Could they be a part of another operation, infiltrating products I work with and eventually harming the reputation of company? Possibly, yes.
Granted, infiltrating a supply chain to boobytrap devices to prep them for a coordinated act of state terrorism is a different beast from merely compromising encryption and communication but a certain level of paranoia seems warranted.
You don't need to build specifically for Hezbollah, to start worrying about your risk factors
Arguably if your client is IDF your devices are more likely to exclusively end up in the hands of military personnel whereas if your client is "Hezbollah" (whatever legal entity acted on their behalf in this case) an attack would be (and has been) far more likely to injure, maim or kill civilians and non-militants, not just because of the higher likelihood of harming bystanders and family members.
Would a supply chain attack like this against Toyota be justified because of the large market share in after-market "technicals" used by terrorist and insurgent groups?
I'm sure you'd have said the same if a few thousand explosive devices went off all over Israel, and Hezbollah said that it was just them targeting IDF troops.
Even if you just think Mossad does this (not the case), if they want to mess with you, it's pretty poor op/sec to declare their nationality first.
The list of state actors that partake in corporate espionage and more is quite long.
corporate espionage yes, practiced by many states, to gain competitive advantage.
infiltration, I don't know many examples, except Israel.
Here's a fun story: https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/23/24163389/joseph-cox-dark-...
Pretty sure that's been done by almost everyone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_bomb
Most countries don't actually have their intelligence services routinely carry out assassinations and when they do the point of having the intelligence service do it rather than the military is usually to keep a low profile.
... then maybe, just maybe, you've become as much of a monster as the ones you claim to be fighting.
The ends don't justify the means. The means define what ends you can achieve. If your ends are "living in relative peace and safety" (and for the sake of realism we take that to mean equivalent to a country in Western Europe as neither of those things can be guaranteed nor permanent) and your means involve deliberately killing 10x as many people as your enemies while also killing more women and children and not stopping before the enemy is guaranteed to never pose a threat again, then your ends are only achievable if you completely exterminate not only every single militant sided against you but also all of their friends and family who might be motivated by your actions to take revenge. Or more likely, you'll end up outnumbered, outgunned and at the mercy of those who had to endure unspeakable suffering because of you.
If you look at the situation in Lebanon, you have a religious para military organization pointing thousands of rockets towards israel with the aim of "liberating" the land and turning the entire region into a shia islamic empire - military power is almost certainly part of the equation of how to deal with it (along with diplomatic resolutions with other players)
And I really fail to see how taking out thousands of hezbollah members with virtually minimal civilians casualties is not a good thing - my main concern and criticism is that israel is not pushing aggressively on the diplomatic front as well to take advantage of that outcome.