Comment by jessriedel

But the point of the argument was that Hezbollah would immediately never trust their electronic devices going forward until they could secure their supply chain. The argument didn’t depend on the semantics between same and distinct attacks.

One can argue that there is some temporary remaining vulnerability for Hezbollah members who either didn’t hear about the first attack or had some insanely urgent need to communicate (and this vulnerability wouldn’t exist once they secure the supply chain). But I think the much simpler story is that these attacks aren’t possible only once; supply chain security is a continuum, and people will continue to balance risk of repeat attacks against the costs of security.