[jzb]

"Nobody in the middle of an existential war threatens to attack more - they just attack with everything they've got."

That sounds like a poor strategy. Expend all of your resources in one grand gesture rather than trying to push your enemy's internal factions to curtail or end the fighting?

Unlike the current US administration, Iran is playing a long game - one in which it has been isolated in many ways. Indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets is not going to win it many friends; putting pressure on the tech companies that have been buddying up to the administration and may have some sway, on the other hand, is a cheap strategy that could pay off. Iran understands that the only language that seems to matter with Trump's backers is profit; threaten that and you may have some success.

The fact that Iran has already done some damage to AWS data centers makes it seem likely they could do so again if they tried. I don't know for certain, I'm not a military intelligence expert, but the strategy of "throw the kitchen sink at it" seems like a sure loser.

[bawolff]

I guess i should say, nobody holds back out of being nice. If they hold back its because of some strategic benefit, such as rationing the weapons for the long haul.

What is the strategic benefit here of not attacking? The warning is unlikely to change us behaviour by itself, at most it might just get america more on alert.

> Iran is playing a long game

Doesn't seem like it. Attacking semi-neutral gulf states and mining the strait are desperation moves. They are things that sacrafice the long term but you still do them because if you dont fix the short term there won't be a long term.

> Indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets is not going to win it many friends

Which has played out in practise... part of the reason why the usa is getting such limited push back internationally (basically just some strongly worded letters) is nobody really like iran because of how they have conducted themselves historically.

They have had no issue with fairly indiscriminate attacks so far in this war, i doubt they are going to start now.

> The fact that Iran has already done some damage to AWS data centers makes it seem likely they could do so again if they tried.

The threat here seemed to be cyberattacks and/or physical attacks on US based infrastructure.

Nobody doubts that iran can fire drones/missiles at their next door neighbour (although some reason to doubt they can keep it up). Attacks on us soil and/or cyberattacks are a different story.

[orwin]

> What is the strategic benefit here of not attacking?

Twofold. First you deplete your enemy interceptor with smallish payload and older tech before really hitting them (basically what just happened last Monday). Second, you get to say 'i didn't start this, they did'.

Also, I think Iran have 'sleeper' cells in remote areas that don't phone home to get orders, but only get them through radio or publicly broadcasted message. Them striking at the right time, either behind enemy lines or at a very inconvenient time, from a very inconvenient place, would probably their best use. Maybe this is a 'prepare your weapons' message.