MADRID- Iranian authorities have made it clear they would respond to Israel's airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, which resulted in the killing of seven members of the Revolutionary Guard, including Mohammad Reza Zahedi, considered one of the most important commanders within the Al Quds Force structure.

Israeli action, in contravention of all international agreements, has highlighted the Zionist desire to continue expanding the conflict with the intention of creating a scenario of "perpetual war" that traps Iran and the United States in a direct confrontation. In this regard, it must be made clear that the current situation in the region can already be described as a "regional conflict," and the only variable may be the degrees of intensity thereof.

The confrontation between Iran and Israel began at the very moment of the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979. Since then, supported by its political vision, various groups have emerged in the region, constituting what is now known as the Resistance Axis. Politically, the Resistance Axis can be defined as more than just a simple coalition of non-state actors and states; it is better understood as an anti-colonial ideology that shares non-negotiable objectives but allows for different strategies to achieve them. In this sense, the Resistance Axis differs completely from classical Western military coalitions, which are created ad hoc by like-minded states to combat a common threat without long-term commitments.

For years, the confrontation between the Resistance Axis and Israel has been kept within certain bounds by Iran, which has always sought to prevent the conflict from escalating into a total confrontation that deeply threatens the foundations of regional coexistence. It is important to remember that both for the Islamic Republic in general and for the current government led by President Raisi, the region is approached from the perspective of good neighborliness. This entails stabilizing the region through building relationships among neighbors and the absence of any extra-regional presence, especially from the United States.

On the other hand, Israel neither has the will nor the strategic need to stabilize the region; quite the opposite. It can be argued that Israel's political will is to prevent such stabilization, as it believes Iran would benefit from it.

Israel's need to prevent regional stabilization explains the new phase of the conflict we find ourselves in. This stage began in December 2023 when Israel attacked a building in the Zainabiyah neighborhood of Damascus, killing Seyed Razi Mousavi, one of the main leaders of the Revolutionary Guard in Syria. This is compounded by the situation in Gaza, where the Zionist colonial army has failed to eliminate Hamas after more than 6 months of genocide. Israel's strategy of total chaos stems from its lack of strategic vision beyond mere elimination of the Palestinian population.

Meanwhile, Iran has become the primary regional actor in political terms due to a series of key factors in recent decades, such as the invasion of Iraq and the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, as well as Saudi Arabia's defeat in Yemen. In recent months, joint operations by Hezbollah from Lebanon and the Yemeni group Ansarallah, along with Palestinian resistance in Gaza, have put Israel in an extremely difficult situation. Additionally, Jordan, although not part of the Resistance Axis, faces a threat to its stability due to massive protests in support of Palestine and against the Jordanian authorities, whom protesters perceive as unsupportive of the Palestinian cause. From a geopolitical and strategic perspective, Jordanian cooperation is crucial for maintaining occupation in Palestine, especially in the West Bank.

In summary, the inability to dismantle Hamas, along with the actions of the Resistance Axis, has forced Israel to escalate its campaign of regional destabilization and total war.

Iran has made it clear on multiple occasions that it does not seek to escalate hostilities. In this regard, it is worth mentioning Iran's doctrine of strategic patience, which implies a certain moderation by Iran in responding to Israeli attacks and provocations. However, this doctrine should not be interpreted as passivity or defeatism in the face of the Zionist Entity's presence. Iran recognizes the liberation of Palestine as an irrevocable objective, but also understands the need to approach this objective with caution. In no case does this imply a departure from support for the Palestinian cause, which is fundamental in the founding discourse of the Islamic Republic.

But due to recent actions, especially the attack on the consulate in Damascus, it is perceived that Israel has exhausted Iran's strategic patience. It seems that the previous strategy of responses is no longer effective as a deterrent measure. At this moment, decision-makers in Iran are faced with a dilemma: escalation could lead to a larger conflict, but containment policy could also trigger war by weakening Iran's deterrent capability and strengthening Israel's impunity.

The current situation in the region, marked by Israel's violent behavior, demands a deep reflection on Iran's response. This response was driven by the need to ensure that Israel cannot continue to act with the impunity it has shown so far, especially after its attack on a diplomatic mission, which constitutes a clear violation of the Geneva and Vienna Conventions. The region is at a critical juncture where there is the possibility of both a larger conflict involving the United States and some de-escalation.

The notion of de-escalation, especially at a time when the Zionist Entity faces the greatest strategic disadvantage in its history, similar to the mentioned doctrine of strategic patience, should not be interpreted as a relinquishment of the Palestinian cause. Rather, it represents the possibility of continuing to build a region free from Zionist chaos and U.S. interventionism, where the horizon of Palestinian liberation is always present.

In summary, the current phase of the conflict arises because Israel is facing the worst situation in its history on all imaginable fronts. The society is deeply divided, losing public support for its actions in Gaza. Furthermore, its military strength is depleted, making it difficult to open a new front in the north or confront Iran. Economically, the deficit is out of control, the budget is fictitious, and financial management is extremely irresponsible.