nomadski Fri Apr 12, 2024 3:17 pm
The two situations are not directly equivalent . An attack by a lesser force on a greater force , is not seen as existential and less likely elicits a strong reaction . An attack by a greater force on a lesser force , is seen as existential and more likely elicits a strong reaction . But that is not the only reason , Israel is not a normal country , it is an entity that exists through war and needs it for it's survival . Therefore a similar strike by Iran on Israel , similar to attack on Americans in Assad base , will bring a stronger response .
If Iran takes no action , then Israel will 100% likely take similar limited actions , and given this restraint and seeing further attacks , Iran will be pushed to go to full war . If Iran takes limited action , then given Israeli political imperatives , they will 100% continue to take at least similar limited strikes , and given this scenario , Iran will have to go to full war . And lastly a full war by Iran will be reciprocated 100% by Israel . Therefore a full war given all three cases , is more than likely . However , if Iran shows restraint , there may exist a small chance that Israel will back down .
But Iran will be betting on this small chance , at a risk of waiting and allowing time and space for possible attack by Israel . But is it worth it ? It is only worth it , if Iran can immediately detect an aggressive response by Israel and is able to neutralise it effectively . This is a technical matter . If Iran does not have the capability to go to full war immediately after a limited strike , then it should not take a chance . It should launch all forces .