>reduce a regional rival’s oil income
>damage an enemy that’s attacking your proxies in Yemen
Yeah but by how much exactly? I'm saying that they gotta be really desperate to do this and risk the US sticking their dick in for so little damage. Projecting an image of strength is something I could see, yeah, but disrupting income or doing to damage an enemy? It's only one strike, how much is this going to cause them to lose anyway?
Saudis held a press conference
John Murphy
Ryder Clark
>Are they betting that nothing large will come from this and that their hit will give them more political sway by showing they're willing to use force? Is this a bet?
That is the bet.
Ryder Moore
That's what I'm saying here. Doing it as an actual act of war doesn't make sense, it's so limited in scope it does almost nothing in the grand scheme of things other than make a show.
Go for it champ.
Eli Lopez
this. Jow Forumsestinians will keep shilling tho
Hunter Walker
Iran is a paper tiger, Syria has proven that. They never respond to Israel bombing them because they can't without getting hit hard.
Charles Peterson
>It's only one strike, how much is this going to cause them to lose anyway?
5% of the global oil supply right before Aramco's IPO. Sweetie.
Alexander Evans
>right before Aramco's IPO
Clearly I underestimated things.
Christopher Torres
What is that pitful thing?
Thomas Murphy
They could obtain them quickly.
Not that it needs nuclear weapons. Iran could pretty much raze most Israeli cities with just their conventional arsenal and Hezbollah's thousands of ballistic missiles pointed at North Israel.
Kikes better behave.
Ethan Rogers
>Kikes better behave.
I light of how kikes are behaving now, Iran is a complete cuck.