Geopolitical Skirmish: Israel and Iran Lock Horns, Throwing US Foreign Policy into Disarray

Since the 7 October 2023 events, Western countries have insisted that Israel had “the right to defend itself” while it was completely removing Palestinians from the earth’s surface. Just days into the war, Hamas offered to release all civilian abductees if Israel halted plans for a Gaza ground invasion. Israel refused and “decided to knowingly sacrifice the abductees in order to satisfy its lust for genocide.”

Israel would have acted in the manner it did without solid backing from the US, Britain and the EU. These countries not only funnelled dangerous weapons of mass destruction to Tel Aviv but openly supported Israeli aggression at every political avenue, including in the UNSC. Added to this, they also engaged in proxy ways in Yemen and vehemently opposed the ICJ’s genocidal case against Israel just to make a point.

Emboldened by this strong support, Israel decided to escalate the conflict beyond its borders by attacking the Iranian consulate in Damascus on 1 April 2024. Tensions between Iran and Israel flared dramatically on Sunday, 14 April 2024, when Iran launched a large-scale drone and missile attack. This tit-for-tat exchange raises serious concerns about a potential regional war.

On 11 April 2024, the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations, New York, tweeted: “Had the UN Security Council condemned the Zionist regime’s reprehensible act of aggression on our diplomatic premises in Damascus and subsequently brought to justice its perpetrators, the imperative for Iran to punish this rogue regime might have been obviated.”

When Israel attacked the Iranian consulate in Damascus, the US, the UK and France obstructed any condemnation of this violation of international law in the UN Security Council. Perhaps there was an unimaginable reason to believe Iran would not retaliate.

After thirteen days of silence and inaction by the UN Security Council, particularly regarding condemnation of Israeli aggression, according to the Irani UN Mission, Tehran invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter. Its decision to launch an attack on Israel has drawn swift condemnation from some countries, which appears to be a reversal of roles, treating the victim like the aggressor.

Looking at the Irani statement, Tehran implies that if the UNSC had strongly censured Israel, they might have refrained from retaliating. Many observers dismissed this claim, believing Iran would have acted regardless. However, there exists a historical precedent that suggests the possibility of averting Iranian retaliation against Israel.

There is an incident that has faded in many people’s memories involving Iran and an attack on its consulate, where Tehran exercised restraint after a UNSC intervention. Following the Taliban's seizure of Mazar-e Sharif in Afghanistan and their assault on the Iranian consulate In September 1998, which resulted in the execution of Iranian diplomats, Tehran was poised for military retaliation.

At that time, Sweden held the presidency of the UNSC for one month but played a pivotal role. Iran then appealed to Sweden, indicating their readiness to engage in conflict with Afghanistan but also expressing a desire for a face-saving exit to avoid escalation.

Notably, Sweden does not have veto power and no permanent UNSC seat. Notwithstanding the obvious limitations, representing the UNSC, Sweden acted swiftly by condemning the attack on the consulate as a blatant violation of the Vienna Convention.

As a result, Iran refrained from military retaliation against the Taliban. This is one notable incident in which a diplomatic intervention avoided a blood bath.

In both instances, Iranian consulates were targeted and its officials were killed, yet Tehran sought to avoid warfare. However, while UNSC condemnation facilitated de-escalation in the 1998 case, the US, UK and France’s refusal to condemn Israel's actions in the recent incident has escalated tensions.

Amongst many critics of the US foreign policy posture after the 7 October events, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee has issued a statement saying, “The Biden administration’s unwillingness to end Israel’s six-month-long genocide in Gaza and the complete disregard for United States and international law, is a major reason for the dangerous escalation in the region.”

Tensions between Israel, the US and Iran have simmered for decades, raising concerns about a wider regional conflict. Recent attacks on sovereign Arab states involving primarily Israel and the US have heightened these concerns and risk destabilising the entire region. The strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus was a particularly concerning escalation since it had the potential to trigger a broader confrontation.

Although the 1998 event does not definitively prove that Iranian retaliation against Israel could have been prevented, it underscores the overlooked opportunity for de-escalation. This disregard for diplomatic avenues aligns with the pattern observed in President Joe Biden's handling of the Gaza conflict over the last seven months, where multiple opportunities to mitigate tensions were dismissed.

The US media often portrays Biden as striving to reduce tensions in the Middle East. While Biden has pursued diplomacy to dissuade Iran, Hezbollah and Houthis from retaliating, this does not equate to genuine de-escalation. Biden's strategy permits “Israel maximum manoeuvrability to conduct attacks, escalate at will, and slaughter civilians in Gaza while only urging restraint from the other actors in the region - never of Israel.”

A genuinely de-escalatory approach would have prioritised an early ceasefire instead of vetoing three UNSC resolutions and incorrectly labelling the one allowed to pass as non-binding.

Instead, the Biden administration would have set a clear red line for Israel, stating that any expansion of the conflict was unacceptable to the US and reprimanded it for its attack on the Iranian consulate in Syria, even permitting the UNSC to condemn Israel’s breach of international law. Now, it is unfortunately too late since Iran has taken the first steps to “defend itself” against Israeli aggression on its sovereign territory and installations.

On 14 April 2024, it was reported that Israel called for an emergency UNSC meeting, a move that is seen as forcing the US to act on its behalf as it usually does. However, Washington is reluctant to get directly involved in the conflict. On 13 April, Biden said he would convene “my fellow G7 leaders to co-ordinate a united diplomatic response to Iran's brazen attack.”

Even if the US were to oblige and take the matter to the UNSC, a resolution condemning Iran would likely fail. For example, China and Russia are quietly following the developments in the Iran-Israel military meltdown. They will veto anything that would disadvantage Iran. After many years of almost absolute impunity, Israel will know the implications of veto power when it goes against them this time around.

At this stage, fears of World War III are far-fetched. Everyone understands the impact of a war and how they will be affected. But one thing is certain: the US granted Israel unquestioned impunity to act as it pleases and, like a naughty child, Israel walked into a trap that the parent had been trying to save it from since 1948. After the US neutralised Egypt and Muslim elites for Israel’s benefit for many years, disaster has happened and Israel is now more vulnerable than it ever was in its entire history.