“Globally, the gasp continues since Iran attacked Israel a week ago, targeting its embassy in the Syrian capital, Damascus, and killing several Revolutionary Guard leaders. It has led to Israeli threats of “counter-retaliation” and fears that it could lead to an “all-out war” after the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation. Described as “American pledges”, it disagreed with the response “doctrine”.
However, all assessments indicated that Israel would respond, saying that “passing through” without responding to an Iranian attack could destroy what has been described as its “deterrent prestige” or what remains of it after much of it. Even if the “al-Aqsa flood” comes in blood, through a brilliant war that has been going on for more than six months in the Gaza Strip, it is, as everyone agrees, undeserved. A place to live and its inhabitants or those who can live among them are displaced.
Indeed, Israel's response finally came after setting a set of “contradictory” dates that suggested an “impasse” in Israel, which is already divided on views about the nature of the military operations it is conducting on various fronts. Although “support for the war” was unified by the majority in principle, and perhaps the “form” came to deepen and divide the divide, many felt that it was limited and rather “patterned”. Help Iran control it,” Israeli media said ironically.
Some say a number of factors led to the “range” of the response, including the U.S. position, noting Iran's interest in “defining” itself to a level of “non-recognition,” so to speak. , which was rejecting any answer from the first moment. In the coming days, if not directly, then on various fronts, including Lebanon?!
In principle, those in the know believe that the “topic” of the Israeli attack on Iran is isolated from its “executive” details, according to the rule that “what is written is read from its title.” The case summarizes the “written” content, which means that Israel wants to say that it responded by doing what it should have done, limiting the attack to the maximum, and indicating that it did not consider the attack to be a “response,” meaning an “escalation” to “Iran, which has constantly warned of Israeli adventurism.” ends at these boundaries.
According to those in the know, what this approach establishes is that both sides will be subject to the slogan “win-win” or “lose-lose” as a result of this “fight”. They will consider themselves a “winner” and the other with no “gain or loss” without resulting in any “definitive” result, especially in form and content, because of the Israeli counter-response. Doesn't sound like someone calling for “total war” but instead “putting it off” more than ever.
In other words, if Iran's opponents condemn the drone and missile attack launched against Israel a few days ago, describing it as a “theatrical play”, even if it sets a “historical precedent” in the conflict. Providing the coordinates of the attack constituted a “parallel precedent” and then the same explanation applied to the Israeli response, and, Tel Aviv did not accept the form of “escalation”. It was silent at first, and then left its medium to explain “dimensions and messages” as an interesting irony.
It is no secret that the United States, which immediately confirmed that it did not participate in the Israeli attack, played a fundamental role in drawing up this “scenario”. A regional war with Iran could not have led to any “real” Israeli response, and in fact, the US administration's position has been “reluctance” since the Iranian attack, which apparently “states” this. Any “unnecessary” response, some people essentially link to American suffrage.
Based on the above, Israel considers that “direct” escalation between Israel and Iran has ended in principle and a “response” is needed. Are we returning to a “shadow war” or could the changed rules of engagement impose a different reality?
According to those in the know, all scenarios are possible, but it is certain that “direct conflict” is often postponed, according to all available facts and data, it has become more “realistic” than before, especially since the Iranian attack and the Israeli response to it broke some “”red lines”” that existed in the past. , even though many of the attacks attributed to Israel have taken place within Iranian territory in the past, albeit without “official adoption.”
Here, in the scenes, the “shadow war” that has always governed the relationship between Israel and Iran returns, although those in the know confirm that any “reciprocal” actions that may take place will be “conducted by” the clear. U.S. restraints based on refusing to be drawn into direct and comprehensive war under any circumstances may not be “bilateral,” especially if such war is open-ended in more than one location. Automatically becomes “Regional”.
A return to “small wars” based on more than one “front”, including the Lebanese and Syrian fronts, is a more “realistic” option, according to those in the know, which could see “intensification” in scale and speed. At the next stage, they can become an “open forum” to exchange messages, so to speak, even if there are those who believe that these fronts are “connected” to the war on Gaza, they will be ruled. Developments in the occupation against Gaza, first and last.
Ultimately, between the “unsurprising” Iranian attack and the “limited” Israeli response in form and content, the message is “shared” and controlled by a “clear” US ceiling, which “should not” be drawn into war”. However, the fact that such messages are exchanged between “mines” does not cover the wide-open speculation that the “explosion” of one of them, even by accident, could lead to a “flame” that ignites the entire region!
