MADRID - At least seven members of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps of Iran, including General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, a prominent member of the Quds Force responsible for overseas operations, and his deputy, Mohammad Hadi Haj Rahimi, have been killed in an Israeli attack in Syria.

This incident, besides underscoring the significance of the targets, marks a significant escalation, as Iran's diplomatic facilities in Damascus were also targeted in the attack. The Iranian press describes Mohammad Reza Zahedi as one of the key figures of the Islamic Revolution Guard in Syria and Lebanon, further emphasizing the significance of his assassination.

In Iran, this attack is interpreted as a declaration of war by Israel. It represents a radically different offensive compared to previous ones as it directly targets Iranian soil, symbolized by its consulate in Syria. Professor and Hezbollah expert, Amal Saad, believes that this attack had two clear objectives: on one hand, to provoke a particularly strong Iranian response by targeting the sovereign territory of the Islamic Republic; and on the other, to escalate the conflict and compel the United States to intervene more directly.

In this context, it is important to highlight that Israel has been altering the rules of engagement since the beginning of its campaign in Gaza. While in previous phases Israel refrained from directly targeting Revolution Guard officers, this changed with the onset of the Gaza operation, with the Zionist Entity now aiming at significant figures within the Revolution Guard. Since October 2023, when the Gaza operation commenced, there has been a notable increase in attacks on Iranian positions in Syria. Since December 2023, excluding the attack on April 1st, over ten Iranian Revolutionary Guard officers have been assassinated by Israel in Syria. Among the most prominent killings was that of Seyed Radhi Mousavi on December 25, 2023. Mousavi was considered responsible for Iranian logistics and military coordination in Syria.

From a political standpoint, it is important to highlight the numerous reactions that the attack on the consular headquarters is generating in Iran. Foreign Minister Amir Abdollahian stated that Iran sent "a message to the United States making it clear that the country is considered responsible" for the attack and the killings. In this regard, Ali Shamkhani, an advisor to the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, affirmed that "whether Washington was informed beforehand about Israel's intention to carry out the attack or not, does not absolve its direct responsibility for this crime."

The spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Nasser Kanani, deemed the attack as a blatant violation of international regulations, especially the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Additionally, he added: "It is appropriate and necessary for this action to be condemned by the international community and the United Nations with the strongest expressions, and for necessary measures to be taken against the aggressor." He also emphasized that "the Islamic Republic of Iran will determine the type of response and punishment for the aggression."

During a press conference, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi declared that "the Zionist attack on the Iranian consulate in the Syrian capital, Damascus, will not go unanswered." Raisi described the Israeli aggression against the Iranian consulate as a "new terrorist crime" and considered it a "violation of international resolutions." Furthermore, he pointed out that "due to multiple failures in its strategy, the Zionist regime has shifted its tactics. But it should know that it will never achieve its sinister goals with such measures."

Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei also commented on the attack, stating that "Israel will be punished by our brave men," suggesting that Iranian forces will be directly involved in the response to the attack. In other words, Ayatollah Khamenei's rhetoric appears to be a direct message to the Iranian military forces to prepare options for an attack against the Zionist entity.

Several governments in the region expressed their support for Iran and condemned the Israeli attack. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Qatar voiced a "strong condemnation" of the attack, describing it as a "blatant violation of international agreements." Similarly, Oman condemned the attack, labeling it as a "violation of the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic."

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia reported that Deputy Foreign Minister Walid Al-Khereiji met with the Ambassador of Iran to Riyadh, Alireza Enayati, and discussed matters of mutual interest. Although the bombing in Damascus was not mentioned during the meeting, the Kingdom condemned the attack in the early hours of April 2nd, categorically rejecting attacks on diplomatic premises.

The United Arab Emirates also condemned the "attacks against Iranian diplomatic missions" in a brief statement.

In the past hours, Russia, through a statement from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, strongly condemned the Israeli attack, denouncing the action as "unacceptable."

The attack has reignited the debate about Iran's willingness to continue its well-known doctrine of "strategic patience" in foreign policy or to definitively abandon it. This debate was sparked after the assassination of Seyyed Reza Mousavi in Syria. Many people interpreted this act as a declaration of war by Israel against Iran and demanded a direct response. In this same context, Ismail Qaani, commander of the Quds Force, suggested that the assassination was due, on one hand, to Israel's failure in Gaza to defeat Hamas, and on the other, it was part of a plan designed to involve Iran more directly in the conflict. Qaani made it clear in public statements that "Iran does not follow the plans of its enemies," which was interpreted as support for the doctrine of "strategic patience."

But the debate has resurfaced. For many people demanding an end to Iran's "strategic patience," this doctrine is perceived by the regional enemies of the Islamic Republic as inaction, which threatens to become a passive acceptance of the regional status quo. In this regard, a post on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) by Mahdi Mohammadi, an advisor to the Iranian parliament speaker, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, can be mentioned. He argued that not directly responding to Israel for fear of triggering a conflict "makes no sense."

In conclusion, it is worth remembering that this is not the first time that Iranian diplomatic missions have been attacked and their diplomats killed. For instance, in 1998, Afghan Taliban militants attacked the Iranian consulate in the Afghan city of Mazar-i Sharif, resulting in the deaths of 11 diplomats. In response, Iran deployed 70,000 troops to the border with Afghanistan, although ultimately the decision was made not to proceed with the operation.

However, the Israeli attack clearly distinguishes itself from the incident involving the Taliban in 1998. Firstly, the latter was part of the colonial struggle for the liberation of Palestine. For the Islamic Republic, this event has characteristics that extend beyond the political realm, taking on an existential dimension. It confronts two antithetical visions: one advocating for justice and the other perpetuating oppression.

And secondly, we cannot overlook the potential risks of a large-scale conflict in the region. Although Iran is not actively seeking a war of such proportions, it has been preparing for years to face such a scenario. This highlights the need to analyze pragmatic considerations, such as "strategic patience," in light of Iran's non-negotiable political principles, even if it entails certain risks.