The attacks, widely expected as a retaliation to a missile barrage launched by Iran on 1 October, were described by a senior US official as ‘extensive’ and ‘precise’
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.
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.