Iran versus Israel

The deep trajectories of a historic clash with a predictable end

Iran has defended itself against Israel’s murderous, illegal attack on its consulate in Damascus. I have discussed in my last Skirmish why Tehran’s response was legitimate and exemplarily restrained and humane. In sum, just to recap, under international law (including the UN Charter), Iran had a genuine right to self-defense (unlike the fake variety habitually claimed by Israel), especially in view of the fact that the West made sure the UN Security Council stayed AWOL regarding Tel Aviv’s Damascus assault.

Iran’s leadership shaped its inevitable retaliation in an extremely moderate manner, by targeting military sites (and it seems, only those linked to Israel’s Damascus attack), giving ample advance heads-ups, and, in the end, taking not a single civilian life. (As a matter of fact, the Israelis claim that no military personnel were killed either. That may well be true, due to Tehran’s generous warnings. But it would also be in Tel Aviv’s interest to lie about this issue – and lying is its default.) It’s just an empirical fact Zionist barbarians slaughter Palestinians in their tens of thousands; Iranians are more civilized.

Instead of throwing a genocidal-psychotic fit Tel Aviv-style, Tehran has deftly delivered its message: the days of “strategic patience” are over; from now on, Israel will pay with an attack on its own territory when it assaults Iran. This is a major shift. At the same time, Iranian officials have been explicit that, as far as it depends on them, the current escalation – started by Israel’s Damascus attack – can stop now.