this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
170 points (96.2% liked)

World News

39325 readers
2393 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pandapoo 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.