Iran’s Foreign Minister Amir-Abdollahian vowed Iranian retaliation following the Israeli occupation entity’s recent attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus that killed several top officials and advisors, including Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC). He stated the necessity of ‘legitimate defence with the aim of punishing the aggressor’, as the attack marked an unprecedented violation of international law’s protection of diplomatic missions.
“Israel’s” attack was due to the strategic threat the Resistance Axis poses to the Israeli occupation entity, and Iran’s unwavering support for the Gazan resistance. It is simply a continuation of the entity’s policies of killing Resistance leaders from Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq in the past six months. The foundation of the Resistance Axis today and the focal point is related to Al-Aqsa and the current war on Gaza, with the Israeli occupation entity single-handedly failing to weaken the Gazan resistance, which
is considered the most vulnerable in the whole Resistance Axis.
The Israeli occupation entity’s attack on the Iranian consulate has put it and the Western camp in a bad place, since there is now a legal base for Iran to attack the entity, as its own sovereignty was threatened. The entity is likely attempting to get out of the ‘impasse’ it faces in Gaza by trying to drag Iran and the US into direct confrontation, as the main title these past six months of the war on Gaza is lost. Instead, it wishes for a regional war, such that it appears as though regional nations are fighting to secure their interests, with pressure and attention diverted away from the Israeli occupation’s crimes in Gaza.
However, Iran is very sensitive to not allow a diversion in strategy, whereby the Israeli occupation entity’s hands become free in Gaza, allowing them to intensify their mass ethnic cleansing campaign, as the world’s eyes are no longer focused on them. This war has crucially revealed the true nature of the Israeli occupat
ion entity that is built on terrorism since its inception, thereby mobilising the world against the entity and rendering it a pariah in global politics.
The Iranian strategy for retaliation inside the occupation entity is such that it will not threaten the occupation entity, to the point where it will warrant direct American intervention and invoke a wider regional war. The outcome of a regional war will be to relegate the war on Gaza to a secondary position and give Netanyahu what he wants.
Iran’s retaliation strategy is instead focused on strengthening the Gazan resistance and enhancing overall victory, using its right to strike the Israeli occupation entity to apply pressure in the direction of bringing about a ceasefire. This includes the return of Gazans to the North, full withdrawal of occupation troops, as it recently withdrew from Khan Younis, and the release of Palestinian prisoners as part of an exchange deal.
In the same way the Lebanese, Yemeni, and Iraqi fronts have been crucial in supporting
and relieving pressure off the Gazan resistance, whilst distracting and applying pressure on the Israeli occupation entity, while avoiding being turned into the main title of the conflict, Iran’s retaliation will also be in the same trajectory as the rest of the Resistance axis: a front of direct support for the Resistance in Gaza, executing a retaliation that doesn’t lead to expansion of the fronts, whilst simultaneously increasing the likelihood of a ceasefire due to the unbearable pressure on the Israeli occupation entity.
An example of this retaliation occurred on April 13 when Iran seized the Israeli ship MSC Aries in the Strait of Hormuz and the firing of missiles and drones into Israeli airspace that struck airbases. If Iran continues this strategy as Yemen and Iraq have, it will further constitute a damning threat to world trade with “Israel” and the economy of the Israeli occupation entity, adding to the insecurity of the settlers, such that the entity will feel strangled. Other actions in this traj
ectory may potentially include the targeting of Mossad intelligence centers in places like northern Iraq and the UAE.
The ramifications of a strong Iranian response that poses a threat to “Israel” is likely to trigger direct American intervention to protect the Israeli occupation entity. Here, the war will expand, since the gap created by the downfall of the Israeli occupation entity will be substituted with the Resistance axis. America will not accept the power balance to shift at the hands of the Resistance axis through the termination of their Western project in the region, as that will deal a decisive blow to America’s presence in the region. America would rather announce the bankruptcy of the Israeli occupation entity, which was created initially to protect Western interests.
The US has no interest in expanding the war, since direct war with Iran signifies a real threat to the American presence in the region. America’s implicit messaging to Iran is that they were unaware of the Israel’s strike on the c
onsulate and were not happy with it, therefore signalled for Iran to respond to a degree that would not warrant an intervention.
Even if America reallocated its forces regionally in a war with Iran, it would take months of preparation and assembly. To deploy its troops, it would need access to ports and airfields where soldiers can land, with military infrastructure, whereas Iran could attack these and render them unusable. The mobilisation of resources for war is both politically and militarily unsustainable for America.
The limits of the Iranian response are that it should not be strong enough to invoke a regional war such that America feels the need to get involved, since the goal is to halt the Israeli war on Gaza. Instead, the objective is to pressure the Israeli occupation entity enough to bring an end to the war on Gaza, and Iran’s retaliation supports this objective.
Source: National News Agency – Lebanon