The attacks, widely expected as a retaliation to a missile barrage launched by Iran on 1 October, were described by a senior US official as ‘extensive’ and ‘precise’
That might indicate that this really is a proportional response, the kind that Iran has already signaled they would not retaliate against.
Ehh…Iran said that they would respond against attacks on their “territorial sovereignty” or something similar, if I recall, which would be basically any attack against Iran’s territory. I don’t think that they said anything about proportionality. At least not that I saw (and I’d been searching Google News and similar repeatedly for a while).
That being said, there’s rhetoric and there’s action.
Back after the Iranian attack, Netanyahu said something about the people of Iran being free from their regime sooner than one might think or something like that, which could certainly be taken as indication of taking out the Iranian leadership, and unless there’s more going on than what’s in the news and Israel has announced, I don’t think that Israel’s trying to topple Iran’s government.
No, I’m referring to back channel reports where Iran was relaying something along the lines of the “acceptable targets” where they would not retaliate, or at least not escalate. Including certain types of military bases and facilities.
I don’t believe the IRGC headquarters was included on that list, but as it’s “proportional” to targeting Mossad HQ, I think it’s possible they could lump it in with the other acceptable strikes.
That is, assuming that reporting was even accurate, and if it was, that they’ll extend additional restraint for the IRGC strike.
Again, if that reporting was correct, and if this attack was more or less in line with it, I think it’s extremely likely that the reasoning would be that the US government applied real pressure for the first time during this conflict.
However, that is a lot of what ifs, and assumptions, and it’s probably just as likely, if not more likely, that they’re all shit.
Ehh…Iran said that they would respond against attacks on their “territorial sovereignty” or something similar, if I recall, which would be basically any attack against Iran’s territory. I don’t think that they said anything about proportionality. At least not that I saw (and I’d been searching Google News and similar repeatedly for a while).
That being said, there’s rhetoric and there’s action.
Back after the Iranian attack, Netanyahu said something about the people of Iran being free from their regime sooner than one might think or something like that, which could certainly be taken as indication of taking out the Iranian leadership, and unless there’s more going on than what’s in the news and Israel has announced, I don’t think that Israel’s trying to topple Iran’s government.
But, yeah, we’ll see what comes next.
No, I’m referring to back channel reports where Iran was relaying something along the lines of the “acceptable targets” where they would not retaliate, or at least not escalate. Including certain types of military bases and facilities.
I don’t believe the IRGC headquarters was included on that list, but as it’s “proportional” to targeting Mossad HQ, I think it’s possible they could lump it in with the other acceptable strikes.
That is, assuming that reporting was even accurate, and if it was, that they’ll extend additional restraint for the IRGC strike.
Again, if that reporting was correct, and if this attack was more or less in line with it, I think it’s extremely likely that the reasoning would be that the US government applied real pressure for the first time during this conflict.
However, that is a lot of what ifs, and assumptions, and it’s probably just as likely, if not more likely, that they’re all shit.
Guess we’ll see.