Will Iran exclusively use a proxy in its response to the attack on its embassy in Syria?
A "proxy" here is defined as a non-state actor (e.g. Hezbollah, Hamas, PIJ) supported by a third party (Iran).
A "response" encompasses any of the military operations as defined by this Wikipedia page (strike, engagement, battle, campaign, theater).
"Exclusively" means that any military operations must not conducted by a branch of the Iranian Armed Forces. Rather, they are conducted by a proxy as defined above.
If the Iranian Armed Forces are involved in the planning of a military operation but are not directly involved in its execution (e.g. the IRGC coordinates intelligence with Hezbollah but does not directly send its own troops or strike with its own weapons), this resolves as YES
If the Iranian Armed Forces are involved in the execution of an attack (e.g. the IRGC sends its own troops and/or strikes with its own weapons), this resolves as NO.
If the Iranian Armed Forces publicly deny being involved in the execution of an attack (as defined by the above bullet point) but there is overwhelming evidence/intelligence that they were directly involved in its execution, this market resolves as NO.
There are several other markets regarding a potential kinetic response, but they all appear to have the caveat of Iran itself conducting an attack.
1,000
3.00@schlongenheim Not that this would affect the resolution, since it appears that Iran has already acted on its own
The Israeli military said on Saturday that Iran had launched drones from its territory toward Israel, in what appeared to be retaliation for a deadly Israeli airstrike in early April on the Iranian Embassy complex in the Syrian capital. A military spokesman said Israeli forces were following the aerial threat, which would take a few hours to arrive.
The White House confirmed that Iran had launched a strike toward Israel and vowed to help Israel defend itself. “This attack is likely to unfold over a number of hours,” said Adrienne Watson, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council.
It appears that Iran has begun a response without exclusive use of a proxy, but the strike has not actually ocurred yet on Israeli soil so I will not resolve right now.
@Pjfkh I wouldn't say so - I don't feel something on that level qualifies given that the ship was not fully Israeli and that Iran has been seizing ships for a while. I'd expect a strike on Israel or an Israeli embassy to be the minimum standard.
@Pjfkh No, and here's a couple of reasons why:
This is analogous to previous low-level provocations (search "ship" on this Wikipedia article)
Iran since 2019 has engaged in a series of ship seizures, and attacks on vessels have been attributed to it amid ongoing tensions with the West over its rapidly advancing nuclear program. In previous seizures, Iran’s initial explanations made it seem like the attacks had nothing to do with wider geopolitical tensions, then later acknowledged as much.
It was not immediately clear if the seizure of the ship was part of Iran’s promised response to the attack in Syria, but it was not the first time Iran had directly seized a commercial vessel.
Although the ship has some links to Israel, ultimately it is owned by MSC and registered in Portugal as @chatterchatty mentioned
There is not an explicit reason for the seizure (other than Iran saying it has links to Israel), so it does not meet the threshold for "strike" as defined by the criteria in the description's Wikipedia article
@chatterchatty Link?
If Iran directly strikes Israel with drones and it meets the criteria in the description I would resolve NO. If Iran sends drones to a proxy who then strikes Israel, I would resolve YES.