With Syria strike, Israel ratchets up its shadow war with Iran 

The shadow war between Israel and Iran took a dramatic turn with the recent Israeli airstrike on an Iranian consular building in Syria. This bold and unprecedented attack resulted in significant casualties, including the death of Mohammad Reza Zahedi, a high-ranking Iranian military figure. It also marked a pivotal escalation in the complex chess game of regional power dynamics. 

The United Nations Security Council’s briefing on the incident underscored the grave nature of the situation. Iran’s letter to the UN and the Security Council detailed the missile strikes that obliterated its diplomatic presence in Damascus, killing at least five Iranian personnel and wounding others. Media reports have since adjusted the death toll to 13, encompassing both Iranian and Syrian nationals. 

The attack constituted a breach of Syrian sovereignty and contravened the Charter of the United Nations, in addition to violating the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Some governments condemned the airstrike, emphasizing the sacrosanct principle of diplomatic and consular premises’ inviolability under international law. 

From an analytical perspective, the airstrike is a significant escalation in the shadow war between Israel and Iran, indicating a potential shift towards more overt confrontations. The attack suggests a calculated move by Israel to assert its deterrence capabilities and send a clear message to Iran and the world about its resolve to counter perceived existential threats. 

Israel’s decision may have been influenced by many factors, including intelligence on imminent threats, the desire to disrupt Iranian military and intelligence operations in Syria or an attempt to forestall Iranian ambitions to further influence in its immediate neighborhood. The timing and nature of the strike reflect a deeper strategic calculus to recalibrate the status quo. Some Iranian officials have questioned the potential role that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad’s may have played, including a tacit agreement with Israel to restore sovereignty in order to govern Syria free from the control of the Iranian proxies. Others see the attack as a attempt to provoke Iran to take measures that justify significant escalation as a strategy to shift focus away from the crisis in Gaza, leaving the United States with no choice but to support Israel.  

Whatever the motives, Israel’s bold maneuver serves as a test of the international response to such overt military actions, gauging the limits of global tolerance for interventions deemed necessary for national security.

Iran, faced with the loss of a strategic military asset and a blow to its regional prestige, stands at a crossroads. How it responds to this provocation will reveal much about its strategic priorities and capacity to balance regional dominance aspirations with the pragmatic desire to avoid full-scale conflict. 

The incident may necessitate a reassessment of tactics and strategies within the Axis of Resistance, the coalition Iran has built to counterbalance American and Israeli influence, potentially leading to a more pronounced aggressive posture against Israeli interests. 

Moreover, the incident underscores the vulnerabilities Iran faces in projecting power through proxies, emphasizing the operational and symbolic significance of targeting a consular facility. This evolving landscape requires a recalibration of Iran’s proxy strategy, highlighting the need for a more nuanced and adaptable approach to safeguard its interests amid shifting geopolitical dynamics. 

In response to this provocation, Iran navigates a complex strategic terrain. Balancing the need to retaliate and maintain national prestige against the risk of escalation—which could lead to a broader conflict harmful to both regional stability and Iran’s strategic interests—requires a nuanced approach. Furthermore, Iran must consider the repercussions of its actions on relationships with both global powers and regional entities. Consequently, Iran’s response demands precise calibration to demonstrate both resolve and capability, while steering clear of actions that might trigger open conflict with unpredictable consequences. 

To date, Iran has pursued a balanced strategy, skillfully blending diplomatic engagement with strategic caution to manage the fallout from the airstrike. This approach aims to reduce the likelihood of escalation and solidify Iran’s standing in the regional power hierarchy. Initiating diplomatic maneuvers, Iran has sought to rally international condemnation and pursue redress through the United Nations.

Simultaneously, the Supreme National Security Council of Iran has outlined a “necessary” response, with President Ebrahim Raisi declaring Iran’s intention to retaliate at an opportune moment—a typical stance of the Iranian regime under such circumstances. 

Given Iran’s historical response patterns, we can expect it to engage in indirect operations aimed at subtly undermining Israeli interests. In parallel, Iran is expected to augment its military and intelligence footprint in Syria and Lebanon, thus reinforcing its deterrent capabilities without engaging in direct conflict. 

On a strategic level, Iran may also seek to fortify its alliances within the Axis of Resistance. By capitalizing on mutual concerns regarding Israeli actions, Iran could enhance its collaborative ties with allies. This strategy is likely to include joint military drills, shared intelligence and diplomatic efforts to forge a unified stance against common adversaries. There are even reports of diplomatic talks that indicate Iran has offered the U.S. a conditional response to the April 1 Israeli strike, based on achieving a ceasefire in Gaza. The U.S. denied those reports.  

Ultimately, Iran’s response to the Israeli airstrike will reflect its broader strategic objectives in the region. The decision will not only impact the immediate trajectory of Iran-Israel relations, but also shape the dynamics of power and diplomacy in the Middle East for years to come. The potential for escalation casts a long shadow over regional stability, highlighting the inherent fragility of Middle Eastern geopolitics.  

Pari Esfandiari  is the co-founder and president at the Global TechnoPolitics Forum. She is a member of the at-large advisory committee (ALAC) at ICANN representing the European region. She serves as a member of APCO Worldwide’s advisory board and was a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s GeoTech Center. She is a serial entrepreneur, internet pioneer, and an avid environmentalist.