Hamid Khoshayand – an expert on regional issues

Following the recent terrorist crime of the Zionist regime in Tehran and in a situation where Tel Aviv does not believe in any “red line” and openly violates international laws and regulations and threatens the national security and sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the shadow of “partisan” or “passive” policies of America and Western governments, there is no solution other than “decisive, measured and proportionate response.”

Today, the appropriate response of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the terrorist crime of the Zionist regime in Tehran and the martyrdom of the symbol of resistance, Ismail Haniyeh, is not just a “choice” but an inevitable “necessity” that has a strong legal, political, security and dignity logic; Because the Islamic Republic of Iran cannot stand aside in front of the violation of territorial integrity, security, sovereignty, honor, and national prestige, its commitments to the resistance front, as well as the threat against stability and security in the region.

Although talking about the principles of international law in the face of the Zionist regime has no meaning and this regime should be treated with the same language of force, the Zionist regime “violated” four “fundamental principles” of international law in the recent terrorist operations in Tehran:

1. The principle of the right to live, as the highest human right,
2. The principle of not resorting to force,
3. The principle of respect for the sovereignty of governments, and
4. The principle of immunity of political leaders.

Therefore, according to the United Nations Charter and other provisions of international law, the Islamic Republic of Iran, as a state whose territory has been invaded by the criminal Zionist regime, has the right to legitimate defense” in any way it deems.

From a political point of view, the crime the usurper regime committed in Tehran and assassinated one of the high-ranking guests at the inauguration ceremony of the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran “tarnished” the image and political dignity of the Islamic Republic. This restoration of dignity cannot be done except with a decisive and proportionate response in revenge.

In this context, the fact that the Western authorities refused to condemn the terrorist act of the Zionist regime in Tehran and invited Iran to exercise restraint is like a joke. The question is if such a terrorist attack happened in one of the European countries or America and against a political figure who was their guest and after the presidential inauguration ceremony, how would they respond? Would they exercise restraint?

In the end, it is necessary to pay attention to two important points:

One: As the Supreme Leader has announced, the Islamic Republic of Iran considers its duty to take revenge for Martyr Ismail Haniyeh and will not leave any doubt in this regard.

The revenge of Martyr Haniyeh will have several important features. First, it will be fully calculated at the right time and in a completely rational space (benefit-cost analysis), in line with providing interests and national security, as well as considering the interests of the Islamic Resistance Front, Palestine, and Gaza, so that this response will have the most benefit and the least cost.

Secondly, for the Zionist regime, it will be so painful and terrifying that it has never experienced in the last 75 years. Thirdly, while improving Iran’s “deterrence” power, it should not lead to an all-out war in the region that the Zionists have been looking for months. In other words, both the Zionist regime should receive a harsh response and prevent an all-out war the Zionists have been looking for:

Two: In its revenge and response, the Islamic Republic of Iran must consider the conditions of the people of Gaza and that this response and its consequences can lead to the withdrawal of the Zionist regime from Gaza and the end of the war, if possible.