What will Iran gain from self-restraint?
Ebrahim Beheshti
Staff writer
Israel’s anxiety and the US concerns about Iran’s retaliation for Israel’s terrorist attack on the Iranian consulate in Syria on April 1 continue to grab headlines. Various speculations have been raised about the nature of Iran’s response and its consequences. Meanwhile, intense negotiations by European countries, the US, and regional powers are underway to prevent Iran from reacting to Israel’s strike that killed seven Iranian military advisors.
The US government is leading these negotiations with its Secretary of State Antony Blinken, as per the Associated Press, engaged in talks with their Chinese, Turkish, Saudi, and European counterparts in recent days. Remarks by spokesman of the US State Department Matthew Miller quoting Blinken regarding the key focus of these negotiations are significant.
“The message conveyed by Secretary Blinken was clear: escalation serves no one’s interests, and it is imperative for countries to encourage Iran to exercise restraint,” Miller said during a press briefing.
The noteworthy point in this scenario is that after more than six months of turning a blind eye to Tel Aviv’s warmongering acts, including genocide and humanitarian crimes in the Gaza Strip, now Washington perceives Tehran’s defense and legitimate response as tension-creating. With unwavering backing from the Europeans and the US, who sent shipments of arms to Israel, the most horrible humanitarian crimes in the 21st century are being committed in the Gaza Strip. Almost 34,000 people have been killed in the territory during more than six months and many more displaced.
These supports have impeded the establishment of a ceasefire and facilitated Israel’s continued terrorist acts and atrocities. Consequently, those who must be blamed primarily for creating tensions are the Israeli regime and the US as its diehard supporter.
Is Israel’s terrorist attack on the Iranian consulate building in Syria anything other than a desire to fuel tensions in the region? Less than four months ago, Israel assassinated Seyyed Reza Mousavi, one of Iran’s high-ranking military advisors in Damascus, in another terrorist operation. The question here is, what did the US and European countries, do against these acts? Not only did they exert no pressure on Israel to stop or reduce tensions, but they even refrained from condemning the regime’s strikes against Iranian interests in the United Nations Security Council. In fact, the US and Europe have emboldened Israel to continue its terrorist and criminal activities, and now they expect Iran to exercise restraint.
Iran will definitely hit back to secure its national interests at an appropriate time, as the Leader said, and the response would make Israel regret. The question remains whether Iran’s retaliation, as alleged by the US, will escalate tensions in the region, or as Iranian officials have stated, will serve as a deterrent against the ongoing crimes and terrorist activities of Israel.
According to Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, Tehran is not looking to expand the scope of war in the region. However, it is clear that staying silent and inactive in the face of a regime that disrupts regional security will inevitably lead to the spread of insecurity throughout the wider Middle East region.
Can the United States and Europe give Iran assurances that Tehran’s self-restraint will lead to concrete outcomes like restraining warmongering Israel and stopping its crimes in Palestine? It appears that the main focus of direct or indirect talks with Iran should center on whether Tehran’s self-restraint will ultimately bring significant benefits for regional security and Palestinians, or whether it will only empower Netanyahu to press ahead with atrocities against Palestinians and destabilize the region.