I can see on Wikipedia this assertion which is supported by a reference to an essay that I can’t access.

Atwood herself doesn’t ever seem to talk about Iran. She’s very explicit that her inspiration was the reaction against women who were partially emancipated into the labor force during WW2 but then being pushed back into the role of mother / wife, and also she’s very explicit that the puritans in the USA were the inspiration. Her overarching thesis is that societies never really rid themselves of these impulses.

Maybe she referenced Iran at some point given the religious police there? She’s also referenced Soviet secret police. Neither were a primary motivation at all, just what she considers examples of regression.

I would assume she’s made a passing reference to Iran at some point and the Wikipedia editor wanted to amplify that but Atwood is extremely clear her inspiration is the west, western anti-feminism, and Puritanism.

The Wikipedia article seems to be trying to frame it as “what if Iran happened in America?” but that’s exactly the opposite of what Atwood says. She’s very clear that she sees these tendencies in the west already and she’s writing about the reaction against feminism and extrapolating that reaction forward. In her life she saw a regression from woman as worker to woman reverted back to mother / wife, and she’s projecting that forward by saying “the reaction really does want to return us to Puritanism.” Return being key, it’s already a tendency and historical fact in the west. That’s what she’s talking about.

Goddamn is he gonna do it?

Again I’ll just repeat your theory is plausible but so is the theory of limited strike capability.

How can we differentiate one from the other?

I’m not advocating one or the other. I’m just trying to be objective. I see both theories are plausible. I am looking for reasons / arguments to prove / disprove one or the other. I don’t think it’s useful to commit to the more comfortable theory when the uncomfortable theory is still highly plausible.

It is plausible that Iran is slow-rolling their strikes to maximize attrition.

It is plausible that Iran has limited strike capability.

It is plausible that Iran is seeking to manage escalation by limiting strikes.

I don’t see any way of determining which of these theories is correct.

Our inspired and cunning Operation Spider Web that took 3 years to prepare.

They’re terroristic paint- and scooter-based domestic violence that Bill thought up over a pint.

How?

Because at first many now not so many

Your thesis is a plausible explanation.

But limited capacity remains a plausible explanation.

We can’t tell.

That would be the 2nd most extreme act Israel / US could do, and even then at most they get the “win” of maintaining the status quo of a non-nuclear Iran.

You could call that a “win” for Israel since it’s a stated objective but it’s a loss for the empire since it doesn’t result in the US winning domination of the Middle East, and if iran is left standing by the end of this then they’ve beaten the great satan which means they’ve won.

The most extreme act would be a nuclear strike on Tehran but conceivably Pakistan nukes Israel if that happens, and Israel’s response to that will be to nuke European capitals since it’s not going down alone. So I think we can’t scratch this possibility off the list.

This is still consistent with Iran being unable to launch many missiles though.

I think we can’t really tell if this is attritional strategy or if it is limited strike capacity.

Edit: or if it is escalation management

My honest take is that Trump hasn’t made up his mind yet. He’s indecisive. He enjoys flashy shows of aggression but doesn’t really commit, which makes TACO more likely than not, but he’s at most one conversation away from ordering a nuclear strike.

There was a 4.something earthquake a week ago in the same region. Sometimes the earth just do that.

This is a war that Iran cannot lose.

Iran will not be another Iraq, ruined by decades of sanctions because (1) it’s already adjusted to sanctions and (2) Russia and china are its partners.

Iran won’t be defeated by missiles alone. Even if they lose their nuclear program… so what? That’s the status quo. Iran doesn’t have nukes now. Nothing actually changes.

Iran won’t be invaded by ground forces. Israel can’t do it and likely even America couldn’t do it. Iran is strong and has backing. It would be like Afghanistan except against a modern fighting force. America couldn’t even do Afghanistan 2.0 right now, it cannot invade Iran.

Iran won’t be bombed into submission and face a regime change. It’s clear the mood of the people isn’t there.

Iran has won. It’s a question of how many civilians get killed before the west acknowledges this.

There is a Chinese electronic warfare / observation ship parked in the gulf of Persia. Just waiting for a mate.

Being “anti-Semitic” now includes being a Jewish person protesting against the German government.