en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

Irans consulate was attacked, not it's embassy and it was on the 1st of April, not the 10th. 2024-04-01: Iran accuses Israel of violating its sovereignty in fatal attack on consulate in Damascus – The Irish Times

In 1983 Iranian backed Hezbollah attacked the US embassy in Beirut. britannica.com/event/1983-United-States-embassy-bombing

Documenting preliminary research will improve both the probability of an answer and the quality of the answer(s). Bounding the question to the first ever consular mission would help.

@MarkJohnson updated to specify "consulate"

@DJClayworth Hezbollah isn't a country. It's a paramilitary group in Lebanon, and it was attacking an embassy in Lebanon (not a group outside of the sovereign territory). So that's twice removed from the question.

@EvanCarroll, responding in comments decreases the probability that you'll get an answer. Please edit the question to address the comments and then flag the comments for deletion.

There is a lot of nitpicking here, and there isn't any preliminary research.

Hezbollah is directed by Iran. Pretending their actions are separate from Iran’s is not warranted.

Ukraine is "directed by" the USA and NATO. We still "pretend" like they're different. A proxy is not the same thing and no one treats it as the same thing.

Why is no one mentioning that Iran attacked the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and took hostages?

@Barry because Tehran is in Iran? And Iran attacking the US in Iran isn't what the question calls for.

The point here is that in this case the building was not attacked because it was a consulate, but because of the activities taking place in the building (that has nothing to do with the functions of a consulate).

@MarkJohnson I'm not here to argue with you, I'm not looking for an Israel's justification. I'm just needing to know if it's factual for me to claim that this attack on a foreign consulate outside of the country performing the attack is entirely unprecedented.

Many of the comments here are mere nonsensical illogical propaganda conjecture and should be deleted. For example, the Brittanica Encylopedia article says the bombers were linked to both Al Qaeda & Hezbollah yet Hezbollah has no links to Al Qaida and, in reality, is opposed to Al Qaeda. Hezbollah fought against Al Qaeda in Syria and only recently there was a "coincidental" attack by Al Qaeda & Israel as the same time upon the Syrian Army in Syria. The appears no evidence of who bombed the US in Lebanon and anonyous phone calls are not "evidence".

Hezbollah is a Lebanese Shia group formed from local people who were previously oppressed by the PLO then later became oppressed by 15 years of Israeli occupation. Under International Law, their formation is not illegal. If Iran has funded Hezbollah has zero relevance to the validity of Hezbollah's existence. What the USA or Israel purports has no relevance to international law. Hezbollah were invited into Syria to free Christian monastic towns & kidnapped Christian nuns from Al Qaeda. This is the reality. "History" is not propaganda hogwash.

As an example, during the covert Syria War, Hamas (originally Muslim Brotherhood, banned in most/all Muslim countries) opposed the Syrian Govt & Hezbollah. These various groups have no inherent connection, apart from political convenience. For some reason, Iran & Syria reconciled with Hamas and want to portray themselves as caring about Gaza. At the same time, Qatar (enemy of Syria & Iran), often at the behest of Israel, has funded Hamas (in the recent past). There is too much covert political things occuring here for the comic book dualities of the mass media (which is not "history").