• ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    9 months ago

    I agree that Iran apparently prefers not to escalate (although it’s hard to say whether its attack was deliberately limited or simply couldn’t penetrate Israel’s defenses) but this is consistent with Iran’s strategy of acting through proxies. Iran doesn’t want a more direct confrontation with Israel because the status quo allows it to damage Israel much more safely and cost-effectively than it could by fighting directly. In this context, effective Israeli action against Iran requires escalation because otherwise even defeating the proxies is still a net loss for Israel, and so killing the specific Iranian leaders responsible is a good strategy because it makes hostile action against Israel much more costly specifically to those instigating it.

    • GrymEdm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      so killing the specific Iranian leaders responsible is a good strategy

      You lost me there. Perhaps some people would agree, but likely only until it’s their leaders being killed in their embassies. There are international norms giving embassies protected status for a reason. Would you think Iran killing US officials doing negotiations in Egypt is a good strategy?