No, because you assign them to strategic targets even if they deal with their targets using small unit tactics.
Tactical operations would be when as a battalion commander I order two companies to hold the line and the reserve to swing out to the left to flank the enemy position. They are performing a tactical level action. Sending a assassin to kill a planetary commander, a team to go observe a third party's enclave to make sure they are not getting involved, or sending a different team in to blow the SDS C3 to open the way for a planetary invasion are all units that operate on a tactical level to accomplish a strategic goal. I would go so far to say that EVERY strategic operation is accomplished on the tactical level.
First killing a general/political figure is not in any way a strategic targets.
Just like killing civilians is not a strategic targets.
They both are tactical targets that can be used to achieve the Strategic a goals, but do not in themselves achieve that goal.
A strategic target/objective is a thing or area required to complete the overall objective of the operation.
Examples of this would be drop/airbases, destruction or withdraw of enemy forces, capture of main strongholds/cites.
A strategic unit would be required to not only take but indefinably hold these objective for the duration of the operation or until relieved.
So, no one man or a small group trying to kill some one is not a strategic unit or achieving a strategic objective.
Special Operations units and Intelligence assets are practically strategic by definition.
These units are always tactical units in nature, and by definition.
Neither can readily and with any reliability accomplish strategic objective.
Their tactical use can help the campaign alone, but outside spy thrillers and sci-fi adventures novels , it is rare for them to accomplish anything approaching a strategic level.
That still requires boots on the ground or mutually assured destruction.
A single nuclear warhead could obliterate a strategic target, the delivery system doesn't matter.
A handful of civilians flew non-military aircraft into buildings and cost a superpower tens of trillions of dollars over the next two decades.
Nukes are only strategic weapons in their none use. They are a strategic deterrent and when the bomb start flying are not even a good tactical weapon.
War in the long run are fought to achieve something.
In actual combat Nukes are a spiteful "If I can have it you can't have it" weapon.
And as for the aircraft, this did not accomplish any real strategic objective.
In all true military analysis of the attack , it was a terrorist tactic that had the complete opposite effect of making their strategic objective harder to achieve.