Israeli Airstrike Claims Lives Of Two IRGC Generals In Syria
In the latest Israeli airstrike targeting Syria, Brigadier Generals Panah Taghizadeh and Mohammad-Ali Ataei (Shoorcheh) of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) were killed.
In the latest Israeli airstrike targeting Syria, Brigadier Generals Panah Taghizadeh and Mohammad-Ali Ataei (Shoorcheh) of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) were killed.
The IRGC confirmed their deaths, stating that the generals were on an "advisory" mission in Syria. The Guards' Sepah News website reported, "Mohammed Ali Ataei Shoorcheh and Panah Taghizadeh... were martyred by the Zionist usurper enemy while conducting an advisory mission in the Syrian Islamic resistance front," without providing further details.
Israeli airstrikes hit several areas on the outskirts of Damascus early Saturday, causing "material losses," according to Syrian state media. The strikes targeted the southern Damascus suburb of Sayyida Zeinab, where Hezbollah-affiliated forces operate. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported two Syrian citizens and two foreigners killed, with five others wounded.
Israel has frequently conducted airstrikes in Syria since the civil war began in 2011, focusing on Iran-backed forces, Hezbollah fighters, and Syrian army positions. The recent surge in attacks aligns with the Israel-Hamas conflict that started in October.
The incident is expected to heighten tensions between Israel and Iran, a key supporter of the Palestinian group Hamas. Iran has warned of the conflict's potential spread to other regional areas. Israel remains concerned about Iran's military presence in Syria and is committed to preventing Iranian entrenchment along its northern border.
During the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict, Israel has targeted Syria, impacting international airports in Damascus and Aleppo for over a month. Iran has played a significant role in supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad throughout the 12-year civil war, deploying fighters to tip the balance in Assad's favor. Despite Tehran maintaining a military advisory role, numerous Iranian Revolutionary Guard members have lost their lives in the Syrian conflict.
The statement comes after more questions have risen about how the parliament has become a rubber stamp and hardliners dominating the government get their power from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s office. Consequently, questions also arise as to what the constitutional powers of the Supreme Leader are and do elections and elected offices mean anything, when he can dictate his will.
Hardline cleric Morteza Aqa-Tehrani, the chairman of the central council of ultraconservative Paydari Party recently quoted the party's founding father, Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi as having called for the nation's absolute obedience to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Aqa-Tehrani quoted Mesbah as saying, "The absolute rule of the Supreme Leader is not enough as the theory of government under the Islamic Republic. The system also needs absolute obedience of the people to the supreme leader."
The statement effectively would render the legislative system in Iran meaningless. According to the ultraconservative party, Khamenei can make any decision, and the people will have no choice other than obeying what he decrees. What makes Aqa-Tehrani’s statement more dangerous is that his party is poised to gain absolute majority in the March parliamentary elections that are being heavily engineered to give a monopoly of power to hardliners.
Commentator Abbas Abdi writing in Tehran’s reformist daily Etemad on Saturday argued that those who speak about “absolute obedience” to the Supreme Leader, in fact are doing a disservice to him. A modern state cannot be governed on that basis because the world has changed in the past 200 years and now governing a country needs expertise in different fields, he stated. Those who insist on absolute obedience in fact leave the Supreme Leader in a lonely position, vulnerable to all things that can go wrong and make him a target for blame.
Mr. Khamenei has already entered the unenviable position of being seen as responsible for a once rich and promising developing country that is now on the verge of becoming a failed state. Anti-regime protests in recent years have demonstrated that increasingly many people have turned against Khamenei, seeing him as responsible for a failed state and an impediment to a better life.
Iran’s economy, straddled with unsurmountable inefficiencies of nepotism and political control, has little hope of resuming development and progress. Sitting on the world’s second largest natural gas resources, Iran faces domestic shortages, let alone an ability to export.
Crude oil exports, limited by US sanctions, are not even enough to help bridge a 50-percent budget gap. The country needs $160 billion to overhaul and modernize its energy sector, according to oil minister Javad Owji, but its annual crude exports barely reach $22 billion. Iran resembles a football player who has lost track of the ball and no matter how fast he runs, it seems too late to catch up.
Iranians see this hopeless situation as the result of Khamenei’s 34-year rule, and his hardline loyalists resort to more praise and demands of full obedience, while many see his days numbered at the old age of 84.
Recently, former President Hassan Rouhani publicly referred to the inevitable, the death of the leader, and hinted at the need to look forward. This week, a senior cleric revealed that a small committee is looking into appointing a deputy leader. But the day after Khamenei’s eventual passing is what many whisper about. Who would replace him. Will there be a nasty power struggle, or even a “collective leadership” to replace the Supreme Leader? What will the Revolutionary Guard do? Will they push their own candidate, or they will start an internal power struggle?
Abdi referring to “absolute obedience” wrote, “I would like to say that those who make this statement are essentially pursuing their own agendas. By seemingly expressing support for the velayat-e faqih (Supreme Leader), they aim to advance their projects. Lacking intellectual courage and self-sufficiency, they seek to promote their plans through this statement.”
