> Iran repeatedly stated that they will not attack any country's assets if they do not assist the US/Israel
They’ve been doing this across the region. Some of this looks like individual commanders taking strategic decisions into their own hands. But it’s absolutely false that neutrality has protected anyone in the region.
Sure, if you’re Turkmenistan or Afghanistan, the latter which is being bombed by Pakistan, you’re fine. Also if you’re Azerbaijan, fuck you.
What’s the argument? Like, Oman was trusted by parts of Tehran on diplomatic matters. They still got bombed. Trying to rationalize this is untenable—it was a stupid strategy of throwing toys out of the pram.
That's right. Hosting military bases of the overlords that impose crippling sanctions that impoverish a nation on false premises is quite far away from a neutral country.
I didn't hear the neighbouring countries complain when Iran got attacked economically/financially and then later military.
> only attacked countries that host US bases, correct?
No. Azerbaijan hosts no U.S. bases. Also, the Gulf hosts U.S. bases in part to protect against Iran. Blowing up hotels while missing American warships underlines why Iran is a shit neighbor.
They’ve given mixed messages. You see the new talking points being echoed down thread [1].
> Iran has been quite conscientious about taking responsibility
There is no singular Iran. The President apologized. Then the IRGC hit more targets in neutral nations. (Again, unless we use the new definition of neutrality which means everyone is an enemy.)
They’ve been doing this across the region. Some of this looks like individual commanders taking strategic decisions into their own hands. But it’s absolutely false that neutrality has protected anyone in the region.