- Thread starter
- #1,876
I’m the first to argue against ‘blind retaliation’ as you and others are well aware. A proper retaliation has to meet many criteria—perhaps yours is one.It will eventually be approved in some fashion (maybe with changes). However, due to Israeli genocide in Gaza and bad press, US has image issue approving it. Plus it’s the only card US has left as leverage against Bibi.
However an attack by Iran will force a “rally around Israel” and Bibi will get his $14B instantly.
So you can see why he is more than happy to have Iran do a “measured” response on Israeli soil. Bibi gets free reign to strike Iran (if he wants), draws in more US military support, gets $14B dollars in aid, and has Iran distract from the ongoing genocide.
So Iran should retaliate if it can meet specific strategic objectives. We’ll see.
That said, the main thrust of my position is that Iran should never put herself in a reactive position. Reacting, by definition, means many more option branches are culled that would’ve existed in a pre-emptive (action) position. In fact, one can solidly argue Iran has forced Zionia to react. If that is the case, then Iran no longer needs to do anything at all and maintain the status quo.







