The Russian Foreign Ministry has released a statement which appears to be critical of this morning’s multiple “Israeli” attacks on Syrian soil. The incident began when “Israel” allegedly shot down a drone in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights. While Tel Aviv claimed it was an “Iranian drone”, Tehran has firmly rejected this allegation.
Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Bahram Qassemi has stated,
“Claims about the flight of an Iranian drone … are too ridiculous to be addressed because the Islamic Republic of Iran has advisory presence in Syria at the request of the country’s legitimate and lawful government.
The government and army of Syria as an independent country have a legitimate right to defend [the country’s] territorial integrity and counter any type of foreign aggression”.
In a piece from earlier today, I explained one of the rationales behind Tel Aviv trying to conflate Syria’s national defence with Iran:
“The statement which lies about “Israeli” sovereignty being violated as the drone in question was flying in occupied Syria, more importantly blames Iran for the events. This is a sign that “Israel”, a country which invested so much over the decades into destroying the Syrian Arab Republic, cannot even admit that it was Syria, a country still able to stand up to “Israeli” aggression. Instead they blame far away Iran, because they cannot face the fact that Syria can and will stand up for itself and has been doing so recently, more than ever”.
The lies “Israel” tells about Iran must be viewed through the prism of Tel Aviv’s embarrassment about the fact that a Syrian Arab Republic which Tel Aviv had hoped would be wiped off the map, still has the ability to defend itself. This is why Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Brigadier General Hossein Salami, stated that it would improper for Iran to comment on anything coming out of “Israel” that had not been verified by Syria “because Israelis are liars”. Israel’s lies about Iran serve the duel purpose of slandering Iran for that which it did not do, while such lies also help the Zionist regime to avoid a public acknowledgement that Syria, a country that Tel Aviv has been occupying since 1967, is still able to fully defend itself, of its own accord.
While Lebanon has also roundly condemned the Zionist regime’s aggression against Syria, it would appear that Russia, which has typically refrained from comment regarding clashes between “Israel” and Syria, has also spoken out offering a carefully worded condemnation of the Zionist regime.
According to a statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry,
“Moscow is deeply concerned with the latest developments and attacks on Syria. The danger of the escalation of tensions within and around the de-escalation zones, which have become an important factor in reducing violence in Syria is of particular concern”.
Russia also stated that the forces of the Syrian Arab Army “are complying with the existing arrangements to provide the consistent functioning of the de-escalation zone in the south-west of the country”, before delivering what can only be read as a rebuke of “Israel’s” aggression towards Syria:
“We urge all the involved parties to exercise restraint and avoid any steps that could lead to aggravation of the situation. We consider it necessary to unconditionally respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria and other countries of the region”.
While the statement has not named “Israel”, it is clear that Moscow feels that Tel Aviv has crossed a line with such a blatant and totally unprovoked violation of the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic. Furthermore, Russia stated that any threats to Syria which could endanger the lives of Russian personnel in the country are unacceptable. Thus, in criticising “Israel’s” aggression, Russia is linking the safety of Russians in Syria with the safety and territorial sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic.
This further validates the following points I made just hours ago,
“Russia has never done anything to overtly restrain “Israel’s” illegal attacks on Syria, but nor has Russian done anything to increase or decrease the level of Syria’s response to these attacks.
In this sense, because the conflict between Syria and “Israel” goes back to 1967, or perhaps even 1948 depending on one’s perspective, Russia, whose mandate is to fight non-state terrorism in Syria, does not technically cover this old conflict which has been manifestly incorporated into the new conflict.
Similarly, the US which had been focused on the pro-“Israeli” goal of regime change and is now focused on the pro-“Israeli” secondary goal of dividing Syria, has not become involved. The reason for this is clear enough: at a time when even many of Syria’s enemies hate “Israel”, the US tries to avoid doing anything to reveal the fact that as a state, the Syrian Arab Republic is the last Arab state which consistently stands up to the Zionist entity. This could create the kind of Arab unity around Palestine that the Syrian government has always argued for. The US cannot risk bringing this kind of Arab unity about, when Washington’s own regional goals are predicated on sowing sectarian divisions.
Thus, when it comes to the battles between Syria and “Israel”, both countries are largely on their own and as such, Syria is holding its own, against great odds”.
Clearly, any attempts by Tel Aviv to secure a Russian condemnation of Syria for defending itself, have been met with the opposite, a nuanced but firm defence of Syria by the Russian Foreign Ministry.