How Iran responds to the attack in Damascus could determine the trajectory of the conflict in the Middle East

How did the attack in Damascus change calculus in Tehran?

The attack in Damascus – something the Israeli government has yet to publicly acknowledge – was a dramatic turn in history long shadow war between Israel and Iran.

For several many years noweach Iran and Israel have engaged in operations against one another in each the physical and virtual worlds.

These attacks took place cyber operationssupport from proxy forces, airstrikes and targeted killings which have taken a toll on each side.

The attack in Damascus, nonetheless, was particularly dramatic because killed two generals and five other officers In Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force. The Quds Force is Iran’s unconventional warfare wing that has supported Tehran’s proxies and regional partners with money, weapons and equipment for many years. Moreover, it took place in a diplomatic enclave against which Israel had not previously conducted operations, even in Damascus.

In the history of the Quds Forceit has never lost so many officers in a single enemy-led operation. Even significant US attack on former head of the Quds Force Qassem Soleimani in January 2020, he didn’t kill other senior members of the organization.

Additionally, Mohammad Zahedi, one of the generals killed in the April 1 attack, was directly accountable for management relations with Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Syrian government and Shiite militias in that country, and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza and the West Bank.

What have the US, Israel and Iran said about retaliatory attacks?

Immediately after the attack, Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, he publicly blamed Israel and vowed revenge. – said Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir“We believe that this aggression violated all diplomatic norms and international treaties. (Israeli Prime Minister) Benjamin Netanyahu has completely lost his mental balance due to repeated failures in Gaza and failure to achieve his Zionist goals.”

From the Israeli point of view, although there was no official confirmation of the operation in Damascus, Israel Defense Forces spokesman Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari said that the constructing had hit it was not a diplomatic mission but a spot where Quds Force officials would meet with their partners in the region to speed up operations against Israel.

Many news web sites they report that unidentified U.S. officials consider a significant Iranian ballistic missile or drone attack on Israel is imminent.

If true, it could reflect the way Iran responded to the death of Qassem Soleimani in January 2020, firing ballistic missiles at U.S. forces stationed at al-Asad Air Base in western Iraq about two weeks later.

United States also identified that it could help Israel respond to any direct attack from Iran, although the details of that attack are unclear.

What is Iran’s philosophy on attacks on its interests?

In the context of the decades-long shadow war between Iran and Israel, which has not yet escalated into larger-scale hostilities, Iran’s philosophy thus far has been based on proportionate and balanced responses that try not to escalate the conflict.

While Khamenei he said on April 10 that “an evil regime has made a mistake and should and will be punished,” Iran will often wait days, weeks, and even years before searching for revenge.

A mixture of aspects appears to influence Tehran’s decision-making process. First, National security since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, it has been concentrated in the hands of the supreme leader, meaning that the ayatollah has the ultimate influence on Iran’s strategy and prospects.

Second, equally essential are operational considerations regarding access to possible targets and Iran’s ability to harm them – whether or not they are physical or virtual.

Third, there’s likely to be an evaluation of the consequences of a successful retaliatory attack – and the way it would impact Iran’s other essential considerations and interests. For example, does the supreme leader take into consideration the possible risks of any Iranian response compared to the advantages gained from Iran’s nuclear program, its ability to circumvent U.S.-led sanctions on its economy, or the domestic response if Israel conducted operations directly in Iran?

What possible attack options could Iran be in search of?

With this in mind, one option into account could be a possible Iranian ballistic missile attack on Israeli diplomatic facilities in the region. Indeed, Iran has already said so Israeli embassies “are no longer safe” after the strike in Damascus.

From Iran’s perspective, this may likely be seen as proportionate reasonably than an escalation of the ongoing conflict with Israel.

However, it’s difficult to assess what such an attack would seem like because it could have to be carried out in a dense urban environment anywhere in the region. In such circumstances, a ballistic missile strike could cause a wider range of harm and harm to civilians, potentially in a Muslim-majority country, which could trigger a response in Iran or create diplomatic problems between Iran and other countries in the region.

On the other hand, ballistic missile attacks on Israeli military targets directly inside Israel – similar to what Iran carried out in January 2020 in its attack on al-Asad Air Base in Iraq – could also be operationally feasible, but Israel views them as escalatory.

Tehran will avoid any retaliatory strikes that will trigger a major military response beyond that of Israel already aggressive attitude against the IRGC and the Quds Force.

In addition to ballistic missiles, Iran could turn to its partners and proxies in the region to attack Israel’s interests with conventional weapons or unconventionally with terrorist attacks.

While there’s an extended pattern of such Iran-backed terrorism against Israel each regionally and internationally, including the October 7 Hamas attack, the supreme leader and other Iranian security officials cannot select this route since it could be perceived as inappropriate. coming directly from Iran and fitting right into a proportionate and balanced framework.

If Iran responds, will it lead to a wider regional conflict?

That’s the $64,000 query. Security analysts, government officials and almost everyone else in the region are focused on a broader conflict that’s drawing in the U.S., Iran’s big regional rival, Saudi Arabia and other countries. what you were afraid of is the next step conflict.

The answer lies in the unknowns of the future, especially in Israel’s – and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s – response announced retaliation to any attack inside its borders – after which how Iran and other countries will respond to it.

Given so many variables, it’s difficult to say whether Iran’s response to the Damascus attack will restore deterrence in Tehran’s eyes or trigger a wider range of multilateral attacks that can further destabilize an already unstable region.