<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Midnight Hammer and After	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://globalsecurityreview.com/midnight-hammer-and-after/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://globalsecurityreview.com/midnight-hammer-and-after/</link>
	<description>A division of the National Institute for Deterrence Studies (NIDS)</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2025 21:31:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Brandon Toliver		</title>
		<link>https://globalsecurityreview.com/midnight-hammer-and-after/#comment-2449</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brandon Toliver]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2025 21:31:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://globalsecurityreview.com/?p=31116#comment-2449</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Timely.
Filled with Operational Detail.
Oozing Strategic Foresight.

I especially appreciate the article’s focus on Iran’s measured and pragmatic follow-up actions. While many analyses overlook this aspect, this one correctly identifies that Iran’s limited missile strike—delivered with advance warning—was likely its only realistic option in the face of overwhelming U.S. air superiority. The piece acknowledges that, given current power dynamics, Iran’s choices are constrained to asymmetric tactics and indirect retaliation, rather than direct military confrontation. This was an insight is crucial for understanding the broader strategic picture and is often missing from other coverage.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Timely.<br />
Filled with Operational Detail.<br />
Oozing Strategic Foresight.</p>
<p>I especially appreciate the article’s focus on Iran’s measured and pragmatic follow-up actions. While many analyses overlook this aspect, this one correctly identifies that Iran’s limited missile strike—delivered with advance warning—was likely its only realistic option in the face of overwhelming U.S. air superiority. The piece acknowledges that, given current power dynamics, Iran’s choices are constrained to asymmetric tactics and indirect retaliation, rather than direct military confrontation. This was an insight is crucial for understanding the broader strategic picture and is often missing from other coverage.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
