So they will most likely use terrorist attacks, targeting civilians, because that’s the best hope they have to end the war: when the people back home get serious about ending it as they’re taking losses.
Remember what happened the last time a major terrorist strike happened in USA? That’s the number one way to get ordinary civilians of a democracy to support an actual war almost 100%. It’s the kind of strategy that makes Pentagon say “yeah lol be my guest let’s see what happens”.
On 9/11, the message sent was very unclear (“we hate you for your overall activity in the middle-east and the rest of the world” and/or “death to America”).
This time, it may be very clear: “that’s retaliation for the unjustified bombing of our country” (though Iran had its share of chanting “death to America”, so yes, YMMV).
I agree with you, you know: more deaths will lead to more retaliations, from both sides. Someone has to act like a true adult responsible pragmatic leader now. But there is none in power on either side.
Remember what happened the last time a major terrorist strike happened in USA? That’s the number one way to get ordinary civilians of a democracy to support an actual war almost 100%. It’s the kind of strategy that makes Pentagon say “yeah lol be my guest let’s see what happens”.
The USA responded by attacking the wrong country under the false premise of "weapons of mass destruction "?
Go explain that to Iran’s leaders. Good luck!
On 9/11, the message sent was very unclear (“we hate you for your overall activity in the middle-east and the rest of the world” and/or “death to America”).
This time, it may be very clear: “that’s retaliation for the unjustified bombing of our country” (though Iran had its share of chanting “death to America”, so yes, YMMV).
I agree with you, you know: more deaths will lead to more retaliations, from both sides. Someone has to act like a true adult responsible pragmatic leader now. But there is none in power on either side.