Israel Is Pulling Pages From NATO’s 1999 Playbook

Any attack on diplomatic and consular premises and personnel represents a clear violation of international law, the Geneva convention, and the United Nations Charter. That, however, did not prevent Israel from launching a missile attack on the consulate building of the Iranian Embassy in Damascus, killing at least seven officers.

“Rules are mostly made to be broken and are too often for the lazy to hide behind”, said the American General Douglas MacArthur who wanted to use atomic bombs to contain China and ultimately win the Korean War 1950-1953. His statement seems to have become a major principle of the United States’ foreign policy.

In May 1999, during NATO aggression on Yugoslavia, the U.S.-dominated alliance bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, killing three Chinese journalists, and injuring at least 20 other Chinese nationals. The raid caused a dramatic rise in tension between Beijing and Washington, as well as a deep mistrust between the two countries. In order to calm the situation down, the then U.S. President Bill Clinton expressed “regret” over the incident, while Washington paid compensation to the victims’ families. 

The attack, however, opened up Pandora’s box. A quarter of a century later, Israel adopted the NATO strategy of violation of international norms. The difference, however, between the Israeli strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus and NATO attack on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade is that the Israeli authorities, unlike NATO leaders, do not deny that their forces deliberately targeted the diplomatic facility.

In 1999, the CIA said it identified “the wrong coordinates”, as its intelligence analysts reportedly relied on “outdated maps”. Although at the time China’s role in the international arena was not nearly as important as it is now, Beijing never accepted Washington’s claims that NATO “mistakenly” bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.

Israel, unlike the United States, never said it did not aim to hit the diplomatic mission. The Israeli goal was to kill senior commanders of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), who were in the Iranian consulate in Damascus at the time of the attack. From the purely military perspective, the task has been completed. Now the ball is in Tehran’s court. 

In 1999, China was not at war – be it a proxy conflict, or a “hot war” – with the United States and NATO. Beijing, therefore, did not have to respond militarily to the NATO attack on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Iran and Israel, however, have been fighting a proxy war for many years. Syria is just one of their playgrounds.  

Although the Islamic Republic avoids getting directly involved in a military confrontation against its archenemy, the latest Israeli move represents a serious challenge for the Iranian leadership. Israel has effectively thrown down the gauntlet to Tehran. Iran now has two options, and both of them seem to be equally risky.

The Israeli attack aimed not only to kill Iranian military officials, but also to demonstrate to the rest of the world that it can act in this manner without consequence. If the Islamic Republic turns a blind eye to the Israeli action, its opponents will represent it as a serious weakness. As a result, Israel will almost certainly increase its military campaign against Iran and its forces operating in neighboring countries, quite aware it can continue crossing Tehran’s “red lines”. If, however, Iran responds severely, and inflicts huge losses on Israel, the situation in the region can escalate and lead to a large-scale regional war.

Since Iran does not seem to be interested in such an outcome, its response will likely be well-calculated and rather limited. It is entirely possible that it will come not directly from Tehran, but through Iranian proxy forces in the region. 

One thing is for sure: if Tehran takes the Israeli and NATO approach, and strikes an Israeli diplomatic mission – be in the Middle East, or elsewhere – the very existence of international law will become questionable. That is why Wang Lutong, Director-General of the Department of European Affairs of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said that Beijing firmly opposes any attack on diplomatic and consular missions, which violates international law and basic norms of international relations. 

In other words, China, being a victim of the attack on its embassy, does not support Israeli action, although it would unlikely support a potential Iranian retaliation on Israeli diplomatic facilities anywhere in the world either. But the problem for Tehran is the fact that, unlike China, it cannot count on its opponent’s apology and compensation. 

That is why Iran will have to respond, one way or another. Otherwise, it risks losing reputation in the international arena, and looking weak in the eyes of its opponents. 

[Photo by Student News Agency, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons]

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.