The implications of strikes on Iran are being considered across Western media cycles, and the output seems to be a concern about shipping and something on the cost of living. There’s clearly little to nothing there for evidence to use to back up a significant claim as to the meaning of why it’s happening. These are just things that confirm it’s real.
The real story is one for the Iranian people, put there for their consideration over the lifecycle of a leader and what it means when other people are threatened. The lesson is sobering, as much as the loss of such an iconic leader is a shock. This must be the point at which thinking starts on its context, and purpose.
The further escalation of hostilities is a decision that people make with their leader, albeit in Iran it may be a much smaller number that is involved in the process. This is set in the international framework as a necessary response if things are to get worse, or deteriorate into a conflict that runs until it ends, rather than when life stops totally.
The upswell of support for the new Supreme Leader, or a wave of enrolment for local forces that offer the feeling of patriotism and a cause worth being martyred for, is set in the nervous system of the State of Iran, emerging if it feels compelling and worth doing so. This is also their side of the story, and not ours.
