggested that Iran is avoiding confrontation with Israel.
Ultra-hardliners have, however, remained conspicuously silent on the fact that the decision to launch a military response against Israel ultimately rests with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, as commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, not with the president or parliament.
In a series of X posts Saturday after Nasrallah’s demise was confirmed, Khamenei called on all Muslim nations to stand by the people of Lebanon but fell short of vowing revenge by Iran for his killing and the killing of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July as hardliners and ultra-hardliners had expected.
“Only breaking red lines [by us] can stop [the enemy from] breaking [our] red lines,” a Jalili supporter tweeted while suggesting that the Islamic Republic should end its so-called “strategic patience” and build a nuclear bomb, threaten to leave the UN and refuse to allow the passage of Western commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz for a week by holding a week-long naval drills.
“Why can Yemen block the main passageway of oil [in the Bab al-Mandab Strait] but we are not doing the same in the Strait of Hormuz?” an ultra-hardliner asked in a tweet Saturday.
Another ultra-hardliner suggested that Iran must target the economic interests of the Western, Israeli, and Arab countries in the region before taking any other action.
“Iran's first step should be closing this strategic passageway to prevent an all-out war in the region,” he tweeted while suggesting that failing to take such a step may bolden Israel to make the “strategic mistake” of attacking Iran.
Iranian officials have on many occasion in the past threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, but this can lead to a clash with the US and other naval forces, leading to a regional war.
“Whether we like it or not, Iran must direct its military doctrine towards building a nuclear bomb. Iran has wasted the cards it held in the past and the only card that it holds now is a nuclear bomb. This is the only means to bring the West to the negotiation table,” Sohrab Salehi, a university professor of medicine who also supports ultra-hardliners on social media tweeted Saturday.
“You gentlemen in charge, one must have nuclear power against such an enemy. Test the first nuclear bomb for the sake of Iran's security and in reaction to the actions of the notorious regime [of Israel],” Mohammad-Mehdi Dehghannejad, an ultra-hardliner social media activist tweeted.
These demands have drawn criticism from other netizens, who argue that closing the Strait of Hormuz would only escalate tensions. They also point out that building a nuclear bomb, despite the official claim that Khamenei has issued a religious ban on weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms, would not shield the Islamic Republic from Israel.
“In the highly unlikely case that we succeed [in building a bomb], how can a system that can’t protect its highest officials manage to guard that bomb? Or let’s say you built it...how are you going to make a deal using the nuclear bomb card?” a netizen on X asked the advocates of Iran becoming nuclear to protect itself against Israel.
A netizen on X contended that ultra-hardliners will brag about the closure of the Strait of Hormuz for some time but their ruckus will soon be forgotten as in the past.
Meanwhile, Abdolreza Davari, a former ultra-hardliner and close confidante of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who supported Pezeshkian over Saeed Jalili in the presidential election, offered a surprising assessment of the situation and Hamas's role in it following Nasrallah’s death.
Highlighting the upcoming anniversary of the October 7 attack that ignited the latest round of conflict, Davari argued in a tweet that an analysis of the “cost-benefit of the operation and its impact on the Resistance Front and the Zionist enemy” reveals that the operation resulted in “nothing but pure damage.”
In another tweet, Davari suggested that Iran should reassess the factors behind the “devastating blow” to the Resistance Front and prioritize “pursuing Iran's interests” in line with the shifting dynamics of the region in the post-Nasrallah era.
