Was Iran’s embassy in Syria really spared by the Israeli raid?

Issued on: 29/04/2024 – 16:45

4 min

If you only have a minute:

• A number of pro-Israeli social media accounts have been sharing a photo of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, Syria, after an Israeli strike on April 1. According to them, the embassy wasn’t hit in the strike. They claim that the building that was hit belonged to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, which would mean it was not a part of the diplomatic compound. 

• However, an analysis of the images shows that the building hit by the Israeli strike belongs to the Iranian consulate, which is indeed part of the embassy.

The fact check, in detail 

Pro-Israeli accounts on Facebook have been circulating a photo since April 16, claiming that it will “establish the truth” about the Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, Syria on April 1. These accounts claim that the photo shows that the bombing didn’t actually hit the Israeli embassy but a building next door that was the headquarters of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, a branch of Iran’s armed forces.  

A building belonging to the Iranian consulate

We found the original version of the photo that these accounts have been circulating using a reverse image search (click here to see our guide on how to run one of these searches.) It turns out the original was taken on April 2 by a Reuters photographer called Firak Madesi, as was also reported by French newspaper Libération. 

The image shows members of the Syrian civil defense clearing the rubble of the destroyed building after the raid on April 1. The caption on the Reuters photo says that the building belonged to the Iranian consulate in Damascus, which is part of the Iranian embassy, contrary to the claims made by some social media accounts. 

Another photo taken by the same photographer, Madesi, shows a plaque in front of the destroyed building that says that it belonged to a “consular section of the Iranian embassy”. Other media outlets, like the television channel Iran International, also published a photo of this same plaque in front of the ruined building.

The inviolability of diplomatic premises

These accounts are denying that Israel actually carried out a strike on the Iranian embassy, while Tehran is decrying the illegality of the attack. It’s true that diplomatic premises are, in theory, protected under international law. 

In a press release, Iran’s foreign minister denounced “an attack […] that violates the immunity of diplomatic persons and premises […] and constitutes a violation of international law, in particular the 1961 Vienna Convention”. 

The inviolability of diplomatic premises is defined in the Vienna Convention in Article 22, which refers to embassies, and by Article 31, which refers to consulates. 

However, this convention actually talks about the inviolability of these sites in regards to the host state, says François Dubuisson, a law professor at Belgium’s Free University, who spoke to our team. So in the case of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, the host country is Syria. 

Yet, Dubuisson says: 

The inviolability of diplomatic premises should be respected by all states under what is called customary humanitarian international law, which refers to a body of unwritten rules of public international law. According to these principles, embassies and consulates are considered to have special protection and shouldn’t be attacked, even in case of armed conflict with another state. 

The question of legitimate defence

However, the use of armed force, including against diplomatic premises, can be justified, under international law, in the case of “legitimate defence, which means recourse to force in case of aggression,” Dubuisson conceded.

However, on April 15, Israel army spokespersoan Daniel Hagari said the victims of the Israeli strike in Damascus were “members of Quds”. Quds is one of five branches of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It specialises in unconventional warfare and military intelligence operations. Quds also carries out the role of maintaining relationships with governments and groups allied with the Iranian government. 

Iran has been providing support to movements such as the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon when they attack Israeli territory and interests.  

“They were people engaged in terrorism against the Israeli state,” Hagari said. 

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps reported that seven of its members died during the Israeli raid, including two Quds generals, Mohammad Reza Zahedi and Mohammad Hadi Haji Rahimi, which proves that Iranian soldiers were present in the consulate. 

However, is this enough to invoke the principle of legitimate defence and justify the Israeli attack on the diplomatic premises? Experts in international law are divided. 

“If the strike targeted individuals engaged in military operations against Israel, including through a proxy armed group, that would likely mean that the building was a legitimate military target,” wrote the New York Times, summarising a quote from Yuval Shany, an international law professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. 

“The threshold for the jurisprudence [of legitimate defence] is extremely high,” Dubuisson says. “You would need to prove that Iran ordered, for example, Hezbollah to carry out a strike, which Israel has not proved.” 

If the country hasn’t produced enough proof to support the idea of legitimate defence, the Israeli attack against Iran would be “illegal”, Dubuisson concludes. 

He added that it wouldn’t just be an illegal act against Iran— it would also be an illegal act against Syria because “Israel carried out a military intervention in Syrian territory without claiming to respond to any kind of aggression from Syria.”