Traffic on a road as people make their way while fleeing the southern suburbs of Beirut, after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the military to attack targets in the suburbs, Lebanon, June 1, 2026. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir

The international news last week was dominated by whether a US-Iran agreement would come to fruition. In presenting the issue, numerous media organizations reported that Israeli strikes intensified recently in Lebanon.

But why did Israeli strikes intensify in Lebanon?

Neither NBC, ABC, nor NPR explained that Hezbollah had recently escalated its warfare against both Israeli military forces and civilian communities with the use of explosive drones controlled by fiber-optic cables.

According to the Alma Research and Education Center (Alma Center), these drones avoid radar due to their ultra-thin cables. In addition, their firing source cannot be geolocated, making them a significant threat and hard to defend against. The IDF estimates that Hezbollah has dozens of these drone operators, at least some of whom are operating from civilian homes. As of May 11, 2026, explosive drones killed four Israeli soldiers and one civilian, and injured dozens of soldiers.

None of this was revealed to their respective audiences, so news consumers were provided only half of the facts and left with only one conclusion: Israel was being aggressive for no reason, with potentially far-reaching global implications.

In two NBC videos dated May 28 and 29, respectively, captioned “Israel intensifies strikes on southern Lebanon” and “Family finds home destroyed after Israeli strike on southern Lebanon,” the reporting centered squarely on Israel’s actions.

An article on the website, by The Associated Press, explained that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu announced the expanded attacks due to Hezbollah’s use of the fiber-optic exploding drones, but anyone who watched one or both brief videos, in lieu of reading the article, would remain unaware.

In the case of an ABC video report (May 28) by Ian Pannell, the network completely reversed the order of operations. After Pannell reported for approximately one minute about the Israeli attacks intensifying, he said, “Hezbollah, of course, is responding by firing into northern Israel, but at a much lower level than Israeli military operations that have been conducted inside of Lebanon.” There was no mention of the fiber-optic exploding drones whatsoever.

Numerous journalists reported on NPR’s Up First (May 29) that “Israel’s war in Lebanon has complicated the Trump administration’s effort to get out of the war with Iran.” The hosts acknowledged that Hezbollah struck Israel first following the US-Israeli attacks on Iran earlier this year, which led to Israel invading Lebanon. Arraf then reported that “Israel has actually intensified its attacks [in Lebanon],” but like the other networks, made no mention of the explosive drone attacks.

Not only did NPR present the Israel-is-the-aggressor narrative in service of Hezbollah, but it paired Israeli military action in Lebanon with recent developments in Gaza, whilst omitting the stated rationale behind the Israeli strategy. Arraf reported that despite the ceasefire in Gaza, Israel “has also expanded areas of Gaza that it occupied” and that according to the Israeli prime minister, “it intends to take more.”

Arraf did not report Netanyahu’s companion statements about continuing to increase pressure on Hamas until it is dismantled and can no longer pose a threat to Israel.

Hezbollah’s decision to use fiber-optic explosive drones in this precise moment would have made for fascinating reporting — for news outlets that actually sought to report a full set of facts. Perhaps Hezbollah employed this new tactic to goad Israel into a more significant military response. Doing so, argued the Alma Center, would provide cover to Iran if it wanted to reject American proposals and drag out negotiations.

With the benefit of a few days’ hindsight, we now see that this is exactly what seems to have happened.

The author is a media researcher at CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis, where a version of this article first appeared.