Except, in the latter, during the dialogue phase, it's possible that your proxy doesn't respect the suspension of bombing and might even bomb you and blame your opponent. You definitely should take that personally.
The thought occurred that this "two week pause" could be very similar to the negotiations that were taking place prior to Israel's attack: Trump thought he was lining up the Iranians for a "really great deal" that would highlight his skills as a 'deal maker', and then Israel acted unilaterally and changed the dynamics of the whole situation. Now, after a heap of bombastic rhetoric and a series of military reshufflings, he's again preparing to 'make a deal', which the Iranians seem to be tacitly encouraging by moderating their retaliatory strikes and perhaps covertly discussing alternatives via back-channels. Notice that Russia and China have been vocally condemnatory, but seemingly otherwise calm about proceedings, as if they expect the situation to abate.
Pakistan releases a few off-the-cuff remarks about supporting Iran, then officially walks them back. Trump then has a significant meeting with the Pakistanis, after which they seemly further remove themselves from a supportive position. Did Trump offer them an incentive to stay neutral so as not to influence his 'deal-making'?
Despite all the pressure, Trump seems to be holding a precarious balance. Even if his intentions are towards peace and he's allowing the military build-up to give the appearance of preparing to strike from a position of strength, the deep-state bag of dirty tricks is a still a potentially chaotic element. Israel could resort to the false-flag tactic to attempt to reel the US in, however I think they are suffering much more than they let on regarding Iran's responses, the intense state censorship and propaganda showing their weakened hand.
Question is: do they use the "two week pause" as a cover for a false flag, or a respite to regroup, given that their 'blitzkreig' didn't seem to achieve the results they expected. It's difficult to imagine them winding back their plans for regime change, so are they likely to try the same trick again and lull the Iranians into a wary complacency prior to putting the US into another 'no-win' situation?
If the 'chatter' on X is any indication, these days the notion of a false flag is taken much more seriously, so whether it would have the desired effect in the longer term is doubtful, even if it achieved its short-term objective of getting the US to abandon restraint. It might push the world into open alliance against not only Israel, but also the US, who would be seen as a puppet incapable of resisting Israel's manipulation. Plus, there's also the speculation about whether Iran already has nuclear weapons, which seems to be increasingly moving into the focus of those paying closer attention.
One other point of note is that the Israeli attack took place just prior to the St Petersburg International Economic Summit, what is rapidly becoming the new centre of 'deal-making' for the world's multipolar economy. Was there an intention, at some level, to 'disrupt, degrade or distract' from the events there which might have accrued further prominence to the idea of additional capital inflows to Russia and China as 'safe havens' for wealthy investors, and potential easing of sanctions to facilitate this?
At this point, Israel doesn't seem to have much to gain from restraining itself, so will two weeks really make that much of a difference? The events of this weekend will probably provide clarity regarding which direction Israel is likely to go.
thecradle.co
Iran aren't ISIS or jihadis.. they are Persians.
