3 ms·
> That shows credible intent, not a credible threat. There is motive. There is opportunity. The lacking element is means. There are a large number of conditio
by Supermancho 4y ago
> That shows credible intent, not a credible threat.
There is motive.
There is opportunity.
The lacking element is means.
There are a large number of conditions (access to nuclear ordinace, among others) wherein means is achieved. Threat is not simply about what means exist now, but the conditions and consequences of change. The world conditions ensure it's a credible threat and countries take it seriously, despite your misgivings.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> lacking element is means Apparent capability is an important component of threat credibility under practically every military doctrine. The more fundamental question is: does this represent a policy stance or domestic messaging point? One can reasonably disagree on the answer. But the quotes I've been shown sound more like bluster than actual threats. For evidence of Iran's belligerence, these statements are relatively par for the course. (Their extraterritorial meddling makes a stronger pitch for credible intent and threat.)