Interview
Israel-Hamas War: “We are approaching the threshold from which Iran will be directly engaged”
This Monday, April 1, an Iranian consular building located in Damascus was the target of a deadly strike. At least 11 people were killed, including seven members of the Revolutionary Guards, the Islamic Republic's elite unit. Tehran attributed this strike to Israel. Iranian President Ebrahim Raïssi says that “
this cowardly crime will not go unanswered
.” What consequences could this strike have on the current conflict? What retaliation can we expect from Iran? Interview with Joseph Bahout, director of the Issam Farès Institute of Public Policy and International Relations at the American University of Beirut.
Rescue workers at the destroyed building of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, April 1, 2024. © Omar Sanadiki / AP
By: Guilhem Delteil Follow
Advertisement
Read more
RFI: Since October 7 and the Hamas attacks on Israeli territory, Israel has been engaged on two fronts against Iran's allies: in the south against Palestinian Hamas in Gaza and in the north against Lebanese Hezbollah. This time, it was Iran directly that was hit, in the Syrian capital. Is this a highlight of this confrontation?
Joseph Bahout:
It’s one of the highlights, indeed. There is a sort of guideline for Israeli strikes in Syria and Lebanon. And along this line, there are sometimes points more prominent than others. This one is definitely one of them. Along the same lines, we can recall the
assassination of Salah Al-Arouri
(editor's note: one of the senior leaders of Hamas) on January 2. There were also other Israeli strikes in Damascus but I believe that the importance lies more in the diplomatic nature of the building hit than in the profile of the victims. Somewhat equivalent figures have already been killed in Syria and elsewhere.
We are in these peak moments where we wonder if the rules of engagement will change, if we will shift into much broader, much more total confrontation. But very frequently, after this kind of strikes, we return to a bit of the same rhythm. I don't know if this strike will change things but I'm not sure that it's completely out of the ordinary despite the spectacular nature of this Monday's action.
Also read: Revolutionary Guards killed in Syria: a serious setback for Iran and its regional allies
Is there a message from Israel in touching a diplomatic building?
The messages are the same: they are gaining momentum. This is really telling Iran that we are approaching the threshold from which it is Iran directly that will be engaged in the conflict. Maybe not Iranian territory but Iran directly.
But I think the question is the other way around, that is, how Iran itself wants to perceive these kinds of messages. Does he just say “
it’s one more strike, I’ll take it, I’ll digest it and I’ll continue my action as before
”? Or does he himself decide to say “
here, we have crossed a sort of red line, and therefore my response must be stronger, more violent, more significant
”?
This is a bit like how the deterrence dialogue between Iran and Israel works. It's still early to tell, but I think Iran will digest this strike. He will probably carry out or will have an operation carried out from Syria, most probably on the occupied Golan or inside Israeli territory which will perhaps be a little stronger. And this message will be decoded through the type of missiles used in Israeli targeting. And then, I think we will return a little bit to the previous guideline.
What has been interesting for a while – and perhaps this is the new thing – Israel's northern front with Hezbollah is increasingly becoming an expanded front in Lebanon and Syria. Leaked plans from Israel for possible action against Hezbollah say that perhaps this time, Israel would engage Hezbollah in Syria directly, or in Syria and Lebanon. I think these kinds of messages confirm that a little. We also know that Hezbollah and Iran are increasingly preparing for Israeli action, if it took place on the northern front, which would also involve Syrian territory. I think that's a bit of the novelty here.
You said that Israel is “rising in power.” Is there a change in strategy on the part of the Israeli army?
It's the same strategy, but with degradation, with increases in power. And I believe that what explains this rise in power is the fact that Netanyahu is increasingly stuck in the domestic political game as well as in the international game with the United States.
This strike comes at a time when he is perhaps being asked to end the operation and not to engage in the
operation in Rafah
(editor's note: town in the south of the Gaza Strip in which more than 'a million Palestinians from other localities in the enclave). This is also the moment when some voices in Israel say that if there is a lasting truce in Gaza and therefore a non-offensive on Rafah, it will perhaps be the moment to turn towards the other objective which is the Hezbollah objective on the northern border.
So, it's a very small way of playing on the keyboard between Gaza and the northern front. There is also the fact that Netanyahu needs this war to continue and therefore, from time to time, intends to heat up the sauce a little bit by carrying out an operation of this type. For Israel, it is not very costly in terms of intelligence or strikes. It can be costly in terms of reprisals, but it has the advantage of prolonging the conflict and therefore keeping the Israeli Prime Minister in place again and again.
Read alsoGaza Strip: workers of an American NGO killed by an Israeli strike
Newsletter
Receive all the international news directly in your inbox
I subscribe
Follow all the international news by downloading the RFI application
Share :
Continue reading on the same themes:
Iran
Gaza
Israel
Israelo-Palestinian conflict
Lebanon
Syria
our selection
Ebrahim Raïssi
Benyamin Netanyahu