Afifeh Abedi – Analyst of the Research Center of the Expediency Council

Before the Zionist regime’s attack on the consular building of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, the Israeli regime attacked Iran’s positions and interests in Syria at various times. With strategic patience, Iran carried out its indirect reactions at appropriate times, but after the terrorist operations in Damascus and then in Tehran, the confrontation between Iran and the Israeli regime has turned into a direct and step-by-step conflict. Of course, according to all neutral analysts, its origin is the mischief and warmongering of the crisis-ridden Zionist regime.

The terrorist attack in Tehran, which led to the martyrdom of the head of the political office of Hamas as an official guest of Iran, is also a clear example of the Israeli regime’s warmongering actions against Iran, while the Zionist regime, with the intelligence and military support of the United States, has the possibility of carrying out such terrorist acts in any other regional countries like Turkey and Qatar.

From Iran’s point of view, which has been stated by various officials of the country, the response to the terrorist act of the Zionists against one of the leaders of the Resistance in Tehran will have two definite and direct answers; One by the Resistance and the other by Tehran, due to the violation of Iran’s sovereignty and the assassination of an official guest of the country.

However, following the targeting of the Iranian consulate building in Syria and the martyrdom of Sardar Mohammad Reza Zahedi, one of the senior commanders of the Quds Force, his deputy, and five Iranian military advisers, the world witnessed an interactive and intelligent approach between the military institutions and the diplomatic apparatus of Iran at the level of the region and the world that led to the strengthening of Iran’s position in achieving the set multi-layered goals.

In response to the terrorist act in Tehran, Iran has shown as a normative actor that it carefully considers international political-legal calculations and the principle of proportionality and military surprise.

Based on this, Iran first demanded the convening of the United Nations Security Council meeting by clarifying the war-inducing dimensions of the simultaneous crimes of the Zionist regime in Beirut and Tehran and the direct support of the United States for these crimes. This step can be considered an important legal foundation to strengthen the position of the United Nations and the Community of Nations in the fight against organized state-sponsored terrorism.

Iran’s readiness to manage tension from legal mechanisms and international institutions is demonstrated, among other things, by very detailed and persuasive references to its adherence to regional and international order and security.

All the evidence shows that the frequent violation of the United Nations Charter on the territorial integrity of countries by the Zionist regime with the support of the United States has become a normal practice and has weakened the international practice of fighting terrorism.

Iran’s military retaliatory action in response to the terrorist actions of the Zionist regime should also be defined in the legal-military procedure of fighting terrorism. While the institution of the Security Council has been taken hostage by some Western governments and is unable to make an appropriate decision to end the terrorist acts of the Zionist regime, Iran’s military response to the terrorist acts of Tel Aviv is strengthening the procedure of the right of countermeasures in the framework of the United Nations Charter and preventing organized state terrorism.

Raising the condition of a ceasefire in Gaza in response to Iran’s refusal to take punitive action against the terrorist acts of the Israeli regime is also a kind of game with the wounded public opinion of the region and the world to cover up more than 10 months of genocide of Palestinians by the Zionist regime. Meanwhile, since the beginning of the Gaza war, Iran and the entire Resistance Axis had repeatedly called for the end of the genocide in Gaza and the committed behavior of the supporters of the Israeli regime, especially the United States.

In this way, as in Operation True Response, Tehran has gone through all the legal and political paths in prudent diplomacy before carrying out punitive military operations against the Zionist regime, and in the atmosphere of the lack of determination of international institutions such as the Security Council, it considers its legitimate right to respond to the expectation of the Iranian nation is to have a proportionate and decisive response to the Zionist regime.

Operation True  Promise showed that Iran has access to the intelligence and security vulnerability centers, and therefore, the existing uncertainty about the dimensions of Iran’s response is part of Iran’s operation to show that the time, place, and type of operation will be of Iran’s choice

Iran’s intention was not to incite a war but a necessary reaction to 1- the provocative and repeated actions of the Zionist regime against Iran, 2- the non-stop crimes of this regime in Gaza, and the ineffectiveness of international institutions to end the genocide in Gaza, 3- politics Western contradictory and anti-humanitarian actions in the face of the crimes of the Israeli regime and 4- the failure of the strategy of legal and political diplomacy in international institutions is due to America’s failure.

This operation will result in the loser status of the Zionist regime in the world public opinion, the degradation of the military power and deterrence of the Israeli regime in the public opinion, and help to stabilize Iran’s new strategy in the region. Focusing on disrupting the psychological coherence of the enemy and sensitizing the perception of the enemy’s threat is one of Iran’s important goals of using political, legal, defensive, and offensive diplomacy in this period of war and tension, which has various messages and audiences.

Unlike the Zionist regime, which exploits its belligerent behavior through unofficial Zionist channels and Western-Israeli media propaganda, with the American positions complementing this behavior pattern of the Israeli regime, Iran’s behavior pattern is transparent-normative and in the framework of legal powers is contained in important international documents of the United Nations and protocols trusted by the world community.