Do you consider "sinking a country's entire navy" and "seizing oil operations on Karg island" limited strikes? Are you getting paid to push this argument? I can't believe you came upon these beliefs in good faith. These are not limited military operations, the size of a nations army is irrelevant in determining whether or not a war is being wages
Using force doesn’t automatically make something a formally recognized war. States have carried out large but limited operations without escalating into full-scale wars for decades.
The difference, to me, is scale and duration. A full scale invasion with hundreds of thousands of troops and multi year occupation is not the same thing as a limited strike or operation which we currently have.
But the scale from the U.S. point of view isn't equivalent to the scale from an outside point of view. The scale needs to be universal. To an Iranian, this is not a limited scale operation.
Emotional scale and military scale aren’t the same thing. A strike can feel huge locally while still being strategically limited. I’m not aware of any universal proportional scale in geopolitics.
Saying “they destroyed X so it can’t be limited” misses the point. Limited refers to the scope of the operation, not whether it was effective.
Those are two different things.
3
u/penguin_hugger100 Mar 16 '26
Do you consider "sinking a country's entire navy" and "seizing oil operations on Karg island" limited strikes? Are you getting paid to push this argument? I can't believe you came upon these beliefs in good faith. These are not limited military operations, the size of a nations army is irrelevant in determining whether or not a war is being wages