68
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] tal@lemmy.today 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

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.

But, yeah, we'll see what comes next.

[-] pandapoo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

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.

this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
68 points (92.5% liked)

World News

38892 readers
2352 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS