Aldo Giannuli, historian and intelligence expert, warns that Israel’s recent operation against Hezbollah sets a dangerous precedent for modern warfare. The use of sophisticated cyber and asymmetrical techniques, once reserved for rogue actors, is now being employed by a sovereign state, potentially opening the door for terrorist groups, rogue states, and even private enterprises to adopt similar strategies. Unlike nuclear warfare, which follows a certain logic and deterrence framework, these new forms of conflict lack predictability and regulation, making them far more destabilizing in the current geopolitical context.
* * *
by Andrea Muratore
The Israeli operation conducted between September 17 and 18 against Hezbollah sets an “alarming precedent that reveals the nature of warfare in the era of total chaos,” according to Professor Aldo Giannuli, a historian and intelligence expert who taught at the University of Milan for many years. In an interview with InsideOver, Giannuli analyzed the strategic lessons of the Mossad-led action and its broader implications.
Professor, what do the latest Israeli operations tell us?
“This is a new and highly concerning form of warfare. Today, such operations bring us into a war without limits, where any technology, infiltration method, or device can be used offensively. What is most worrying about this process is the trend toward generalized anarchy that it fosters. This is more concerning to me than the risk of nuclear escalation.”
What makes this new type of war more dangerous?
“The fact that nuclear war, despite its potentially devastating nature, follows an intrinsic logic. There are doctrines of use, deterrence scenarios, and mechanisms to identify the start of a potential escalation. For a long time, the world has established treaties and rules to regulate strategic competition in this field. The rational element is clear: no sane person would contemplate using a weapon that would backfire on themselves and their allies. However, offensive actions like the one in Lebanon do not offer protection against such threats.”
How could these threats manifest?
“As Alessandro Curioni explained well, the compromise of supply chains through infected devices or the insertion of micro-explosives has introduced a new method of attack. This can be triggered in various ways—Curioni, as a technical expert, mentions SMS or radio frequencies as possible keys to induce simultaneous explosions. I think Curioni’s technical explanation is thorough, and I refer to his considerations. On the scenario analysis, I take up a suggestion he made: Israel’s move opens up the prospect that many will take notes. Terrorist groups, criminal organizations, rogue states, or even ‘rogue enterprises’ aiming to sabotage competitors will have taken lessons on how to proceed. Many will feel legitimized to do so.”
A war where attack methods, operational scenarios, and dynamics can be applied by states or private actors: truly a borderless conflict…
“Yes, and it’s no coincidence that I referred to a ‘war without limits,’ borrowing the term coined by two Chinese officers in their influential book over twenty years ago. Any object, in one way or another, can be used as a weapon in an asymmetrical offensive. Electronic systems enable a wider scale of attacks and encourage offensive action since those carrying out such operations can hope to remain undetected. Furthermore, those with nothing to lose—Hezbollah comes to mind—will be tempted to respond if they possess such means. Finally, there’s the possibility that the ability to strike anonymously could lead to ‘catalytic warfare,’ where a public or private actor could launch an attack on a rival while hiding behind suspicions pinned on a third party.”
What does it mean that a sovereign state like Israel is the one demonstrating such capabilities?
“It means openly legitimizing this new threat, even at the risk of blowback affecting Tel Aviv’s allies and friendly nations. Before using a nuclear weapon, even a tactical one, a state would carefully weigh all risks. Cyber and asymmetric offensives like the one in Lebanon don’t have the same deterrent in terms of potential retaliation. The ‘customizability’ of attacks targeting specific technologies or manufacturers diversifies and amplifies the potential attack surface. This scenario of continuous technological-military conflict is, therefore, more dangerous than the threat of nuclear escalation because it is more likely, harder to contain, and cheaper for attackers.”
What does the future hold?
“There is a sort of Wild West now open to terrorist and criminal organizations, given that a state has adopted this new combat method, legitimizing its use and opening up worrying scenarios. In the age of generalized chaos, the most alarming aspect of this type of warfare is the complete lack of logic and even the faintest hint of predictability.”
InsideOver, September 19, 2024
