Iran Strikes Israel…The Rest Of The Story
Modern information technology has put the globe at our fingertips. Today’s internet allows information to be gathered from the world’s four corners and instantly transmitted to us here in America. It has led most of us to believe we always have a complete worldview.
Consequently, in a situation like Iran’s attack on Israel yesterday, many of us believe that we’re getting the whole story of the conflict. Unfortunately, I’m here to say that isn’t the case. A review of most of the American News Services shows a slight variation of the same perspective.
In the American Press version of the story, it is detailed how Iran shot hundreds of drones and missiles at Israel. All of this is true, of course, and an accurate resuscitation of yesterday’s events. But few of the reports indicate that this attack was in response to Israel’s attack on the Iranian Embassy in Damascus, Syria.
Inevitably, the news reports quickly transition to describing Israel’s response to the attack and, many times, the statement by US President Joe Biden of unconditional support for Israel should the conflict escalate.
Most Americans are left with the impression that Iran, once again, committed a wanton act of aggression without provocation. I see dozens of “comments” from other readers. Many, but certainly not all, Americans see this as an attack on the United States’ principal alley in the Middle East, Israel. With that, many call for America’s immediate retaliation, falling in line behind President Biden’s call for complete military support of Israel.
If only those were the facts of the matter, I can see how that response would be justified. But there is much, much more to this story. The American reports on Saturday evening events do not provide a historical context.
The immediate trigger for Iran’s attack was Israel’s missile attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria. 16 Iranians were killed in the strike, including one of Iran’s most senior Military officers, Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, along with seven other officers.
The attack was an effort by Israel to expand the scope of the conflict now raging in Gaza. By taking out Iran’s military leadership visiting nearby Syria, it is presumed that Israel was attempting to mitigate any support these leaders may give to Hezbollah fighting in Gaza. At least, that’s the only logical reason I can see.
No matter the rationale behind the attack, it was an apparent expansion of Israel’s growing war with Hezbollah. A step toward a Regional, if not Global, Conflict. Israel is playing with fire.
In International Law, an Embassy is considered a sovereign part of the country it represents. It is a place where citizens of that country can seek asylum and are safe from arrest by the host country. An attack on the Iranian Embassy by Israel was a direct attack on Iranian territory and, thus, an act of war under International Law.
Universally, most expected that Iran would retaliate.
Do you see now how the limited perspective of the American Press distorted reality? The Iranian drone and missile attack on Saturday evening was NOT unprovoked. Instead, it was a response to an Israeli Attack on their Embassy two weeks earlier.
With this simple change of perspective, perhaps we can change how America should react. While the President’s call to unconditional support would have been warranted if, indeed, Iran’s attack was unprovoked, that is not the case today. A simple recitation of this recent history indicates that it was Israel that was the aggressor, at least regarding its attack on the Iranian Embassy in Damascus.
Much of the world sees these events in this alternate way. Experts in Turkey, Pakistan, and Yemen were quick to point out that Iran was justified in launching missiles and drones precisely because of the Israeli attack on the Iranian Embassy.
And that’s all understandable: allies support allies. We should expect the Muslim world to support Iran, just as the United States supports its ally, Israel.
The danger arises when we refuse to look at the other side of the conflict. When lines are drawn in the sand, and positions hardened, conflicts become intractable when we refuse to see the view from the other side. Local conflicts become regional wars and perhaps even worse.
That’s where we are today. Each side is digging in its heels, preparing its populations for what may follow — building the momentum for all-out conflict. Someone needs to step back and see the other side’s view. It’s time to pick up the phone and begin discussions.
Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening on the American side, where the US President sets the tone by declaring unconditional support of one side before the other side’s drones even reach the Negev Desert. It is a “quick-draw” foreign policy that risks World War III.
Follow me here on Medium for more stories from the ValueSide.
