In a stunning display of the quality and cadence of the Iran-United States diplomatic tango, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahain
that Tehran has taken up with Washington the killing of a senior decorated general Mohammad Ali Allahdadi belonging to the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps [IRGC] in an Israeli air strike at Quneitra, Syria, in the Golan Heights on January 18.
Abollahian has been quoted as saying:
- Tehran has warned Washington that Israel has “breached Iran’s redlines.” (Comment: This is the first time in the decades-old enmity between the two countries that Israel has killed an Iranian general.)
- Israel “must await the consequences of their action.”
There has been a spate of statements from Tehran in the last few days, against the backdrop of the funeral of the slain Iranian general. They followed a careful assessment that the Israeli air strike was deliberate and was carried out on the basis of ground intelligence provided by the extremist Islamist Syrian group aligned with al-Qaeda al-Nusra Front (which would have common interests with Israel in regard of the Iranian and Hezbollah presence in Syria.) Tehran is not buying into the Israeli version,
newspaper, that Israel was “unaware” of the presence of the IRGC general.
The deputy head of the IRGC General Rasoul Sanayee Raad told reporters in Tehran yesterday, “With the intelligence provided by the terrorist groups and the Takfiri forces to Israeli spy agency, the ground was paved for the martyrdom… The incident well reveals the resistance’s support for Bashar al-Assad on one hand, and partnership between the opposition Takfiri grouplets and the Zionist regime on the other hand.”
Clearly, the presence of the slain Iranian general and some leading figures in the Hezbollah (who were also killed in the Israeli strike) in the region of the Golan Heights might suggest that Iran would have plans to break the nexus between al-Nusra and Israeli intelligence (which explained the Israeli air strike.) However, if Israel’s intention was also to draw attention to the Iranian presence in its border areas with Syria, it has not worked. Tehran has since gone on the offensive, as apparent from the senior military aide to the Supreme Leader, Gen Yahya Rahim Safavi’s
that Iranian military advisors will continue to remain in Syria (and Iraq) – “We assume security in Syria and Iraq as our own security and even view insecurity in Afghanistan as a kind of insecurity in Iran. We don’t conceal that we are present in Syria and Iraq as advisors and give advice to Mr. Bashar al-Assad and Mr. Haider al-Abadi.”
Surely, Tehran has to retaliate in some way to the killing of an IRGC general. It is almost obligatory. A senior IRGC general, Hossein Salami said as much last Saturday – “In addition to the reopening of the West Bank (front), as a move done specially in retaliation for the incident, we will surely take revenge for the attack with a specific move.” But, on the other hand, an Iranian move against Israel will bring in the US. If Israel’s intention has been to throw yet another wrench at the wheel of President Barack Obama’s engagement of Iran in direct talks, it may be succeeding here if an untimely Iran-Israeli brawl were to ensue.
Conceivably, therefore, just as Israel has been in a denial mode on the January 18 strike – neither confirming the air strike nor denying it – Iran might do likewise. A Hebollah move could be one strong likelihood with Iran’s signature decipherable on it. The Israeli intelligence must be on red alert already.
Indeed, how does all this impact US-Iran talks? The most recent Iranian statements (
,
,
and
) do not exude the earlier sense of cautious optimism about a nuclear deal in the making, what with the moves by the Republican-dominated US Congress to impose more sanctions against Iran. Senior Iranian officials have rejected the notion that the US Congress might ‘bind’ Obama’s hands. The powerful speaker of the Iranian Majlis Ali Larijani has been rather blunt in several recent remarks: “If the US congress imposes new sanctions, certainly, it will regret the path it has paved and of course, they will face Iran’s leap in nuclear technology and this is possible for the Islamic Republic of Iran… Now if they cannot settle their problems, they shouldn’t say that the nuclear negotiations are in trouble; their inability means that they have rocked the boat of the negotiations… The issues between the US administration and the congress and their internal problems are not related to us… If the negotiations do not end in results, Obama should account for rocking the boat.”
It may seem at fist glance that Israel’s sense of timing in killing an IRGC general at this juncture when Obama is juggling with so many balls in the air and the Israeli lobby on the Hill is in full cry, has been perfect. Israel, after all, would know the stature and role of the IRGC in the Iranian power calculus and that it is raising a hornet’s nest in Tehran in terms of the alignments within Iran’s policymaking process. By provoking the IRGC at such a delicate juncture, Israel aimed at multiple objectives.
But then, historically, Tehran has outwitted the best-laid Israeli plots against Obama’s nuclear talks with Iran, and its calibrated reaction today shows that Israel may have bitten more than it can chew. Put differently, Israel may have scored a point in tactical terms by killing an IRGC general, but it may turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory in strategic terms if Iran’s long arm retaliates with the incremental consolidation of the so-called ‘Resistance’ in the Golan Heights right under the nose of the Israeli military or in the West Bank, as Iran is openly warning. (This was, after all, what Iran did in Lebanon over time.)
, the western opinion too has reached a point after the Paris attacks when Iran’s operations in Syria and Iraq against the extremist groups (not only the Islamic State) are in the interests of the West.
Posted in
,
,
.
Tagged with
,
,
,
.
By
– January 28, 2015