The targeting of the Iranian embassy in Beirut is a terrorist act, which cannot be justified in any way as being in response to the Iranian policy in Lebanon, in Syria, or in any other place in the world. This is true no matter how many reservations and criticisms surround this policy and how hostile and aggressive it is. The condemnation of this terrorist act is dual, firstly because it targeted a diplomatic mission that should enjoy immunity regardless of what one may think of it, causing the fall of victims who had nothing to do with the complications of Iran's relations with Lebanon and Syria; and secondly because it occurred in Lebanon, where the Syrian opposition needs – much more than anyone else – a space offering aid and assistance to the displaced and those fleeing the regime's oppression. Hence, sabotaging this space through terrorism will harm these refugees as much as the Lebanese themselves. And if the perpetrator wanted to send a message to Tehran, he used the worst means and reaped the opposite results. Eventually, the investigation will determine the criminal responsibility for this terrorist act in case the Lebanese authorities are able to expose the perpetrator. But the political responsibility is clear, in light of the belief that tensions, turmoil and terrorism in Lebanon serve a cause in Syria, or the belief that the Syrian and Lebanese arenas are one, that the same battle is taking place in Lebanon and Syria and that the opponents in one are targets in the other. Lebanon previously witnessed such messages in the Southern Suburb, which constitutes the main stronghold for Hezbollah, i.e. the supporter of the Syrian regime, and in the northern city of Tripoli, considered to be the main stronghold for the support of the Syrian opposition. At this level, the clashes between the Bab al-Tebbeneh and Jabal Mohsen neighborhoods constituted the civil expression of this division. But the targeting of a diplomatic mission the way it was seen with the Iranian embassy, means that the ceiling of the confrontation in Lebanon has been raised, amidst illusions surrounding the possible settlement of this clash in favor of a specific side. The sides that are the most harmed by the spread of turmoil and terrorism in Lebanon - after the Lebanese of course - are the Syrian refugees and the cause of the Syrian opposition. Indeed, the security considerations might act as additional pretexts to suppress the refugees and prevent their entry into the country, as it is being urged by many Lebanese voices opposed to the cause of the Syrian opposition. At the same time, the worst accusation for this opposition is the one related to the practice of terrorism, whether inside or outside of Syria, and especially in Lebanon, through the targeting of a diplomatic mission in particular. There are analyses pointing towards the preparations for Al-Qalamoun battle and the roles played by Hezbollah and the Revolutionary Guard in it. Others are talking about the preparations for the Geneva 2 conference and the roles and sizes in it. However, there is a controversy in Lebanon – one which has not yet been settled – surrounding the role of the Lebanese sides in the conflict in Syria and their practical participation in it. Hence, at a time when a team – particularly March 14 and the Future Movement – is defending the dissociation policy as it was featured in the Baabda Declaration, another team – i.e. March 8 and Hezbollah – is stressing the necessity of siding with and supporting the Syrian regime. And Lebanon's linking to the Syrian conflict, especially through transnational terrorism, is serving the theory advocating Lebanon's implication in, instead of its dissociation from the conflict. Regardless of the technical facets of the attack on the Iranian embassy, this terrorism, just like the one which previously hit the Southern Suburb and places of worship in Tripoli, as well as the clashes along sectarian friction lines, is not serving the cause of the Syrian opposition or exerting any type of pressures on its opponents. Instead, it might be serving the cause of the latter.
