On the strike – Amir Tibon in Haaretz:

‘The American strike on Iran's nuclear sites is the most important and consequential action taken by Donald Trump since his return to the White House six months ago. Unlike his tariffs on goods imported to the U.S., which were presented with great fanfare but were then gradually downsized, the bombardment of Iran was a case of Trump going 'all the way' – even against the advice of some of his closest and most prominent supporters and advisers.’

(…)

‘But it's highly unlikely that Iran will sit by and do nothing. The real dilemma standing before the Islamic Republic is between a response that would be more bluster than bite, or a true escalation that will be met with even more American firepower. A fiercer retaliation will create greater risks for the regime, but would also complicate things for Trump, who promised this would be a short and successful mission and not another 'forever war' in the Middle East.’

(…)

‘Even if they choose to end the war with a response that doesn't create all-out escalation, it's hard to see them sign an agreement with Trump, requiring wall-to-wall concessions, after the events of the past ten days.’

(…)

‘his means that whatever the American public will come to think of this decision in the coming weeks and months will now be directly tied to its attitude towards Israel in the years to come.’

Read the article here.

No all-out-escalation, no agreement?

The gig question, what will change in the status quo after this attack?

Both sides don’t want all-out-war, and I don’t believe that an all-out-war is on the menu, but sometimes you get what you don’t want.