Iran retaliates against Israel, who is the scorer?
To talk about this issue, we must first make the premise clear. Whether Iran's retaliatory strike against Israel is a military operation or more political-diplomatic implications is more significant. Only when this definition is clear can we discuss the problem. Looking at this issue from a military point of view and from a political and diplomatic point of view, the conclusions may be completely different.
Iran's retaliatory strike against Israel is more of a political and diplomatic move. Therefore, to see who is the scorer, it is mainly from a political-diplomatic point of view.
Why is this a political and diplomatic move? Many of the details of Iran's strike are completely different from a purely military strike. For example, the issue of secrecy before the launch of the crackdown was not only not deliberately done, but it was let off the wind and greeted in advance. In terms of the order of strike means, the drone that strikes first announces the beginning of the retaliatory strike after the drone is launched. But it will take nearly 10 hours for your drone to fly to Israel itself. Dispersed the wind early, you didn't mean to leak the secret, what is it?
Looking at Iran's targets, many people say that Iran's weapons are not very good, and I haven't heard how many people have been killed. In fact, according to Iran's style of play, it is not normal to kill people, but it is normal to kill people who cannot be killed.
According to official Iranian announcements, only two targets were selected, both of which were purely military targets. One is an intelligence center, the other is an air base. Intelligence centers and air bases, as you can see if you think about it, are clearly far from towns and residential areas. How could all Iran's weapons fly towards these two points and kill civilians? Besides, before the missiles fell, the early warning was made here, and the evacuation should be evacuated and the hiding should be hidden. So the casualties of the military will not be large. Isn't it said that one of them was injured in the attack? I'm afraid that this wound was not blown up, but was smashed by debris caused by Israel's interception of Iranian missiles and drones.
Iran is also clear about its retaliation. He invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter, which he clearly stated was an act of self-defense against Israel's attack on the Iranian embassy in Syria. Don't say it, the design of this retaliatory action, if it is stuck in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, can almost be said to be seamless. Because both targets are the main Israeli military units that decide and participate in the strike against the Iranian embassy in Syria.
Looking at another performance of Iran, after a wave of drone missiles was sent, the drone has not yet landed, and it has been announced that the fight is over. This is not typical of a military operation.
Since it is said that it is more inclined to political and diplomatic behavior, it is necessary to evaluate it from the perspective of political and diplomatic behavior to see who has more scores.
The score of politics and diplomacy, and who has the most points, depends on what the goals and objectives of each side are, and then we will see whether the goals and objectives of each side have been achieved after the fight, and how far away they are from the predetermined goals and objectives.
I see some people say, you didn't talk about it a long time ago, you didn't talk about it until now, and you were late. No way, I'm waiting for some results. If the result doesn't come out, you go and talk about it, it's air-to-air. And so what's the result? I'm talking about measuring who scores, these iconic things.
Let's take a look at what is the purpose of Israel's attack on the Iranian embassy in Syria? Is his purpose to blow up these few people? How significant is it to kill such a few specific people in terms of behavior between countries? In the past, the United States used air strikes to kill Soleimani. Soleimani's rank and influence were higher than those of those who came after him. What do we see the effect of? Actually killing someone, the effect is negative.
The main purpose and objective of Israel's attacks is not to kill a particular person. So what is his goal? As I said before, Israel is doing this mainly because Netanyahu wants to get out of his predicament. This dilemma, including the one facing Israel, is one of Netanyahu himself. Because the battle for Gaza was fought at this time, Israel and Netanyahu were almost pointed at by thousands of people. Even the United States, even Biden, at least in words, cannot defend Israel and Netanyahu 100%.
Moreover, in the battle for Gaza, Israel has always been reluctant to regard Hamas as its main opponent. He sees Hamas as nothing more than a pawn in front of him. It is Iran that is really playing chess behind. I fought with Hamas in front of you, and the final result could only be to cheapen Iran.
So for Israel, the main purpose of its attack is to drag Iran down. I don't want to get entangled with the chess pieces, but to face the chess players directly. And once the chess player is pulled out of the game, will the attitude of the United States also change? After all, Iran has been regarded as an enemy by the United States for a long time. If the attitude of the United States has changed, will the attitude of the entire West also change with it? I think this is the real purpose of Israel's attack on the Iranian Embassy in Syria.
If Iran drops a bunch of missiles and drones and kills hundreds or thousands of people in Israel, it sounds very cool. But what should we do in the future? Will Iran have to fight directly with Israel face to face? Originally, before this, Hamas was fighting in the front, and Iran only needed to be in the back, help, and fan the fire.
The previous situation was very comfortable for Iran. But if Iran wants to retaliate against Israel and turn the first-line firefight between Israel and Hamas into a first-line firefight between Iran and Israel, then it is clear that Iran suffers and Israel scores. So Iran can't do that. But you can't do that, and it involves a face, image, and especially how to explain to the country. So Iran has designed such a special retaliatory action.
What is the purpose of this retaliatory action? Tell the whole world, and also to the Iranian people, that Israel has hit my embassy, that I have retaliated, that I have hit Israel itself, but that my action will not cause an escalation of the whole situation. This is what Iran is pursuing.
Well, let's go back and see whose goal was achieved.
As it stands, Israel has bombed the Iranian embassy and Iran has retaliated against the Israeli mainland. So what does it depend on whether this is the end of the matter, or whether it will continue to develop? It depends on whether Israel will retaliate again. If Israel doesn't take the next step, then we say, after a round of confrontation, the situation will return to square one. This means that Israel's goal was not achieved, while Iran's goal was achieved. If this happens, it should be Iran that scores.
Israel will certainly not let Iran score easily. So we saw that initially the Israeli officials said that we had won, so there was no further retaliation. But then I thought about it, the taste was wrong, and now some people are saying that there is still a corresponding reaction. So how Israel reacts next, it's interesting.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog said in an interview with the Western media that Israel does not seek war with Iran and is studying the response to its air strikes, while showing restraint, considering the consequences, as well as the opinion of its allies. What Iran said is, I want to retaliate, but I want to find a way to avoid escalation. Turning around, Israel has said what Iran said before. So for now, for now, the ball is at the feet of Israel.
As things stand, Iran is scoring. Of course, it depends on Israel's actions to bring this situation back to the table. Of course, who wins in this situation depends not only on the military side, but also on the diplomatic side. Now, both sides are pulling teammates, the United States has a statement, and the G7 has a statement.
Although the United States and the G7 do not advocate a further Israeli response, they have made it clear that they are on Israel's side. At the same time, Iran is also doing shuttle diplomacy and making phone calls everywhere. We saw calls to Turkey, calls to Russia, and calls to China.
So, what is China's attitude? Looking at China's attitude, we can look at two things, one is the speech made at the United Nations, and the other is the official press release issued after the phone call with the relevant countries. What we can see now is the official press release of Foreign Minister Wang Yi's phone call with Iranian Foreign Minister Abdollahian, as well as the official press release of Wang Yi's phone call with Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal.
Comparing the contents of these two press releases, I found that there are several paragraphs of the same text. First, Wang Yi said that China strongly condemns and resolutely opposes the attack on the Iranian embassy building in Syria, and believes that this incident is a serious violation of international law and unacceptable. The second wording is the same as that the current situation is a spillover effect of the escalation of the conflict in Gaza, and that it is imperative to implement Security Council resolution 2728 as soon as possible, achieve a ceasefire and cease the fighting in Gaza, effectively protect civilians and prevent the humanitarian catastrophe from further escalating.
This is China's position and viewpoint. It is obviously beneficial for Iran to associate it with the previous Israeli attack on the Iranian embassy in Syria and even with the Gaza conflict, and to regard it as a spillover effect of the escalation of the conflict in Gaza.
This diplomatic operation is not over yet, so the final scorer will need to wait a moment to see clearly.
Of course, apart from Iran and Israel, is there any third party that has scored in the process? First, Hamas has scored, or at least it has delayed Israel's offensive against Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. If in the end, Israel's attack on Rafah is gone, then you say, did Hamas score?
Just talking about scoring, but also losing points. I saw that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky made a statement in response to Iran's attack on the air defense and anti-missile operations of Israel, Israel, the United States, and other countries, saying that this is the real air defense. Sounds a little sour. Therefore, after this incident, Ukraine is afraid that it will lose points.
If the United States can control the situation and let all the developments of the situation under its control, in other words, if the United States asks Israel to move to the left, you will go to the left, and the United States will let Iran to the right, and you will have to go to the right, then the United States will be the scorer, and vice versa.
Everyone said, talk about other countries scoring points and losing points, don't talk about this and that, whether China has scored or lost points? Let me talk about a reference point, let's figure it out for ourselves. The last sentence of the press release issued by Xinhua News Agency and Wang Yi's phone call with Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal said that Saudi Arabia fully trusts China and is willing to promote the sustainable development of Saudi Arabia-China cooperation.