The Israeli regime attacked Iran's consulate in the Syrian capital of Damascus on April 1. The Israeli aggression led to the destruction of the entire building and the martyrdom and injury of the entire people inside it.

Seven of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) military advisors were martyred following the Israeli attack on Iran's consulate in Damascus on Monday, IRGC said in a statement.

Reacting to the Israeli aggression, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Nasser Kan'ani on Monday night said that the Islamic Republic of Iran, while reserving its rights to take countermeasures, decides on the type of reaction and punishment of the aggressor.

In response to the Israeli aggression, Iran attacked the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories with a barrage of drones and missiles early on Sunday.

The following is the text of an interview with Celina R. Caesar-Chavannes, a former member of parliament and parliamentary secretary to the prime minister of Canada Justin Trudeau about the recent Iran-Israel development:

Despite the Western countries' efforts to label Iran’s attacks on Israel as invasion, how do you see Iran’s response to increasing Israeli crimes including attacking Iran's consulate in Syria based on international law and the UN charter?

 The ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran operates within an often ambiguous international framework, where actions and reactions can be interpreted in various ways depending on one's perspective. The reported bombing of the Iranian consulate in Syria by Israeli forces presents a critical challenge to the norms of international law. According to the United Nations Charter, diplomatic premises are considered extensions of national sovereignty. Thus, attacks on such premises can be seen as direct assaults on the sovereignty of a nation, violating the Charter's prohibition against the use of force. This incident, therefore, not only escalates tensions but also raises significant questions about adherence to international legal standards.

Iran didn’t target any civilian sites like hospitals, schools, etc, but Israel acted against civilians in Gaza brutally. What is the main reason for these two different behaviors?

Addressing the divergent tactics reportedly employed by Iran and Israel, particularly regarding the targeting of civilian infrastructure, it is essential to approach this issue with a commitment to humanizing all parties involved. While I cannot speculate on the specific motivations behind each actor's military strategies, it is crucial that the international community upholds standards of justice and protection for civilians. Acts that deliberately target civilian areas are deplorable and should be condemned. Compassion must be at the forefront of any response, ensuring that civilian lives are protected and preserved.

What can be the effect of Iran’s attack on increasing Iran’s deterrence power and weakening Israel’s?

In terms of the strategic impacts of Iran's response and its implications for regional deterrence dynamics, it is my view that recent actions are unlikely to significantly alter the deterrence capabilities of either side. Instead, these actions may lead to further escalation and instability in the region. Historical patterns suggest that such conflicts tend to perpetuate cycles of retaliation rather than achieving lasting peace or security. It is imperative for all involved parties and the international community to seek paths toward de-escalation and to engage in dialogue aimed at achieving sustainable peace.

MNA/