Israel strikes Hezbollah. [stop] Israel did not strike Iran. [stop] Iran retaliates against Israel. [what?]
Put on your thinking cap. Israel attacks Hezbollah, responding to the war Hezbollah began against Israel last March 2. For Israel’s attack on Hezbollah, Iran “retaliates” on June 7. Who does Iran “retaliate” against? Against a country that attacked it? No, Iran “retaliates” against a country that did not attack it — Israel.
Something’s missing in the logic here. Israel hits Hezbollah, not Iran, but it is Iran that “retaliates.” This is a moral failing and a grammatical (syntactical?) injury. The following analogies to Iran’s “retaliation” make as much sense as Iran’s “retaliation” against Israel for an injury that Iran did not sustain:
Russia strikes Ukraine, so Britain, which Russia did not strike, retaliates against Russia.
The Los Angeles Dodgers beat the Colorado Rockies, so the New York Mets retaliate by trading their worst player to the Dodgers.
Johnny’s mother served him, not his father, a spoiled dinner, so Johnny’s father retaliates by serving a spoiled dinner to Johnny’s mother.
In the twisted world of Iran, a “retaliation” need not respond to an injury on itself; need not cure the injury inflicted on another party (Hezbollah); and need not acknowledge that the injury inflicted (by Israel) was itself a retaliation for Hezbollah warmongering.
Israel did not strike Iran. It stuck Hezbollah. Iran “retaliated.” Time for logicians to duck — or finally admit that Israel is defeating Hezbollah.
© IJN 2026
