By: Xavier Villar
MADRID- Recently, Iran launched over 500 suicide drones and missiles towards the occupied Palestinian territories in response to the Zionist regime's attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus on April 1st. The consulate attack resulted in the death of 13 people, including 2 high-ranking members of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps who were in Syria as advisers invited by the Syrian government.
The Zionist attack on Iranian diplomatic facilities in Syria represented a blatant violation of all international conventions, especially the Geneva and Vienna Conventions. From the Iranian perspective, the lack of condemnation by the United Nations of the Zionist attack showed an utter disregard for the international law that those same institutions purportedly seek to uphold. In the absence of that condemnation, Iran had no choice but to respond militarily, within the limits established by international law, to restore its deterrent capability.
In this regard, it is important to remember that the Iranian delegation to the United Nations made it clear that Iran's response could have been avoided if the UN Security Council had condemned the Zionist attack.
The Iranian mission stated in a social media post: “If the UN Security Council had condemned the reprehensible act of aggression by the Zionist regime against our diplomatic facilities in Damascus and subsequently brought its perpetrators to justice, the need for Iran to punish this hostile regime could have been avoided.”
From a political standpoint, it can be argued that the operation "Truthful Promise" launched by the Islamic Republic falls within the framework of international legality, specifically within Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and within the right to self-defense of any state. The differences between the Iranian response and the Zionist attack are more than evident. While Israel attacks diplomatic facilities or, in the case of Palestine, the civilian population indiscriminately, Iran, from a rational perspective and within the limits imposed by international law, exclusively targeted military installations, exercising its right to self-defense under international law.
Within this framework of self-defense, the Office of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Geneva issued a statement in response to the Zionist regime's aggression against the Iranian consulate in Damascus. In this statement, it was affirmed that, exercising the inherent right to self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, Iran carried out a series of military attacks against targets in Israel, in response to the repeated military aggressions of the Israeli regime. These actions, particularly their armed attack in April 2024 against Iranian diplomatic facilities, contravene Article 2 of the United Nations Charter and constitute a clear violation of international law. The aim of these attacks was to thwart the attempts of the Security Council to adopt the necessary measures to condemn and hold the aggressors accountable.
According to the United Nations Charter on the use of force in international relations, there are two fundamental legal principles:
- The principle of prohibition of the use of force (Article 2, paragraph 4).
- The inherent right to self-defense (Article 51).
According to these principles, states have the right to defend themselves through the use of military force when subject to an armed attack until the Security Council takes necessary measures. This defense can be individual or collective, but in any case, it must not exceed the necessity limit, must be carried out urgently, and the proportionality of the forces used to repel the attack must be respected.
The military attack by Israel on the Iranian consulate, regardless of violating Syria's national sovereignty and constituting an act of aggression against Iran, can be considered, according to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, as the primary element of the right to self-defense. This aggression and violation of sovereignty have led to Iran's legitimate right to defense.
The recourse to legitimate defense, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, is permitted in the event of an armed attack. The definition of an armed attack can be determined with reference to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314, adopted as the definition of aggression in December 1974. According to this resolution, the invasion or attack by the armed forces of one state against the land, sea, or air forces of another state is considered an act of aggression. In this sense, Israel's action has been deemed an aggressive attack and has provided the basis for the exercise of legitimate defense by the Islamic Republic.
From a military perspective, Operation "Truthful Promise," carried out by the Revolution Guards in coordination with other units of the Iranian army (Artesh), aimed at the Zionist military base of Nevatim, located in the southern Negev Desert. According to local sources, the multiple drone and missile attacks were preceded by a series of cyberattacks on the electrical grid and radar systems of the Zionist regime, leading to widespread power outages in the area. The hacker group "Cyber Av3ngers" released a statement claiming responsibility for the power outages in various parts of the occupied territories.
Around 11:00 PM Iran time, the Aerospace Division of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps officially launched a military retaliation operation against the Zionist regime, conducting at least four waves of drone attacks.
As reported by PressTV, the first wave included dozens of Shahed-136 kamikaze drones, around 100 units in total, whose flight was also recorded by cameras in Iran and Iraq.
Following the first wave, three more attacks followed at intervals of approximately half an hour, with an estimated total of 400 to 500 drones launched.
The next step in the retaliatory military operation was the launch of a series of cruise and ballistic missiles, which reportedly were accompanied by simultaneous drone and missile attacks by groups from the Resistance Axis in Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon.
In addition to the aforementioned attack on the Nevatim airbase, Iranian missiles also struck the Ramon airbase, also located in the Negev region.
The proportionality of the Iranian operation, always within the limits imposed by international law on self-defense, was expressed by the top commander of the Revolution Guards, General Hossein Salami, who stated in a public appearance that "our operations were limited and solely a response to the Zionist entity's attack on our consulate in Damascus." He also emphasized that "any reckless response from the enemy will be met with greater firmness and harshness."
The Iranian response must also be viewed from the perspective of national pride, something that is not in contradiction with the principles of international legality previously mentioned. Lastly, the "Truthful Promise" operation demonstrated that Israel's self-sufficiency in security and defense matters has its limitations. Israel is not capable of facing a coordinated Resistance Axis independently.
No comments:
Post a Comment