3 ms·
One action served to de-escalate, to keep the Israelis from actually starting a war. Which these powers would almost inevitably be dragged into. The other woul
by rainworld 2y ago
One action served to de-escalate, to keep the Israelis from actually starting a war. Which these powers would almost inevitably be dragged into.
The other would almost certainly end up being called WW3, and would likely involve at least a limited nuclear exchange.
- panarky 2y agoSo shooting down drones and missiles from one regional power is de-escalatory, while shooting down drones and missiles from a different regional power is massively escalatory. Makes perfect sense, thanks.
- rainworld 2y agoYes, very different situations. If for no other reason than that in one situation every involved party had consented. Including Iran, tacitly. The reason it was “de-escalatory”: It helped Iran prove what it sought to prove: no AD in the world will stop their missiles from getting through. For Israel it provided the face-saving “99.9%”. Also, the Ukraine situation has no Jordan, Iraq, accessible ocean (ask the Turks about that) to operate from.