who is behind the killing of iranian generals in syria and could the attack on the iranian consulate lead to an escalation in the middle east? let's figure it out. in today's episode of bbc ukraine, i'm olga palamaryuk. the war in the middle east has gone beyond the gas sector, and this is another reminder. this is what experts and analysts say about yesterday's attack on the iranian consulate in damascus. iran and syria blamed israel for the attack, which has not commented on it in any way. and here are the first shots after the airstrike, the syrian ministry of defense says that israeli planes attacked building of the iranian consulate in maska reports

that as a result of the attack, seven members of the iranian islamic revolution guards corps were killed, including a brigadier general and his deputy. six syrian citizens were also killed, a total of 13 people. the ministry of foreign affairs of iran stated that tehran reserves the right to hope for a response. well, in israel they refused to comment on the attack on the consulate, and in the united states they reported that they currently do not have any confirmation or purpose. no party responsible for the attack. and here is the place of impact: the building consulates and embassies of iran in damascus are located nearby. the consulate was completely destroyed. a few minutes after the attack, the building of the diplomatic residence of iran in the central affluent district of damascus was engulfed in fire. the israeli strike destroyed the iranian consulate. it was a targeted strike against a high-ranking commander of the front.

which was kept secret. however, it appears that israeli intelligence has planted general mohamed rez in the west at a meeting he was holding in damascus. he was high-ranking an iranian general in syria and lebanon, two countries iran considers critical to its advanced defense system, the so- called axis of resistance. in damascus, the syrian foreign minister said that israel had killed a general and other soldiers. we strongly condemn this criminal act by the zionist enemy, these attacks can only be answered by continued intransigence, continued support of the palestinian people and continued resistance, whether in iraq or in southern lebanon. and the ambassador in damascus hinted at retaliation. certainly, the zionist regime knows better than anyone else. that such crimes and

violations of international law receive their response in due time. the attack is the biggest escalation of the war since the attacks by hamas last october. wars between israel and iran's network of allies, here in northern israel, across the border, in south lebanon and throughout the middle east. since the beginning of this year, there have been skirmishes between israel and hezbollah, a paramilitary and political movement in lebanon. which supports iran, have become more intense. israeli planes carried out raids deep into lebanon and syria. in iran last night, protesters took to the streets of tehran, chanting death to israel. the iranian regime believes that its security depends on containing its enemies. the attack on damascus proved that he does not do this. now the question is, what will the iranians do to show that israel did not intimidate them? the answer will probably be no. immediate

and straightforward and likely to be measured to demonstrate iran's reluctance to be drawn into a full-scale war. and in recent years, israel has regularly carried out strikes on the territory of syria, hitting those targets where, according to the information of the israeli military, there could be iranian bases. and since the attack of the hamas group on israel last october, such attacks have become more frequent. so will there be a strike on iran? the response, which it might be, is analyzed by the bbc's diplomatic affairs commentator, james landale. this is not the first such attack, but it is a clear escalation. so now the iranians are trying to calculate their actions, on the one hand they need to respond proportionately, because many inside the regime, especially among the revolutionary guards, will demand justice for the death of their senior commanders, but at the same time, iran does not want to initiate a wider conflict with israel and its allies, because they know that it could be ... the end of the regime, so they have to find

a balance: this is an attack on a diplomatic mission, and they theoretically protected by the vienna convention. it is possible that in the long term iran will try to strike. according to some israeli diplomatic mission, in the short term they may launch something like a cyber attack, but i think the most likely response is an attack on us positions in syria and iraq, where there are still special forces and other us military bases, by iran's proxies, all those that iran supports in the region. such attacks have happened before during this war, and may happen again. in general, iran has its own vision of how they work. have their national interests in the middle east, through the so-called axis of resistance. in the gaza sector, it is hamas, iran supports them with weapons, hezbollah, a political movement, but also an armed wing, which iran also supports to a large extent. military the teams killed in the attack in syria

were key in the connection between iran and hezbollah. in addition to them , there are also groups in syria and iraq supported by tehran. further south in yemen are the houthis, who are somewhat smaller. it's a separate group that operates independently, but the houthis are firing iranian missiles at western ships in the red sea, and the people firing those missiles have been trained in iran. so that's the big picture and the broader war that we sometimes forget when we focus on the gas sector. well, like us they said earlier that a brigadier general of the islamic revolution guards corps was killed during an attack on the iranian consulate in damascus. mohamat rezza zahedi. participated in military operations in syria and lebanon on the side of bashar al-assad's regime. during this time, he rose to a high position. iranian state television called him the commander of the alquz special forces of the islamic revolutionary guard corps. general

zahedi was also under un security council sanctions because of iran's nuclear program. so what are the consequences of the attack in damascus? let's talk about it with. director of the center for middle eastern studies igor semivolosy. mr. igor, thank you for joining, but from a military point of view, the loss of such soldiers, generals, how strong a blow is this to iran? well, without a doubt, the assassination of such, such a high-ranking official, the iranian general muhammad reza zahadii, without a doubt, is on about the same level as the... the assassination of qas masoleymeni at the time in the 20th year, and we remember iran's reaction to this assassination and the retaliatory strike on american bases in iraq, there also several days passed between these

events, and actually then we remember that the iranians at least conveyed the message of the americans. that if there is no retaliatory strike from the united states of america, then they consider the incident to be over. and here the situation is somewhat different, indeed the iranians realize that this strike, it was carried out, of course, with israel, it is aimed precisely at intensifying the conflict. to turn this conflict into a direct conflict, and this is primarily in the interests of the netanyahu government, which actually found itself under serious pressure from the united states america and not only europeans, and he

needs to find a way out of this situation, and the way out of this situation is a direct conflict with iran, which will surely... put an end to the gas problem, and iran is aware of this, and therefore i agree, in principle, with most observers, the answer will be indirect, and obviously it will take time for the answer, it is actually easier to strike american positions in syria or in iraq. this they have already done, and it does not in principle pose a big problem for the iranians, because these terrorist groups that are in the territory of these countries, will simply take responsibility, and iran will not be directly involved in this

conflict. you can also expect an intensification of hostilities in the north of israel, that is, i would be in the south of lebanon, where hizballah can intensify its shelling. the territory of israel, and the answer is israel - the territory of lebanon. mr. igor, forgive me for interrupting you, that's how you spoke for lebanon . were saying that they would not enter openly into the conflict, as long as israel did not will cross the red line, as they called it, but what do you think, the events in damascus are already the border, you know, the problem is that for them bulla sets red lines, and tehran also sets red lines, and it will depend on tehran how they interpret , so far the reaction is obvious, that is, they said that they will respond, but to what extent is this reaction, how far are they ready to

adequately respond to israeli actions, there is still a big question, so by and large the red lines will be set by iran, and it is worth waiting, to wait for the actual iranian reaction and iranian decision, i think that the iranians will try to... act in parallel, they can try to act diplomatically, because they have certain trump cards on their hands, and we already know the reaction of russia, the reaction of china, other countries, and the israelis will be difficult to explain, well, at least this discussion there at the un security council or elsewhere, it will not contribute to improving the israeli image of the israeli government, but this is only a part, so to speak, political. political agenda, i will, will be military, it will definitely be, what it will be, that's already

a question, well, to development, huh, and tell me from the other side, is israel ready for a war with hezbollah, well, israelis, you understand, israelis, in principle, if the american, well, the problem is weapons , yes, the number of weapons that the americans should provide, if there is any hope... the package of weapons that the americans promised the israelis will be suitable, then in principle the israelis are ready for this war, the actual concern of the american administration, we have seen biden's statements that this is exactly the problem , what a new, new batch of weapons can do to strengthen the mood, the imaginative mood in the israeli government and... to the war with lebanon, which the americans, for example, would not really want, therefore, but right away it is important that,

it is important that a direct threat to the interests of israel, that is, a retaliatory strike provided that the israelis do not take responsibility for this strike, that is, then it turns out that the iranians struck first, the first strike, and then israel has the right to turn to the americans, then all these questions ... that were discussed earlier, they already will not make any sense and of course everything will be to discuss from a blank slate, therefore the iranians will not actually do this, they will not make such a gift to the tv, well, you spoke for the united states and one cannot help but ask you whether the situation in the middle east can affect ukraine, and whether the world's attention can switch on the events there, when russia is waging a war against ukraine, well, it has already happened, that is, we can state this, that is, attention has undoubtedly shifted to the middle east, because the conflict in the middle

east is basic, it is system-forming, it has existed since the cold war, and it is decisive for the formation of political opinions and views of many people in the world, so unfortunately, this is already a fact that we state, thank you, ihor samevolos, director of the center. of middle eastern studies was with us on the air, thank you for the analysis and for the conversation, so iran and syria blame israel for the attack on the iranian consulate in damascus. israel did not comment on this in any way, and as a result of the attack , seven members of the islamic revolutionary guard corps were killed, among them the high-ranking brigadier general mohamad reza zahidi and his deputy. well, that's all for today, look for more stories on our website bbc.ua. see you tomorrow.

greetings, friends, on espresso, the second part of the verdict program, me with... lukashenko is preparing for war, promises an immediate armed response to external encroachments, why ukraine still has... diplomatic relations with the dictatorial regime. politicians, religion and media. russian special services still have a wide range of agents and tools in ukraine. how to put an end to hostile influences. progress in anti-corruption reforms, special representative the us on recovery sees positives for foreign investors in ukraine. why

is american aid slowing down? friends, we work directly. and also on our youtube and facebook platforms, for those who are currently watching us live there. please take part in our survey, today we ask you about whether ukraine needs diplomatic relations with lukashenka's belarus? yes no. everything is quite simple on youtube, if you watch us on tv, take your smart phone or phone and vote. if you think that ukraine we need diplomatic relations with belarus lukashenka 0800-211-381, no, 0800-200. 11382. all calls to these numbers are free, vote, at the end of the program we will sum up the results of this vote. i want to introduce the guests of today's studio, they are people's deputies of ukraine, viktoriya syumar, people's deputy of ukraine from european solidarity, member of the verkhovna rada committee on anti-corruption policy. mrs. victoria, i congratulate you, thank you for being

with us today. good evening. evgeniya kravchuk, national deputy of ukraine from the servant of the people, deputy head of the parliamentary committee on humanitarian issues. of tary and information policy, head of the parliamentary committee on issues of culture, science, media and sports, mrs. yevgenia, i congratulate you and thank you for joining the broadcast, yaroslav yurchyshyn, people's deputy of ukraine from voice, head of the parliamentary committee on issues of freedom of speech , mr. yaroslav, i congratulate you, thank you for being with us today, good evening, well, since we are asking our viewers and tv viewers about diplomatic relations, whether ukraine needs diplomatic relations with belarus lukashenka asked. i, ladies and gentlemen, and you, what do you think about this, let's start with mrs. yevgenia? we do not have an ambassador in belarus, that is, there is only a representative office that performs certain functions to ensure contacts with ukrainian citizens who have found themselves on the territory of belarus, and in particular, for example, our children,

whom we return in small numbers, they, in among them move through the territory of belarus. for the assistance of our embassy, ​​thank you ms. victoria, you know i think that no one has any doubts that the lukashenko regime, in particular, is waging a war against ukraine, precisely from the territory of belarus, where russian troops entered the territory of kyiv region, and maybe i will surprise someone, but when in the 22nd year we are just somewhere there, exactly two years ago , we went to... kyiv region and talked with people who survived the occupation, many of them suspected that the belarusian military was also there, people, in particular , had such suspicions, they believed that, after all, for by all indications it was not the russians, that's why it's obvious there is a side of the war, namely the lukashenka regime, i emphasize, i emphasize this thesis, and

it is obvious that, well, it is probably not up to diplomatic etiquette as of now. and we must be clear here, thank you, mr. yaroslav, why diplomatic relations, after all, i will expand the question, because whether they are needed or not, but why, why these diplomatic relations still exist, they are not canceled, but - ah, well, we have to do, no, we have to take a position that will protect the rights of our citizens as much as possible, madam... evgenia explained why a certain level relations should remain, we as a country did not recognize lukashenka, we do not consider him the president of belarus, we consider him a usurper. in principle, for humanitarian missions, we need a certain level of representation in belarus, because there really is a corridor through which, by what means,

ukrainian citizens are returned, and here we can take a sharp position, so what to do in... actually with children who abducted on the territory of ukraine, who return through belarus proper, problems may arise, so in this case, of course, there is always a feeling, there is emotions, there is a desire, i don't know who in ukraine, well , except for the former representative of the majority of the expelled, allegedly agent of the main intelligence agency yevgeny shevchenko , has at least some kind of relationship with official belarus. at the same time, again, no country recognized tsykhanovsky as an official representative of belarus, that is, with whom to have relations, especially if we have a huge number. on the number of people who have both relatives and acquaintances and the like, so here we have to proceed from banal logic: geopolitics is not emotions, it is only interests, if we

it is beneficial to have a representative there, if you don't recognize it, without recognizing this regime, then you have to act that way, of course, purely emotionally, i would like to say, this is a country that actually surrendered its territory to russia's aggression, but these are emotions, we have to protect the citizens. and what is beneficial for ukrainian citizens should be the priority of our policy. well, you can also say that our citizens are also in the russian federation, and draw exactly such a parallel that we need to take care of 3 million ukrainians who went to work there to earn money in russia, and some of them live there, by the way. mr. serhiy, we have a policy regarding these citizens, and there is a presidential address regarding the field regarding these citizens. that is why we should also take care of these citizens, is this why we need diplomatic relations with the aggressor country that declared war on us,

the situation is a little different, we no longer have diplomatic relations, we broke diplomatic relations with the russian federation, why the mission in fact, why are you actually asking about this, because today lukashenko again started talking about what belarus is preparing for war, he constantly says, he went on a business trip... no to grodno, it is not far from the suwalsky corridor, and he started, well, closer to poland rather, and started talking about what we want, we don't want to fight, that we do not want to fight, but we are preparing for war, i speak frankly about this, you want peace, prepare for war, i did not come up with this, it is very correctly said, well , it says a lot, and i said that while there on the perimeter everyone... and they are digging trenches, we are digging trenches here in order to build hospitals, but lukashenko did not say anything that

ukraine is digging in, among other things, so that the territory of the republic of belarus is not used for belarusian or russian troops to enter the territory of the ukrainian state, as happened in 2022 , and victoria syumar mentioned... , that in the kyiv region they told her that belarusians were there, i heard from the military that some belarusians, or a certain number of belarusians, were during the sunset from the north, or at least from the south, from the south of belarus to the north kyiv region, and finally, can mrs. yevgenia, to demand from the world that... lukashenko was recognized as putin's co-aggressor, because last year it was said that lukashenko could receive an international warrant, an international

criminal court, among other things, for the same crimes that putin committed in ukraine, i.e. taking ukrainian children and stole in fact, but the warrant did not reach, or the status of the self-proclaimed president, as he is called in the west, to... so that our western partners perceive lukashenka as a follower and co-aggressor of putin. it seems to me that we are blurring the focus of our conversation a little, because you can talk about lukashenka for half an hour and really neither ukraine nor western countries recognize him, except perhaps hungary, which handed groman lukashenko and the ambassador of the only country of the european union, he works there as an ambassador, because pay attention, well... the majority lowered the representation our own, we also recalled the ambassador from belarus, and well, this is also a certain argument, but you know, if

they ask me whether it is necessary to have representatives there who will help our citizens return to ukraine, then i will say yes, it is necessary to have there representatives, because it saves our citizens, as far as i'm concerned, we still have to... concentrate on targeting the kremlin, because lukashenko is nothing without the kremlin, and we understand that, lukashenko understands that, and it's obvious that our joint, our joint task must be to defeat russia , of course belarus can provide its territory and the next time for russian troops to pass through this... territory and ukraine just has to be ready from all territories bordering either belarus or russia, but it is clear that there is a lot of danger from russia. well, i agree with you

in one more thing, in that lukashenko is not an independent figure, in fact, he does not decide whether russian troops will enter the territory of the republic of belarus or not, the question is only about how ukraine behaves and whether ukraine somehow contacts belarus there and from the position of the ukrainians, why am i asking about this, because it worries me, i also have relatives there and... relatives live on the territory of the republic of belarus, but i am in favor of not having diplomatic relations with the republic of belarus, until then, then you have to count only on the red cross, which, let's be honest, we don't fully trust, maybe i am to the point that there should not be diplomatic relations with such a country, which is part of the russian federation, if we were to admit, to say that it is

not a country at all now. is not an independent country and we do not have any diplomatic relations, but let's talk about the situation that is created with the help of the united states of america, ukraine. aid to ukraine immediately after the festive holidays, which will end on april 9. according to him , the document will contain important innovations, in particular, the provision of assistance to kyiv in the form of a loan or income from frozen russian assets is not excluded, this is the story about a loan or a loan, this is the same story that trump has been pushing for a long time, whether the united states of america, in particular, congress will leave of the united states of america in providing aid to ukraine, that we will need to somehow repay this

loan there. there to pay off this loan, ms. victoria, how likely and possible it is under the current conditions, and will it not become the main obstacle when considering the issue of providing ukraine with 61 billion us dollars? sergey, well , it's really about the survival of the country, and i understand that the loan sounds bad, but the lack of help is much worse, and therefore, well, in our team, we talk ... with american politicians, and indeed, unfortunately, today it looks to the fact that trump, the republicans, will still draw this line and draw the idea of ​​a loan to provide this assistance, i'm not even sure what will happen 61 billion, they talk about the amount of 48 billion, but in any case, first of all , military aid must be provided, military aid.

support in ukraine, support for weapons, this is critically important today for the country, and yes, i may repeat it again, maybe the loan does not sound too attractive, obviously, but you know, loans can be written off even after the war, it is obvious that the provision of precisely the military aid package, and here we would like to remain optimistic, our team remains optimistic, which is still possible in a somewhat truncated form, in the format of a loan, but all the same, this aid will be voted to ukraine. in fact, all the nuances that were there have been removed, except for, probably, the key, key problem, the problem of domestic american politics, unfortunately, ukraine has already become a hostage and has already become to some extent a map during the election campaign, this does not give us much optimism, of course, considering

really, well, so much. the aid that the united states provided to ukraine during these two years, on which i will say frankly, the chances for ukraine probably depend, in the course of a war with the russian federation, because it is obvious that the resources of russia, which, by the way, has reliable allies, unfortunately, in particular the same iran, as we can already see now with the dprk, so we can... korea is meant, so we a reliable alliance is also needed, and in any case a positive vote, at least for a package of military aid, at least for a loan, it will still be a testimony of the american alliance with ukraine in the course of this war, which was declared from the highest podiums, by the highest leaders, in that including the united of the states sir