That's my assessment. By threatening and targeting bystanders, Iran tries to make any military action against them costly to those not involved, who will naturally apply pressure to whomever is taking the action.
So, the USA and Israel started a war with Iran when they were in the negotiating table and the Iranians were accepting all the nuclear demands.
In the first unprovoked attack they killed an important religious leader of a big part of the population of the area (not only Iran) and a bunch of civilians (160 children in a school between them).
But the assesment is that 'is Iran who is threatening and targeting bystanders'. No surprise that we are in the mess we are.
look at the stats of what the UAE has defended against, what is the purpose of those attacks? They make no sense to me.
Iran attacks on the UAE
186 ballistic missiles
812 drones
this article even states that the UAE has been attacked more than Israel itself which, again, blows my mind. The UAE is, wisely IMO, choosing to stay out of it but i mean how much can they take?
> UAE has been attacked more than Israel itself which, again, blows my mind.
UAE is closer and so it is harder for them to intercept attacking missiles and drones. Israel is further and thus harder target. They have more time to destroy the attacking drone or missile, making such attack more wasteful.
Second, the goals are likely American soldiers stationed there and the defense systems themselves. Intercepting missiles can run out and Iran likely wants them to run out.
> So, the USA and Israel started a war with Iran when they were in the negotiating table and the Iranians were accepting all the nuclear demands.
They were not accepting all the nuclear demands[0].
> In the first unprovoked attack they killed an important religious leader of a big part of the population of the area (not only Iran) and a bunch of civilians (160 children in a school between them).
Calling the attack "unprovoked" is just wildly inaccurate, Iran has for years funded terrorist proxies to attack both Israel and US interests in the region.
> But the assesment is that 'is Iran who is threatening and targeting bystanders'. No surprise that we are in the mess we are.
Iran deliberately targets their own civilians as well as 3rd party countries.[1]
I think the massacres and not the nuclear program were however what finally pushed the US and Israel into a war with the regime itself as a primary target as the massacres opened up an opportunity to potentially take out the regime once and for all.
that funding has been for years, and Israel itself has funded some of those same proxies.
the massacres also arent timely. we're months later with the unrest settled down, but its also not something unique to iran. lots of countries, including israel go about massacring civilians
nothing has substantially changed in many years. not even oct 7 is timely anymore
The protest massacres opening up an opportunity for regime change, I think that's ultimately what pushed Israel and the US to take action.
> Israel itself has funded some of those same proxies
Israel facilitating aid/funds into Gaza for humanitarian reasons which often got diverted by Hamas is not the same as Israel funding Hamas.
> the massacres also arent timely. we're months later with the unrest settled down, but its also not something unique to iran.
The war happened as soon as one could reasonably expect it to happen given the necessary logistics involved.
> including israel go about massacring civilians
Israel does not have a top down policy of deliberately targeting/massacring civilians, Iran on the other hand does.
> nothing has substantially changed in many years. not even oct 7 is timely anymore
Oct 7 drastically changed Israel's perspective on containment and deterrence being effective policies for dealing with enemies like Hamas and Iran. Part of the problem with a containment and deterrence strategy here is that groups like Hamas and the Iranian regime don't respond to incentives in the way one would expect a rational actor to respond.
> By threatening and targeting bystanders, Iran tries to make any military action against them costly to those not involved, who will naturally apply pressure to whomever is taking the action.
i'm no geopolitical expert but the most likely outcome of bombing bystanders is more enemies and fewer bystanders.
