Israel bombs the Iranian Consulate in Damascus – Is it a Violation of Sovereignty and is Retaliation Expected?

On Monday, Israel launched an airstrike targeting a structure situated within the Iranian Embassy complex in Damascus. The attack resulted in the deaths of seven individuals, including General Mohamad Reza Zahedi, responsible for overseeing Iran’s clandestine military operations in Syria and Lebanon, as well as two other senior generals.

“Iran reserves its legitimate and inherent right under international law and the United Nations Charter to take a decisive response to such reprehensible acts,” Zahra Ershadi, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, wrote late Monday in a letter to the U.N. secretary general.

The Israeli military declined to comment, but, that is not surprising, considering they usually do not confirm strikes in Syria. However, experts suggest that Israel could make a case that its actions did not breach the protections afforded to diplomatic missions by international law.

Is Israel right? Did they breach any laws or special provisions? 

To simplify the matter, there are three entities involved in the Damascus air-strike: Israel, Iran and Syria. The discussion about whether Israel broke any international laws has to do with two main aspects: is it prohibited to bomb Embassies and was the attack done in self-defense?

Let’s start with the first one. In the realm of international law, the sanctity of embassies and diplomatic missions is unequivocal. Yet, amid the complexities of armed conflict, questions arise regarding the permissibility of targeting such civilian objects.

Diplomatic premises have long been granted special protections, as outlined in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Convention on Consular Relations. Diplomats enjoy immunity from prosecution in the host country, and embassy buildings are typically considered sanctuaries for their nation’s citizens. They are off-limits to the host country’s law enforcement without the consent of diplomatic personnel and often serve as safe havens for expatriates during times of conflict.

Consular premises enjoy similar inviolability under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. An egregious example of this occurred following the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi Consulate in Turkey in 2018, where Turkish officials had to await permission for days before accessing the premises.

However, despite being fundamental principles of international law, these rules have limited applicability in the case of the Damascus bombing. They pertain solely to the obligations of the receiving State, Syria, and do not address attacks by a third state on foreign territory. Israel, as a third state, is not bound by diplomatic relations laws concerning Iran’s Embassy in Syria. While receiving states are obliged to shield embassies from attacks, it remains unclear what protective measures Syria could have implemented in this instance.

It is important to note that Embassies are protected from use of force in an armed conflict, not because of the fact that they are Embassies. But, it is primary due to the fact that they are civilian compounds. In the same way that is it prohibited to bomb schools or residential buildings. However, this protection can be forfeited if the embassy is repurposed for military activities, a scenario analogous to schools or residential buildings being commandeered for strategic purposes. Could this be the case here?

While Israeli military spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari refrained from confirming or denying Israel’s involvement, he asserted that the strike aimed at “a military building of Quds Forces disguised as a civilian building.”

Reports suggest that the building hosted a meeting attended by Iranian intelligence officials and Palestinian militants discussing the conflict in Gaza. Such revelations underscore Iran’s practice of blurring the lines between diplomatic and military endeavors in the Middle East. Notably, Iran often appoints military commanders, rather than career diplomats, to key ambassadorial positions in countries aligned with its strategic interests.

Israel’s ongoing conflict with Iran, characterized by covert operations and targeted assassinations, adds layers of complexity to the legal analysis. Iran’s support for groups like Hezbollah, operating both in Lebanon and Syria, further complicates the situation, blurring the boundaries between state-sponsored military action and proxy warfare.

While international law mandates proportionality in military actions, ensuring that the anticipated military advantage outweighs harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure, determining compliance remains challenging. Iranian Ambassador to Syria Hossein Akbari asserted that no civilians were harmed in the attack, highlighting the importance of minimizing collateral damage in armed conflicts.

Question number 2: did Israel launch the air strike as an act of self-defense?

Now that we’ve discusses the legal implications of bombing an Embassy, the question that remains is if the Israelis are in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits a state from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other state. Therefore, unless Israel can justify the airstrike as an act of self-defense, it would constitute a violation of international law.

But, while Article 51 of the UN Charter acknowledges the inherent right of states to defend themselves against armed attacks, the parameters of this right, particularly concerning preemptive strikes, remain contentious.

In assessing the legality of Israel’s airstrike, crucial factors include the imminence of the threat posed by Iran’s military activities in Syria, the extent of collaboration between Iran and Syrian authorities, and the potential impact on regional stability. Any assertion of self-defense must be proportionate to the perceived threat and grounded in credible evidence of an imminent attack.

Israel has defended its military actions in Syria as necessary measures to counter Iran’s “military entrenchment” and disrupt the flow of weapons to allied groups designated as terrorist organizations. The targeted killings of senior Revolutionary Guards and Syrian security personnel in previous strikes further exacerbate concerns about the escalation of violence and the potential for retaliation. While Israel justifies its actions as defensive measures against perceived threats, the broader implications for regional stability and the rule of law cannot be ignored.

Iran’s presence in Syria, ostensibly to advise President Bashar al-Assad’s forces in the civil war, adds another layer of complexity to the conflict. While Iran denies engaging in combat operations or establishing bases, its support for proxy groups and military advisors heightens tensions with Israel and other regional actors.

Israel’s reported airstrikes on targets in Damascus and Aleppo, coupled with a drone attack on a naval base in Eilat, have drawn condemnation and scrutiny from the international community. IDF spokesperson Rear Adm Daniel Hagari attributed the drone attack to Iran, highlighting the complexity of regional rivalries and the involvement of external actors in exacerbating tensions.

The strikes in Damascus and Aleppo, which reportedly resulted in casualties including Syrian soldiers and members of Iran-backed groups, underscore the human cost of military engagements in the region. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights documented the aftermath of the attacks, shedding light on the devastating impact on civilian populations caught in the crossfire of geopolitical conflicts.

Iran’s Response Looms Over Israeli Airstrike: Will Retaliation Follow?

As the international community scrutinizes Israel’s actions in the aftermath of the airstrike, legal experts and policymakers alike grapple with the complex interplay between self-defense, sovereignty, and the prohibition of the use of force under international law. The case underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of legal principles in navigating the complexities of contemporary conflicts while upholding the fundamental tenets of the UN Charter.

Accusations and warnings have been exchanged in the aftermath of the strike, with Iran and Syria pointing fingers at Israel and vowing a “serious response.” Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Ebrahim Raisi have both issued statements promising that the attack “will not go unanswered,” signaling Tehran’s determination to retaliate against what it perceives as a provocative act of aggression.

Khamenei says Israel will ‘be slapped’ for strike on Iran Guard general in Damascus

Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Lebanese militant group, has also joined the chorus of condemnation, pledging “punishment and revenge” for the strike. The group’s involvement adds another layer of complexity to the situation, as its presence in Syria and close ties to Tehran raise the specter of broader regional conflict.

Amidst these escalating tensions, the United States has sought to distance itself from the attack, emphasizing that it had no prior knowledge or involvement. The Biden administration’s swift response underscores its concerns about the potential for a wider conflagration in the region, particularly considering the resumption of attacks by pro-Iranian militias against U.S. forces.

Israel’s decision to target a diplomatic compound, including the ambassador’s residence, has further raised the stakes of the conflict. The attack, viewed as a significant escalation due to its location and the high-profile target, signals Israel’s willingness to confront its adversaries head-on and increase pressure on its enemies.

As protests erupt in Tehran and across Iran, with demonstrators venting their anger and denouncing Israel and the United States, the possibility of retaliatory strikes looms large. While the precise nature of Iran’s response remains uncertain, analysts warn of the potential for an escalation in hostilities between Israel and Iran and its proxies in Syria.

Against this backdrop of heightened tensions and escalating rhetoric, both Israeli and Iranian officials have indicated their readiness for further confrontation. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have reportedly been placed on high alert, anticipating retaliatory strikes from Iranian-allied militias in Syria.

As the situation continues to unfold, the international community watches with bated breath, hoping to avert a full-blown conflict while recognizing the complex geopolitical dynamics at play. With the specter of retaliation looming large, diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions and prevent further violence are more critical than ever.

By Ioana Constantin