Massive payback can be commensurate with the attack on Israel, while still not escalating. Was Iran escalating when it directly attacked Israel for the second time? Or was that a measured response to the deaths of members of their proxies in other countries?
I truly don’t understand what you think I’m saying. I think that a response to a second direct attack being massive does not preclude it from not escalating (unless there’s a less conventional definition specific to military responses I’m not familiar with). Is Iran’s second direct attack on Israel not considered an escalation, and do you think that is not massive, despite rhetoric from the Ayatollah?
I’m certain there’s no quantifiable way to address the difference between those phrases, and that this is rather a matter of opinion regarding what one thinks “massive” means in terms of military/political rhetoric. I think my point was made, despite my questions going unanswered.
Thanks for the discussion!
(I’m not continuing this discussion, since the interest here seems to be quibbling over one word of rhetoric.)
Their last response to Iran’s direct attack on Israel was a calculated move consistent with not escalating.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/assessing-israels-strike-iran
I’m hopeful their (along with the US’) move in response to Iran’s second direct attack on Israel will yield similar results.
That doesn’t sound like “massive payback” to me.
Massive payback can be commensurate with the attack on Israel, while still not escalating. Was Iran escalating when it directly attacked Israel for the second time? Or was that a measured response to the deaths of members of their proxies in other countries?
That’s a very strange interpretation of the word ‘massive’ you’re using there. In fact, it’s a usage of the word I’ve never seen before.
I truly don’t understand what you think I’m saying. I think that a response to a second direct attack being massive does not preclude it from not escalating (unless there’s a less conventional definition specific to military responses I’m not familiar with). Is Iran’s second direct attack on Israel not considered an escalation, and do you think that is not massive, despite rhetoric from the Ayatollah?
Or is Israel not supposed to respond to this?
There is a big difference between “proportional response” and “massive payback” and I’m not sure why you are unable to see that difference.
I’m certain there’s no quantifiable way to address the difference between those phrases, and that this is rather a matter of opinion regarding what one thinks “massive” means in terms of military/political rhetoric. I think my point was made, despite my questions going unanswered.
Thanks for the discussion!
(I’m not continuing this discussion, since the interest here seems to be quibbling over one word of rhetoric.)
Edit:
https://www.dw.com/en/what-comes-next-for-iran-after-strike-on-israel/a-70387376
Sounds commensurate to me :)