By Elijah J. Magnier
The Israeli strikes, both security and military-related, must be critically examined, particularly in light of their success in various regions and against multiple targets. These strikes eventually led to the assassination of Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, despite the stringent security measures in place to protect him.
Since becoming a declared target for Israel, Nasrallah’s security detail has implemented extraordinary precautions. Individuals in his immediate surroundings were prohibited from using mobile phones or the Internet. Moreover, Nasrallah adopted a highly secretive lifestyle, frequently relocating between different apartments and never staying in one location for an extended period. In addition, tiny passageways were created within adjacent buildings to allow him to move from place to place without needing a vehicle. These measures provided a sense of security to his protective unit, mainly since his movements were concealed from aerial surveillance, reducing the risk of detection by drones or satellites that continually gather intelligence.
The specific location targeted in the attack was known as the “Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters”, a command centre overseen by Commander Fouad Shukr, who had been tasked with managing the “Al-Aqsa Flood” battle since 8th October 2023. Shukr was a regular visitor to this site. However, despite Shukr’s assassination in the suburb on 30th July, Hezbollah did not view the incident as a sign of an internal security breach, whether through human or electronic means.
Fuad Shukr, also known as the “mukhtar”) head ( of Ouzai, moved openly within the area without fear. On the day of his assassination, rather than having his driver take him down to the lower-floor garage, he exited his car directly in front of the building, where many people in the area noticed him. In his professional role, he inadvertently left behind traces of his movements, which Israeli intelligence managed to exploit.
Furthermore, Hezbollah had also been restocking its warehouses after deploying over 8,000 missiles, rockets, and drones over the past 11 months, all under the vigilant watch of US and Israeli intelligence, including their satellites. These clues provided vital information, especially regarding his responsibilities as the commander of Hezbollah’s missile units. Ultimately, Israel used this intelligence to carry out its lethal operation against Hezbollah’s missile capabilities above the ground.
Therefore, it was not entirely surprising that Israel was aware of Nasrallah’s presence at the location where he was ultimately assassinated. This occurred after several months during which Israel had refrained from targeting Hezbollah leaders, except for those directly involved in the conflict and engaged in active combat against Israel—both sides largely adhering to these unofficial boundaries. Moreover, the assassination followed an incident in which a missile landed in a residential area of the occupied Golan Heights (Majdal Shams), for which Israel accused Hezbollah, using it as justification for targeting Commander Fouad Shukr.
Following Hezbollah’s retaliation, a series of assassinations began to take place, escalating tensions further. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed his resolve to extend the conflict across the entirety of Lebanese territory, striking thousands of targets—many of them with precision—and killing key Hezbollah leaders. This intensified offensive followed a sabotage operation that affected PAGER devices and, later, ICOM devices on the 17th and 18th of September.
After the sabotage on the first day, Hezbollah suspected that the ICOM batteries, which had been acquired in the same deal as the PAGER devices, might have been compromised. As a result, despite the large size of the explosives embedded within the wireless communication batteries, the human losses on 18th September were relatively minimal.
Hezbollah managed to neutralize a significant number of these devices before they detonated. However, Hezbollah had no immediate consensus regarding a comprehensive investigation into the possibility of an electronic or human security breach.
Israel announced that its intelligence for the operation was based on a combination of visual, human, and electronic sources, particularly from its Units 9900, 8200, and 504. These units provided crucial information indicating that Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah had entered a meeting hall where high-ranking officials, including the deputy commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Major General Abbas Nilforoushan, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards operations room—both present to support the “Al-Aqsa Flood” battle—were waiting for him.
The Unit 9900 specialises in visual intelligence, focusing on satellite and aerial imagery to monitor enemy movements and locate strategic targets. The unit uses advanced geospatial and electro-optical technologies to track high-value targets such as Nasrallah. Its expertise allows it to gather detailed information about specific locations, down to minor terrain details. In this case, Unit 9900’s ability to monitor movements in real time would have been instrumental in confirming Nasrallah’s presence in the meeting hall, helping Israel’s military plan the strike with precision. The Unit 8200 is Israel’s premier signals intelligence (SIGINT) and cyber warfare unit. It is responsible for intercepting and analysing enemy communications, gathering intelligence from electronic sources, and engaging in cyber operations. It is likely that Unit 8200 intercepted Hezbollah’s encrypted communications or infiltrated its digital networks, allowing Israel to track movements, identify critical meetings, and collect vital information about Nasrallah’s whereabouts. Unit 8200’s capacity to decrypt communications and disrupt enemy networks is considered one of the most advanced in the world, and its role in this operation likely included monitoring communications within Nasrallah’s inner circle and providing precise intelligence on his movements.
Unit 504 specialises in human intelligence (HUMINT), focusing on recruiting and handling informants, especially within hostile or difficult-to-access environments. This unit is known for working closely with spies and collaborators who can provide ground-level intelligence. In the case of Nasrallah’s assassination, Unit 504 might have relied on informants within Hezbollah or in Nasrallah’s security detail, providing specific, actionable information about his movements and the meeting at the “Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters.” The involvement of human agents could explain how Israel knew not only about Nasrallah’s presence but also the presence of other high-ranking officials in the meeting hall, ensuring that the operation was carried out at the optimal time for maximum impact.
These units form an integrated network combining visual surveillance, electronic interception, and human intelligence to provide comprehensive situational awareness. The collaboration of these intelligence assets allowed Israel to breach Hezbollah’s formidable security apparatus and eliminate one of its most guarded figures. This highlights the growing role of advanced technology and intelligence in modern warfare, where electronic and human data converge to produce highly effective military outcomes.
Also in attendance were Ali Karaki (Abu al-Fadl), the general commander of Hezbollah’s southern operations, the security official haj Nabil, and the director of Nasrallah’s office haj Jihad, alongside key military planners who were responsible for suggesting targets and discussing Israeli capabilities. These leaders highlighted potential sensitive locations that Hezbollah could target in retaliation for recent sabotage operations and the assassination of its leaders.
Tragically, everyone present in the meeting hall was killed when the Israeli strike destroyed the building. Paramedics, using multiple camouflaged corridors, managed to locate the bodies, which had been preserved due to the intense pressure from the 85 tons of explosives Israel used.
This incident raised significant questions. Was there satellite-linked visual surveillance that confirmed Nasrallah’s presence at the location for several hours, giving Israel the time to prepare and launch the attack? Could tracking devices have been hidden inside the pagers carried by many officials several months before, or perhaps inside the explosive-laden batteries? Were there agents within the security apparatus assigned to protect Nasrallah who leaked information and identified the “golden target” at the scene? Or did a combination of these factors come together to deliver the precise intelligence necessary for the assassination?
Hezbollah now faces the urgent task of addressing these critical questions. It must swiftly abandon its known and previously used locations, eliminate above-ground operations, and undertake a comprehensive intelligence review to uncover the necessary answers and prevent future security breaches. Nothing is stopping Hezbollah from pursuing this course of action, even while under attack or while facing a potential ground invasion. The initiative has shifted back into its hands, notably after Israel announced that it had exhausted its list of targets and that the so-called “target bank” was depleted, without necessarily excluding the fact that additional new targets can be added in the future. This development provides Hezbollah with an opportunity to respond appropriately to the recent events and potentially escalate towards the broader conflict that Israel seemed to be preparing for, all while addressing internal vulnerabilities and strengthening its defenses. However, Hezbollah has not yet responded, and the coming days are expected to reveal what remains of its capabilities.
