The day before yesterday, Saturday, Iran announced that “the Revolutionary Guard began an air operation with drones against targets in the occupied territories,” while the Israeli army announced that Tehran launched a drone attack.
While Iran announced that it achieved its desired goals with this strike, some see it as merely a “taught play” from which Israel benefited in one way or another.
In this context, Idris Lakrini, professor of international relations, said, “This strike was justified by Iran by exercising the right of legitimate defense within the framework of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, following Israel’s targeting of the Iranian consulate inside Syrian territory,” adding: “This action comes with a self-interested justification that I considered Iran is an attack on its sovereignty and a blow to its interests.”
Lakrini added in a statement to Hespress: “This is an action that comes in the context of a group of points of tension and conflict between the two sides, especially with Iranian ambitions regarding developing its nuclear file, which is an option that Israel rejects in agreement with the United States of America.”
The same spokesman explained that “the matter is related to a limited strike that Iran was keen to present with a set of signals, whether it was a matter of prior notification, or contacting a group of countries, such as the United States of America, and trying to prepare international public opinion for this operation,” considering that “this is what makes Its connotations are symbolic.”
Lakrini also described the operation as “symbolic” as “the second operation since the 1990s that took place directly after the bombing carried out by Saddam Hussein inside the Israeli entity,” and stated that it was “a confrontation far from the wars that Iran was keen to wage through a group of sites from Within Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, or even Yemen, facing Israel in general.”
The same analyst explained that “the atmosphere that accompanied this operation is very similar to the atmosphere that accompanied a shock bombing years ago,” continuing: “It is not possible to bet too much on these operations or this limited strike regarding its repercussions on the Palestinian issue.”
The professor of international relations warned that “this operation puts Israel, which is surrounded by accusations of human genocide of Palestinians, in the position of a victim,” and added: “The action, even if it was justified by Iran, covered up the destruction and crimes that Gaza is witnessing, which the world has recently paid attention to.” “And he kind of hijacked this international attention to focus on this attack.”
He also stressed to Krini that “Iran’s attempt to emerge as a strong state constituted a relief for Israel,” stressing that “Iran and Israel play together the same role in the region, especially since they are together responsible for the deterioration of the Arab regional situation, and have greatly exploited the conditions that the region has witnessed, both after The Gulf War, the events of September 11, or the movement that the Arab region witnessed, to strengthen their position and achieve their interests against the interests of the countries of the region.”
For his part, Abdel Fattah Fatihi, an expert in international relations, said, “From a geopolitical point of view, this is an assessment of the future of any negotiations regarding the war in Gaza between the major parties to the conflict.”
Fatihi added, in a statement to Hespress, that “the Israeli escalation against Iranian targets in Damascus is a test of Iran’s positions regarding bearing the repercussions of the war on its followers, especially Hamas, as well as an assessment of whether it will put pressure on Hamas to accept the ceasefire agreement.”
The same expert considered that “it is natural for the development of escalatory positions to provoke attempts to tone down the statements regarding the Iranian-Israeli war. On the one hand, the rules of engagement remain precise and everyone needs to keep the balance of positions within the usual limits, which does not allow for a solution to the crisis in Gaza.” Consequently, the confrontation between the parties to the conflict continues within their current borders.”
The spokesman continued: “Therefore, the conflict will continue under the existing rules of engagement, which requires Israel not to transgress them by striking Iranian targets or bearing the consequences of retaliatory strikes. I do not think that Washington, Israel’s ally, can afford a direct war. Therefore, there are attempts to reduce the escalation between the two sides, and calls for calm between them are increasing.”
#implications #Iranian #strike #Israel #symbolic #operation #commitment #usual #limits
2024-04-15 02:50:28