Sorry, let me go off subject here - let's take an example of Pakistan and India. Pakistan is geographically much smaller than India. Does that mean Pakistan can't sustain a war or nuclear war with India?
Despite Israel being geographically smaller than Iran, their military power, backed by the U.S., gives them significant leverage. This comparison suggests that physical size doesn’t directly dictate military outcomes in conflicts, particularly when powerful allies (like the U.S.) are involved.
Iran has, "given Israel an opportunity" to justify potential retaliation by attacking them. I believe Israel has been planning a broader strategy for over a year to neutralize regional threats (As they believed ).
The Three-Stage Plan:
- First, Israel targets Gaza, destroying Hamas to reduce threats from. (achived)
- Second, it addresses Hezbollah in southern Lebanon to neutralize another key threat (In Progress)
- Third, Israel wants Iran to directly engage so that it has a reason to weaken Iran militarily and economically, potentially even achieving regime change.
U.S. Backing and Success of the Plan: the U.S. will back Israel in any major conflict, with the real question being how successful Israel and its U.S. ally will be in achieving their broader objectives.
I don't believe that Russia or China may directly involve themselves militarily on Iran's behalf in such a conflict, keeping the focus on Israel, the U.S., and Iran.
Even though the majority of members are emotionally attached to one side, I would suggest, looking beyond emotional attachments and also looking around for other possibilities, but here members only want to hear about the destruction of Israel - even happy if it is coming from fake Twitter accounts.
www.theguardian.com
