https://arab.news/v398w
The assault on the Iranian consulate in Damascus that occurred on Monday represented a potentially perilous escalation that was outside the scope of the ongoing conflict in Gaza. It was a significant development in the broader dynamics of the Middle East.
Syria and Iran have pointed the finger at Israel for the airstrike that demolished a consular building, resulting in the deaths of top Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Mohammed Reza Zahedi and several other high-ranking officials, including Mohammed Hadi Haji Rahimi. The Israeli authorities have refrained from issuing any statements regarding the incident, leaving speculation to swirl about the country’s potential involvement in the attack.
This incident was the latest occurrence in a recent series of apparent Israeli airstrikes in Syria specifically targeting the IRGC and Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Lebanese militant group. Despite the frequency of these attacks, there has been no significant retaliation beyond sporadic skirmishes along Israel’s border with Lebanon, in spite of the repeated threats issued by Iran and Hezbollah’s leadership that they would respond to Israeli strikes in a reciprocal manner.
Monday’s strike was a significant departure from previous attacks, potentially marking a critical turning point in the dynamics of the region. The assault on Iran’s consulate in Damascus carries unique gravity due to the fact that consular buildings are generally — if not technically — considered to be the sovereign territory of the respective countries, rendering this strike one of the most provocative attacks on Iranian soil in recent memory. In spite of Iran’s restrained response to previous provocations, the brazen nature of this attack poses a formidable challenge, particularly for Iran’s elite IRGC and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
As tensions escalate and pressure for a response mounts, Iran finds itself performing a precarious balancing act
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh
Tehran’s reluctance to retaliate thus far could be perceived as a sign of weakness and humiliation, undermining its perceived strength and resolve on the global stage. As tensions escalate and pressure for a response mounts, Iran finds itself performing a precarious balancing act, torn between the imperative to retaliate and the potential consequences of further escalation.
From Israel’s perspective, the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas is seen as yet another manifestation of Iran’s long-standing support for the group. Israel has long accused Iran of providing financial and military assistance to Hamas, enabling it to carry out attacks against Israeli targets. Seen through Israel’s prism, this is a stark reminder of Iran’s role in fueling regional instability and perpetuating violence. The close relationship between Iran and Hamas has long been a source of concern for Tel Aviv, as the Israeli leaders believe their ties pose a direct threat to its security. Israel views Iran’s support for Hamas as part of a broader strategy to exert influence and project power across the Middle East, heightening tensions and complicating efforts to resolve long-standing conflicts.
In situations where Iran perceives itself to be under threat or seeks to respond to provocations, the Islamic Republic often resorts to utilizing its network of proxies, such as Hezbollah, to retaliate. This tactic of asymmetric warfare has been a hallmark of Iran’s strategic approach for more than four decades.
By leveraging its proxy forces, Tehran is able to wage indirect conflicts and destabilize adversaries, while maintaining a degree of plausible deniability. Hezbollah, in particular, has long served as a potent tool in Iran’s arsenal, with the group carrying out attacks and operations on behalf of Iranian interests across the Middle East.
From Lebanon to Syria and beyond, Iran’s proxies have played a pivotal role in advancing its geopolitical objectives and challenging regional adversaries. As tensions persist and confrontations escalate, the specter of Iranian-backed retaliation through proxy forces remains a looming threat, complicating efforts aimed at ensuring peace and stability in the region.
The tactic of asymmetric warfare has been a hallmark of Iran’s strategic approach for more than four decades
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh
The Iranian government is unlikely to engage in a direct military conflict with Israel for several compelling reasons. First of all, Iran’s military capabilities are widely perceived to be inferior to those of Israel, which boasts a formidable military force and is reportedly in possession of a nuclear arsenal. Any direct confrontation with Israel would likely result in significant military losses for Iran, weakening its position on the global stage.
Additionally, such a conflict could escalate tensions in the region and potentially draw the US into the fray. Given the strong alliance between Tel Aviv and Washington, any Iranian aggression against Israel could prompt American intervention, which would be politically disastrous for Iran. Aware of these risks, Tehran is more inclined to pursue alternative strategies, such as supporting its proxy forces and engaging in asymmetric warfare, to challenge Israeli interests and further its own geopolitical objectives.
Nevertheless, the heightened tensions between Iran and Israel pose a significant risk of spiraling out of control and potentially erupting into a full-fledged war, with dire consequences for the entire region. Despite efforts to avoid direct confrontation, the complex web of geopolitical rivalries and proxy conflicts in the Middle East increases the likelihood of miscalculations or unintended actions that could rapidly escalate hostilities.
A conflict between Iran and Israel would not only destabilize the region but also have far-reaching implications for global security and stability. The potential for escalation is compounded by the presence of other regional actors, such as Hezbollah and various militant groups, which could be drawn into the conflict, further exacerbating tensions. Moreover, the volatile nature of the situation means that provocations could trigger a chain reaction of violence with devastating consequences.
- Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian American political scientist. X: @Dr_Rafizadeh