"Let's look at the title at the face value. It's simply asking the question if Iran will react to provocations etc. We have had an answer to this yesterday with the missile strike."

Well, clearly taking it at face value is all well and good if we follow your interpretation of it.

However, precisely my point was about a different interpretation of said face value hence the questioning of it and the implied criticism.

I also don't think we had an answer to this yesterday. We had some tagged on commentary alluding to inclusion of Naz in the bill.

However I very much doubt the physical response was recalibrated because of it.

I think Scott is eminently smart enough to see my point.

Incidentally, in terms of identification with Scott, I appreciate he has to double track with film metaphor and schoolyard framing within his narratives in order to make his points accessible, particularly to USA mainstream political discourse and also the young. I'm not criticising him for this and actually appreciate and am entertained by it.

What I am saying is that I don't get the impression that there was any likelihood of Iranian state being manipulated into changing it's timings, decisions or physical response ( oodla loop) due to the provocation wrt Naz.

Logistically, politico-culturally and
stylistically I think the chances of that are virtually nil. I'm sure Scott would recognise that.

All the best