Experts explain to Al Jazeera Net the consequences of targeting the Iranian consulate in Damascus

The attack on the Tehran consulate in Damascus led to the death of 7 officers in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (Reuters)

Tehran

- The Israeli attack, in early April, on the Iranian consulate in the Syrian capital, Damascus, raised questions about the ownership of the lands of diplomatic missions and the limits of their diplomatic immunity, in addition to the reasons for Tehran’s lack of haste in retaliating despite popular pressure demanding a direct response.

Last Monday, Israel launched a raid on a section of the Iranian embassy complex in Damascus and leveled it to the ground, leading to the killing of 7 officers in the Revolutionary Guard. Among them is the commander of Iranian military operations in Syria and Lebanon, Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, and his deputy, Mohammad Hadi Haji Rahimi.

Over the past few days, analysts and diplomats have reported in the media that “the attack on Tehran’s consulate in Syria means targeting Iranian territory,” but without addressing the legal and political dimensions of this statement. What about her health?

Legitimate defense

Al Jazeera Net asked the international lawyer and legal expert Abdul Samad Khorramshahi, who confirmed that it has no basis in international law nor in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which was approved in 1961 to determine the controls for diplomatic work between countries.

Khorramshahi explained that Articles 22, 24 and 30 of the Vienna Convention affirm the immunity and inviolability of diplomatic missions and oblige host countries to guarantee their security, but this does not mean that the territory of diplomatic headquarters is subordinate to the sending countries.

The attack on diplomatic headquarters was considered a provocative step that violates international laws and norms, but it justifies the targeted state “legitimately defending its interests and condemning the aggressor in international and international circles.”

For his part, Javaid Gurbanoglu, the Iranian diplomat and former ambassador to South Africa, draws a parallel between the immunity of diplomatic missions and the territories of the sending countries.

He explained that affirming the inviolability of diplomatic missions and considering them - metaphorically - as the territory of the sending countries “comes to highlight and guarantee the legitimate right of defense of the targeted state whose diplomatic headquarters abroad are being targeted.”

Speaking to Al Jazeera Net, Ogli stressed that the inviolability of diplomatic missions is no less important than the inviolability of the territories of the sending countries, adding that the right of legitimate defense in such cases does not mean reciprocity, and it must be followed up at first glance in international and international circles.

Politics of ambiguity

Diplomatic and international norms and the necessity of following up on the file in UN groups may be a reason that explains Tehran’s lack of haste in responding despite the Iranian authorities’ assertion that they had taken a decision to retaliate and restricted it to “a time determined by the Islamic Republic.” However, General Hussein Alaei, the former Assistant Iranian Minister of Defense, has a different opinion.

Retired Major General Alaei, who previously headed the General Staff of the Revolutionary Guard, does not see the need to adhere to international norms in dealing with “an occupying entity that has never adhered to any international and international norms and laws, and does not differentiate between military personnel and unarmed civilians, but rather equates military barracks with diplomatic headquarters.” Hospitals and places of worship.

Speaking to Al Jazeera Net, Alaei believes that immediate revenge may put the “Zionist entity” at ease at the present time, stressing the necessity of Tehran adopting a policy of ambiguity in determining the timing of revenge for the victims of its consulate and delivering a fatal blow to the occupation that was not taken into account.

He concluded that "Iranian retaliation must be according to a carefully prepared plan that will make Israel stand until then on a man and a half," as he put it.

He added that the occupation will know that Tehran, the Revolutionary Guard forces, and the resistance movements will not leave any of its provocative steps unpunished, adding that the resistance axis must adopt a vague policy that keeps Israel in a state of constant worry about “inevitably coming” retaliation.

For his part, Tehran's former ambassador to Jordan and Lebanon, Ahmed Dastmaljian, considers the attack on his country's consulate in the Mezzeh neighborhood in Damascus "a pivotal incident that will have significant repercussions in the region and will launch a new phase in the region."

He stressed that revenge is "a must," but Tehran will not be drawn into what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants by luring the Islamic Republic into a direct war that will save him from the Gaza quagmire and enable him to bring Tehran into direct confrontation with his Western allies.

Compound response

In his statement to Al Jazeera Net, former Iranian diplomat Dastmaljian believed that there is no room to talk about strategic patience yet, and that the lack of a harsh response may encourage the "Zionist enemy" to directly target Iranian territory.

He stressed that the goals set for Netanyahu to undermine Iran's deterrent power by targeting its consulate in Syria will backfire on him and lead to adverse results.

He explained that "such violations may force Tehran to take steps to strengthen its deterrent power that it had not previously considered," but he declined to provide further details about the nature of those intended steps.

While Dastmaljian believes that "the Israeli entity has crossed all red lines by targeting the Iranian consulate in Syria," he asserts that his country's response will be complex and tactical to meet the demands of internal public opinion to hold the aggressor side accountable, and strategic that will accelerate the demise of the occupation, according to his words.

He added, "If the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) alone is capable of standing up to the occupying entity and challenging it despite receiving various types of aid from Western countries, then Iran has strategic alliances with resistance movements, some of which it has not yet revealed, awaiting the final battle that will eliminate the occupation."

Dastmaljian concluded that Tehran holds the United States responsible for the attack on its diplomatic mission in Damascus using American F-35 aircraft.

He asked, "How can Washington accuse Iran of being behind the attack on the American Tower 22 base in Jordan because the resistance movements used marches believed to be Iranian-made, and are trying to evade their responsibility in the attack on the Iranian consulate?"

Source: Al Jazeera