By Girish Linganna 

 

 

 

 

 

SIX months have passed since the beginning of Israel-Hamas war on October 7 last year, but instead of agreeing to the UN ceasefire plan, Prime Minister Netanyahu has expanded the confrontation to Syria by bombing the Iranian embassy in Damascus. On April 1, an alleged Israeli airstrike destroyed a building within the Iranian embassy complex in Damascus. The explosion resulted in the deaths of seven individuals, including several influential Iranian officers. This event marked a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran, as it targeted a location that should have been considered off-limits according to international standards. The crucial question now is how Iran will respond, whether by directly attacking Israel or its primary supporter, the United States. Damascus is the capital city of Syria. It is located in the south-western part of the country, near the border with Lebanon. Damascus is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world and holds great historical and cultural significance. The airstrike resulted in the death of General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, a prominent figure in Iran’s Quds Force, the expeditionary branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). General Zahedi held the position of operations chief in Syria and Lebanon for several years and was believed to have a close relationship with Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shia militia and political party. Additionally, his deputy and five other IRGC officers lost their lives in the explosion.

 

This incident marks the highest-ranking Iranian commander to be assassinated since the US drone strike that killed Qassem Soleimani in 2020. The Iranian Quds Force is a special forces unit within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It supports and coordinates with proxy militias and insurgent groups in the Middle-East, advancing Iran’s interests abroad through training, funding, and weapons. It plays a significant role in Iran’s regional influence and asymmetric warfare strategy. General Qassem Soleimani, who was the commander of the Quds Force, was a prominent figure in Iran’s military and played a crucial role in expanding Iran’s influence across the Middle East. However, he was killed in a US drone strike in January 2020, resulting in a significant loss for the Quds Force. Despite his death, the Quds Force continues to operate under new leadership and remains an essential component of Iran’s regional strategy. While Israeli officials did not openly acknowledge their involvement in the airstrike on the embassy compound, their private statements strongly imply their responsibility. However, they did put forth the argument that the entity behind the attack was justified in doing so. Daniel Hagari, the army spokesperson, referred to the targeted building as a “civilian building” that had been camouflaged to appear as a military facility.

 

It is indeed true that the IRGC officers were not in Damascus to discuss reduced pistachio tariffs( Iran is a major pistachio producer). It’s frustrating to hear Iranian officials using the sanctity of consular buildings as an excuse, especially considering that the Islamic Republic began with the hostage-taking at the American embassy in Tehran in 1979. However, despite these contradictions, the sanctity of consular buildings is a well-established global norm. If the presence of military personnel alone were enough to disregard this norm, some of Israel’s own embassies would also be considered legitimate targets. Even Saudi Arabia, a long-standing rival of Iran, swiftly condemned the strike without explicitly naming Israel. Since October 7, Israel has been engaged in a dual conflict. On one front, they are fighting against Hamas in Gaza, where the militants crossed the border and caused the death of over 1,100 people. On the other front, Israel is facing a broader range of Iranian-backed militias across the region. Among these militias, Hizbullah is the most powerful and has been launching missile attacks almost daily on towns and army bases in northern Israel. However, Hizbullah has refrained from initiating an all-out war.

 

This restraint is driven by the reluctance of most Lebanese people to be dragged into a war and Iran’s cautious approach to risking its most valuable proxy. Israel has been cautious about launching deep strikes into Lebanon to avoid provoking a strong response from Hizbullah. Instead, it has primarily focused its attacks on southern Lebanon, although it has recently extended its strikes into the Bekaa Valley, an agriculturally rich region in eastern Lebanon where Hizbullah has a significant presence. However, Israel does not hesitate to target Syria. After enduring a decade of civil war, Bashar al-Assad’s regime is too weak to retaliate, and the Iranian-backed militias in Syria lack the extensive arsenal possessed by their Hizbullah counterparts in neighbouring Lebanon. Syria has become a prime target for Israel, offering a wide range of potential objectives such as Iranian officers, allied militias, and shipments of weapons destined for Hizbullah. Since October 7th, Israel has conducted numerous strikes in Syria, resulting in the elimination of a significant portion of the IRGC’s high-ranking officials in the country. Following the assassination of Suleimani, Iran responded by launching a barrage of ballistic missiles at two American bases in Iraq. This attack, although the largest of its kind thus far, fell short of the more aggressive and forceful retaliation advocated by certain hardliners.

 

However, the recent bombing of an Iranian consular building by Israel has potentially increased domestic pressure on Iran to respond more significantly. Iran has endured months of Israeli attacks, and now that Israel has effectively targeted Iranian territory, there is a possibility that Iran may opt for a direct response rather than relying solely on its proxies. In a statement on April 2nd, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei hinted at the potential for direct action, stating that the “evil regime will be punished by the hands of our brave warriors.” Iran has a history of favouring indirect methods of warfare, relying on proxies to carry out its actions. Israel is engaging in a high-risk strategy in Syria. It believes that it currently has a unique chance to weaken Iran’s proxy forces in the region, while Iran is hesitant to engage in a large-scale retaliation due to concerns about escalating into a broader war. So far, this gamble has paid off for Israel. However, it is important to remember that past outcomes do not guarantee future results. If Israel oversteps its boundaries, the region could quickly descend into a more chaotic and complex conflict.