Iran didn't attack Israel, it acted in self-defence
May 2, 2024
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and relatives of the victims attends the funeral ceremony held for victims who lost their lives in Israeli attack on Iran’s consulate building in the embassy compound in Damascus in Tehran, Iran on April 04, 2022
[Iranian Leader Press Office/Handout – Anadolu Agency]
On 1 April Israeli fighter jets bombed the Iranian Consulate in Damascus, Syria, killing seven people described by various media outlets as “members” of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps. Among the dead was Brigadier-General Mohammad Reza Zahedi.
As is usually the case, Israel never confirmed or denied that it carried out the attack but that does not change the fact that it was the perpetrator. The air strike was not the first on Syria by Israeli jets, but it was the first such bombardment that targeted a diplomatic building.
Iran responded to the attack 12 days later by launching a barrage of cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and drones. Iran said it acted in self-defence since its consulate is part of its diplomatic mission in Syria. Tehran waited that long in the hope, among other logistical reasons, that the United Nations Security Council would, at least, condemn the attack on its diplomatic facility but that did not happen. Such a step would have softened Iran’s response, as Tehran would comment later.
Two days after the attack, a Russian drafted Security Council statement condemning the strike, without even naming Israel as the aggressor, was vetoed by the United States paralysing the already paralysed Security Council.
Apparently, Russia wanted to defuse the situation between the two regional enemies: Iran and Israel. Yet it was the US that rejected that attempt despite being the leading voice lecturing the world on the dangers of escalations in an already burning region.
The US and other Western countries refused to acknowledge the fact that what Israel bombed was indeed an Iranian diplomatic building that is recognised as such. It also enjoys legal protection at all times by international customary law further codified into law by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and enhanced in the 1963 Convention on Consular Relations. Article 22 of the convention says that the “premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State, [Syria in this case], may not enter them,” without the “consent of the head of the mission.” The convention clearly says that the premises of a diplomatic mission should be protected “against any intrusion or damage.”
A good example here would be the case of the late Jamal Khashoggi who was murdered and dismembered in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul in 2018. The Turkish security agents waited for days for Saudi consent to enter the building as part of their investigation of the gruesome crime.
Yet most Western media outlets reported the Iranian response by projecting it as an attack on Israel without mentioning the simple fact that Iran was indeed acting in self-defence since its diplomatic mission is considered part of its national territory and any intrusion or attack on it is an attack on Iran itself. Diplomatic missions are granted immunity even against the host country’s (Syria in this case) own laws which do not apply inside diplomatic missions.
Western media in covering the Iranian response used phrases like “Iran launches unprecedented direct attack on Israel” and the entire report does not refer to the fact that Iran was not the aggressor but rather the victim of aggression. On top of all that hardly any major Western media mentions the fact that the Israeli attack on Iran’s Consulate violates several laws at once. First, it is illegal aggression on Syria itself, violation of its sovereignty and above all humiliating its status. Second, the attack contravenes international laws. Third, it violates the UN charter including self-defence which apartheid Israel usually uses to justify its aggression.
Above all, the Israeli attack even violates the laws of war which prohibit attacking diplomatic buildings because they are considered like schools, hospitals and residential buildings that have to be, not only spared from attack, but also protected. But this, apparently, does not apply to Israel whose army has been attacking hospitals, schools, residential blocks, refugee tents and even UN buildings in its genocidal war in Gaza for nearly seven months now.
Attacks on embassies even between warring countries are rare in the modern world. But Israel’s attack on the Iranian Consulate is not unprecedented. On the night of 7 May, 1999, the US destroyed China’s embassy in Belgrade with five bombs, while leading the military campaign to destroy former Yugoslavia. Back then the US Secretary of Defence, William Cohen, blamed the attack on “outdated maps” only to be revealed later that the US’s Central Intelligence Agency possessed updated maps indicating the precise location of the embassy. Five months after the attack, a joint journalistic investigation confirmed that the attack was actually deliberate and the “outdated maps” story was a “damn lie.”
The Western media also connected the Iranian self-defence response to the Israeli massacres in Gaza. But this is completely out of context. Indeed it happened during the genocide in Gaza but this is only an accidental concurrence and has nothing to do with the Israeli war on Gaza. Indeed Iran never denied its support for the Palestinian resistance but when it fired at Israel the Gaza genocide was neither a factor nor a cause for its response.
Israel has been waging a shadowy war for much of the last decade both inside and outside Iran. It has launched many destructive cyber attacks on Iranian infrastructure, murdered Iranian scientists who are allegedly connected to Tehran’s nuclear programme, and attacked the Iranian military presence in Syria. All such attacks were reasons for Iran to decide when and how to respond. Then came the attack on the consulate and Tehran, apparently, had had enough and wanted to send a clear message that it would respond.
It might have taken a long time for Tehran to send its missiles and drones directly into the occupation state but that does not mean it chose to do so as a result of the Gaza onslaught. In fact It acted at this particular time for its own reasons.
As is usually the case, Israel never confirmed or denied that it carried out the attack but that does not change the fact that it was the perpetrator. The air strike was not the first on Syria by Israeli jets, but it was the first such bombardment that targeted a diplomatic building.
Iran responded to the attack 12 days later by launching a barrage of cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and drones. Iran said it acted in self-defence since its consulate is part of its diplomatic mission in Syria. Tehran waited that long in the hope, among other logistical reasons, that the United Nations Security Council would, at least, condemn the attack on its diplomatic facility but that did not happen. Such a step would have softened Iran’s response, as Tehran would comment later.
Two days after the attack, a Russian drafted Security Council statement condemning the strike, without even naming Israel as the aggressor, was vetoed by the United States paralysing the already paralysed Security Council.
Apparently, Russia wanted to defuse the situation between the two regional enemies: Iran and Israel. Yet it was the US that rejected that attempt despite being the leading voice lecturing the world on the dangers of escalations in an already burning region.
The US and other Western countries refused to acknowledge the fact that what Israel bombed was indeed an Iranian diplomatic building that is recognised as such. It also enjoys legal protection at all times by international customary law further codified into law by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and enhanced in the 1963 Convention on Consular Relations. Article 22 of the convention says that the “premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State, [Syria in this case], may not enter them,” without the “consent of the head of the mission.” The convention clearly says that the premises of a diplomatic mission should be protected “against any intrusion or damage.”
A good example here would be the case of the late Jamal Khashoggi who was murdered and dismembered in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul in 2018. The Turkish security agents waited for days for Saudi consent to enter the building as part of their investigation of the gruesome crime.
Yet most Western media outlets reported the Iranian response by projecting it as an attack on Israel without mentioning the simple fact that Iran was indeed acting in self-defence since its diplomatic mission is considered part of its national territory and any intrusion or attack on it is an attack on Iran itself. Diplomatic missions are granted immunity even against the host country’s (Syria in this case) own laws which do not apply inside diplomatic missions.
Western media in covering the Iranian response used phrases like “Iran launches unprecedented direct attack on Israel” and the entire report does not refer to the fact that Iran was not the aggressor but rather the victim of aggression. On top of all that hardly any major Western media mentions the fact that the Israeli attack on Iran’s Consulate violates several laws at once. First, it is illegal aggression on Syria itself, violation of its sovereignty and above all humiliating its status. Second, the attack contravenes international laws. Third, it violates the UN charter including self-defence which apartheid Israel usually uses to justify its aggression.
Above all, the Israeli attack even violates the laws of war which prohibit attacking diplomatic buildings because they are considered like schools, hospitals and residential buildings that have to be, not only spared from attack, but also protected. But this, apparently, does not apply to Israel whose army has been attacking hospitals, schools, residential blocks, refugee tents and even UN buildings in its genocidal war in Gaza for nearly seven months now.
Attacks on embassies even between warring countries are rare in the modern world. But Israel’s attack on the Iranian Consulate is not unprecedented. On the night of 7 May, 1999, the US destroyed China’s embassy in Belgrade with five bombs, while leading the military campaign to destroy former Yugoslavia. Back then the US Secretary of Defence, William Cohen, blamed the attack on “outdated maps” only to be revealed later that the US’s Central Intelligence Agency possessed updated maps indicating the precise location of the embassy. Five months after the attack, a joint journalistic investigation confirmed that the attack was actually deliberate and the “outdated maps” story was a “damn lie.”
The Western media also connected the Iranian self-defence response to the Israeli massacres in Gaza. But this is completely out of context. Indeed it happened during the genocide in Gaza but this is only an accidental concurrence and has nothing to do with the Israeli war on Gaza. Indeed Iran never denied its support for the Palestinian resistance but when it fired at Israel the Gaza genocide was neither a factor nor a cause for its response.
Israel has been waging a shadowy war for much of the last decade both inside and outside Iran. It has launched many destructive cyber attacks on Iranian infrastructure, murdered Iranian scientists who are allegedly connected to Tehran’s nuclear programme, and attacked the Iranian military presence in Syria. All such attacks were reasons for Iran to decide when and how to respond. Then came the attack on the consulate and Tehran, apparently, had had enough and wanted to send a clear message that it would respond.
It might have taken a long time for Tehran to send its missiles and drones directly into the occupation state but that does not mean it chose to do so as a result of the Gaza onslaught. In fact It acted at this particular time for its own reasons.
OPINION
Jordan’s treachery in support of Israel is nothing new
April 15, 2024
Parts of a missile launched from a missile are landed in Marj Al-Hamam area, during Iran’s airstrikes against Israel, in Amman, Jordan on April 14, 2024.
Jordan’s treachery in support of Israel is nothing new
April 15, 2024
Parts of a missile launched from a missile are landed in Marj Al-Hamam area, during Iran’s airstrikes against Israel, in Amman, Jordan on April 14, 2024.
[Ahmed Shoura – Anadolu Agency]
Iran launched the largest drone attack in history over the weekend in retaliation for Israel’s egregious act of state terrorism that targeted the Iranian consulate in Damascus earlier this month. Seven senior military advisors were killed in the Israeli attack, including Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi.
Hundreds of Shahed “suicide” drones, along with cruise and ballistic missiles, were fired against the occupation state. This came a day after the seizure of an Israeli-linked cargo ship in the Strait of Hormuz. The operation, named Truthful Promise, was a coordinated effort by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), with the participation of Yemen’s Houthis and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, which launched rockets towards the occupied Golan. Iraqi resistance factions also declared their involvement.
While the vast majority of the drones were intercepted before they even reached occupied Palestine, two important Israeli military sites were targeted: an intelligence headquarters in Mount Hermon and the Nevatim Air Base. Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Mohammad Bagheri, was quoted as saying that the response “was planned to target the air base from which the Israeli aircraft that attacked our consulate departed.”
Symbolically and significantly, Iranian drones were sighted but intercepted over occupied Jerusalem. They flew over key landmarks including the Dome of the Rock in Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, the Knesset, and the secretive nuclear facility in Dimona, which is widely regarded as the heart of Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal.
Israel strike on Iranian Embassy: A grave threat to global diplomatic laws
Tehran has justified the attacks with its Permanent Mission to the UN stating that it was, “Conducted on the strength of Article 51 of the UN Charter pertaining to legitimate defence.”
“The matter can be deemed concluded,” added the Iranian Ambassador to the UN. “However, should the Israeli regime make another mistake, Iran’s response will be considerably more severe.” The IRGC confirmed that, “Iran’s military action was in response to the Zionist regime’s aggression against our diplomatic premises in Damascus.”
Before and during the operation, many commentators supportive of Zionism or critical of Iran, condemned the latter for its inaction after repeated provocations by Israel. They dismissed the response when it came as a merely theatrical or face-saving gesture. This criticism paralleled reactions to the IRGC’s past retaliatory strikes against US bases in Iraq following the assassination of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani.
And yet it is painfully clear that Iran and its allies stand alone in confronting the apartheid state, even as Israeli bombs rain down on the Palestinians in Gaza. The harsh reality is that neighbouring Arab states have either compromised by normalising relations with Tel Aviv or have simply stood by as a genocide unfolds in Gaza.
A prime example of such normalisation with the occupation state of Israel is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
This “kingdom” was created by the British, and has consistently betrayed the Arab and Palestinian cause. During the Iranian assault, Jordan closed its airspace and pledged to shoot down any intruding drones. Alongside US and British jets, which intercepted drones over the Iraq-Syria border, Jordanian jets shot down numerous Iranian drones as they flew over northern and central Jordan towards Israel, reported Reuters.
According to the Jordanian government, “Some flying objects that entered our airspace last night were dealt with and confronted.” It added that the military “will confront anything that would expose the security and safety of the nation… to any danger or transgression by any party.”
Iran, meanwhile, has warned that it will retaliate more severely should Israel carry out further acts of aggression, which looks likely. In a statement yesterday, Iranian Defence Minister Mohammad Reza Ashtiani also declared, “Whichever country opens its soil and airspace to Israel for a potential attack on Iran, it will receive our decisive response.”
Mairav Zonszein, a senior analyst at the Crisis Group, described Amman’s defence of Israel as “especially remarkable for a generation of Israelis that remembers sheltering from attacks from Jordan.”
Despite being party to the Arab-Israeli wars of the past, Jordan has always been the weakest link of the Arab states. It was a reluctant belligerent in the 1967 Six Day War, with King Abdullah’s father, King Hussein, having established secret contacts with Israel several years earlier. Ahead of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the king “was helicoptered to a Mossad building outside Tel Aviv along with his prime minister, Ziad Rifai” where he informed Israeli officials including Prime Minister Golda Meir of Syria’s planned offensive and Egyptian support.
Documents only declassified in September 2023 by the Israeli State Archives, shed further light on these contacts. Jordan would become the second Arab state, after Egypt, to normalise relations with Israel in 1994, and has since maintained a cold peace, contrary to the warm relations between the occupation state and the UAE and Bahrain.
King Abdullah, who warned 20 years ago of an Iran-backed “Shia Crescent” forming in the Middle East, recognises the precarious position his country is in. In a phone call yesterday, he apparently told US President Joe Biden that any further escalation from Israel would widen the conflict in the region.
Perhaps he took into consideration that earlier this month, Iraqi resistance faction Kataib Hezbollah said that it is capable and ready to arm 12,000 fighters in Jordan, “to form a unified force to defend our Palestinian brothers.”
This is against the backdrop of growing popular outrage among Jordanian citizens, the majority of whom have Palestinian roots and overwhelmingly oppose normalisation with Tel Aviv. This hasn’t prevented the Jordanian authorities from clamping down on solidarity with Gaza, though, and even going as far as to ban symbols like the Palestinian flag and keffiyehs at demonstrations.
Speaking on condition of anonymity to MEMO, one independent Jordanian observer revealed: “The [Iranian] attack pleased everyone, even those afraid to speak out publicly. The Jordanian establishment has been instilling in people’s minds for decades that Iran is the enemy, not Israel.” After Saturday night, people are telling the source privately that they were wrong. “They were unpleasantly shocked by the Jordanian interception.”
Shamelessly, the Jordanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs yesterday said that it had summoned the Iranian ambassador to warn Tehran that it must stop questioning Amman’s position in jumping to the defence of the Zionist entity.
Not one to mince his words, former Pakistani senator Mushtaq Ahmad Khan went viral on X for branding King Abdullah a “traitor, son of traitor, son of traitor.”
Western powers which did not condemn Israel’s air strikes on a consulate are also portraying Iran as the aggressor. The US, though, has stated that it will not participate in any “retaliatory” strikes by Israel.
Meanwhile, according to IRGC commander Hossein Salami, a “new equation” has been formed, “Which is that if from now on the Zionist regime attacks our interests, assets, personalities and citizens, anywhere, and at any point we will retaliate against them.”
Jordan and other pro-Israel Arab states that collaborate with the Zionist state would be wise to at least avoid actively defending it, as it seems that they are likely to face significant blowback from both internal and external forces in the near future.
Iran launched the largest drone attack in history over the weekend in retaliation for Israel’s egregious act of state terrorism that targeted the Iranian consulate in Damascus earlier this month. Seven senior military advisors were killed in the Israeli attack, including Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi.
Hundreds of Shahed “suicide” drones, along with cruise and ballistic missiles, were fired against the occupation state. This came a day after the seizure of an Israeli-linked cargo ship in the Strait of Hormuz. The operation, named Truthful Promise, was a coordinated effort by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), with the participation of Yemen’s Houthis and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, which launched rockets towards the occupied Golan. Iraqi resistance factions also declared their involvement.
Symbolically and significantly, Iranian drones were sighted but intercepted over occupied Jerusalem. They flew over key landmarks including the Dome of the Rock in Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, the Knesset, and the secretive nuclear facility in Dimona, which is widely regarded as the heart of Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal.
Israel strike on Iranian Embassy: A grave threat to global diplomatic laws
Tehran has justified the attacks with its Permanent Mission to the UN stating that it was, “Conducted on the strength of Article 51 of the UN Charter pertaining to legitimate defence.”
“The matter can be deemed concluded,” added the Iranian Ambassador to the UN. “However, should the Israeli regime make another mistake, Iran’s response will be considerably more severe.” The IRGC confirmed that, “Iran’s military action was in response to the Zionist regime’s aggression against our diplomatic premises in Damascus.”
Before and during the operation, many commentators supportive of Zionism or critical of Iran, condemned the latter for its inaction after repeated provocations by Israel. They dismissed the response when it came as a merely theatrical or face-saving gesture. This criticism paralleled reactions to the IRGC’s past retaliatory strikes against US bases in Iraq following the assassination of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani.
And yet it is painfully clear that Iran and its allies stand alone in confronting the apartheid state, even as Israeli bombs rain down on the Palestinians in Gaza. The harsh reality is that neighbouring Arab states have either compromised by normalising relations with Tel Aviv or have simply stood by as a genocide unfolds in Gaza.
A prime example of such normalisation with the occupation state of Israel is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
This “kingdom” was created by the British, and has consistently betrayed the Arab and Palestinian cause. During the Iranian assault, Jordan closed its airspace and pledged to shoot down any intruding drones. Alongside US and British jets, which intercepted drones over the Iraq-Syria border, Jordanian jets shot down numerous Iranian drones as they flew over northern and central Jordan towards Israel, reported Reuters.
According to the Jordanian government, “Some flying objects that entered our airspace last night were dealt with and confronted.” It added that the military “will confront anything that would expose the security and safety of the nation… to any danger or transgression by any party.”
Mairav Zonszein, a senior analyst at the Crisis Group, described Amman’s defence of Israel as “especially remarkable for a generation of Israelis that remembers sheltering from attacks from Jordan.”
Despite being party to the Arab-Israeli wars of the past, Jordan has always been the weakest link of the Arab states. It was a reluctant belligerent in the 1967 Six Day War, with King Abdullah’s father, King Hussein, having established secret contacts with Israel several years earlier. Ahead of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the king “was helicoptered to a Mossad building outside Tel Aviv along with his prime minister, Ziad Rifai” where he informed Israeli officials including Prime Minister Golda Meir of Syria’s planned offensive and Egyptian support.
Documents only declassified in September 2023 by the Israeli State Archives, shed further light on these contacts. Jordan would become the second Arab state, after Egypt, to normalise relations with Israel in 1994, and has since maintained a cold peace, contrary to the warm relations between the occupation state and the UAE and Bahrain.
King Abdullah, who warned 20 years ago of an Iran-backed “Shia Crescent” forming in the Middle East, recognises the precarious position his country is in. In a phone call yesterday, he apparently told US President Joe Biden that any further escalation from Israel would widen the conflict in the region.
Perhaps he took into consideration that earlier this month, Iraqi resistance faction Kataib Hezbollah said that it is capable and ready to arm 12,000 fighters in Jordan, “to form a unified force to defend our Palestinian brothers.”
This is against the backdrop of growing popular outrage among Jordanian citizens, the majority of whom have Palestinian roots and overwhelmingly oppose normalisation with Tel Aviv. This hasn’t prevented the Jordanian authorities from clamping down on solidarity with Gaza, though, and even going as far as to ban symbols like the Palestinian flag and keffiyehs at demonstrations.
Speaking on condition of anonymity to MEMO, one independent Jordanian observer revealed: “The [Iranian] attack pleased everyone, even those afraid to speak out publicly. The Jordanian establishment has been instilling in people’s minds for decades that Iran is the enemy, not Israel.” After Saturday night, people are telling the source privately that they were wrong. “They were unpleasantly shocked by the Jordanian interception.”
Shamelessly, the Jordanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs yesterday said that it had summoned the Iranian ambassador to warn Tehran that it must stop questioning Amman’s position in jumping to the defence of the Zionist entity.
Not one to mince his words, former Pakistani senator Mushtaq Ahmad Khan went viral on X for branding King Abdullah a “traitor, son of traitor, son of traitor.”
Western powers which did not condemn Israel’s air strikes on a consulate are also portraying Iran as the aggressor. The US, though, has stated that it will not participate in any “retaliatory” strikes by Israel.
Meanwhile, according to IRGC commander Hossein Salami, a “new equation” has been formed, “Which is that if from now on the Zionist regime attacks our interests, assets, personalities and citizens, anywhere, and at any point we will retaliate against them.”
Jordan and other pro-Israel Arab states that collaborate with the Zionist state would be wise to at least avoid actively defending it, as it seems that they are likely to face significant blowback from both internal and external forces in the near future.
No comments:
Post a Comment