Hehehe, we're just playing, hehehe
An analysis of Iran's strategy in its conflict with Israel: why doesn't it attack critical infrastructure? False flag theories and a cardboard-cutout war.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Iran doesn't attack the desalination plants: real war or geopolitical theater?
Iran's strategy in the conflict with Israel raises suspicions: while it could leave millions without water, it limits itself to symbolic attacks. A missile that hit Cyprus adds fuel to the false flag theories. Are we looking at a cardboard-cutout war? Analysis of the available data suggests the show matters as much as the shots fired.
The theater theory: attacks that cause no damage
From the start, Iran's response has been described as "cardboard" by some observers. The desalination plants, energy depots and industrial centers of northern Israel have not been attacked, which would have peine the door for Hezbollah. Instead, low-impact drones and missiles were launched, and a projectile that fell in Cyprus was attributed to Iran, but the regime denied it, fueling suspicion of a false flag operation. "Why would Iran launch drones against French and British bases?", analysts ask. The answer that emerges is that the goal is not military but media-driven: to give the impression of a war without escalation.
The limits of modern warfare: humanitarianism or pragmatism?
The opposing view holds that Iran doesn't attack civilian infrastructure because destroying desalination plants amounts to condemning millions to thirst, which would create a perpetual enemy among the population. World War II is brought up: Coventry and Dresden were razed, but not all cities; Japan did suffer massive bombings, but there was no total annihilation until the atomic bombs. Modern war has not changed its lethal essence, as Ukraine demonstrates, but it has changed the doctrine: the aim is to control resources rather than exterminate. Iran, according to this view, is playing a war of attrition, waiting for time to work in its favor, counting on the support of Russia and China.
The question that remains open is whether there is really a war or a geopolitical choreography. The two analyses clash on one point: the current conflict resembles no war of the past. And while the missiles fly, the data suggest the biggest battlefield is the narrative.
Related forum discussions
Iran's strategy in the conflict with Israel raises suspicions: while it could leave millions without water, it limits itself to symbolic attacks. A missile that hit Cyprus adds fuel to the false flag theories. Are we looking at a cardboard-cutout war? Analysis of the available data suggests the show matters as much as the shots fired.
The theater theory: attacks that cause no damage
From the start, Iran's response has been described as "cardboard" by some observers. The desalination plants, energy depots and industrial centers of northern Israel have not been attacked, which would have peine the door for Hezbollah. Instead, low-impact drones and missiles were launched, and a projectile that fell in Cyprus was attributed to Iran, but the regime denied it, fueling suspicion of a false flag operation. "Why would Iran launch drones against French and British bases?", analysts ask. The answer that emerges is that the goal is not military but media-driven: to give the impression of a war without escalation.
The limits of modern warfare: humanitarianism or pragmatism?
The opposing view holds that Iran doesn't attack civilian infrastructure because destroying desalination plants amounts to condemning millions to thirst, which would create a perpetual enemy among the population. World War II is brought up: Coventry and Dresden were razed, but not all cities; Japan did suffer massive bombings, but there was no total annihilation until the atomic bombs. Modern war has not changed its lethal essence, as Ukraine demonstrates, but it has changed the doctrine: the aim is to control resources rather than exterminate. Iran, according to this view, is playing a war of attrition, waiting for time to work in its favor, counting on the support of Russia and China.
The question that remains open is whether there is really a war or a geopolitical choreography. The two analyses clash on one point: the current conflict resembles no war of the past. And while the missiles fly, the data suggest the biggest battlefield is the narrative.
Related forum discussions
- War in Syria xlviii · 27494 replies
- War in Ukraine xxvi · 74912 replies
- Pilingui and Lukashenko already preparing the NUCLEAR forces · 11 replies
- War in the Middle East. · 47151 replies
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (24 replies).
More summaries
-
First moves of a Third World War?
From 2014 to the troop movements in Poland: the signs suggesting that World War III is already underway.
-
A world war without bombs: what gold and the stock market reveal
World War Three or economic crash? Gold has fallen 1,000 euros and the South Korean stock market is trembling. What the indicators reveal.
-
Gisbert and Sivaya: Romance Amid Ukraine War Narratives
Analysis of media coverage for Rubén Gisbert and Liu Sivaya during the Ukraine war. Is this digital propaganda or reality?
-
Ukraine on the brink of extinction, forum debate warns
Is Ukraine on the brink of extinction? We break down the debate over its demographic and military crisis and Yulia Mendel's controversial remarks.
-
The Europe Ukrainians are fighting for – and the irony of who they're fighting
Ukraine is fighting for a Europe that many of its own defenders question: is the EU a peace project or a US instrument? Historical ironies and divisions.
-
JP Morgan CEO calls for Iran's annihilation: April will be far worse than March
JP Morgan's CEO calls for Iran to be annihilated: a signal of war or a ploy to buy cheap? An analysis of the panic-and-rebound pattern in the markets.