BBC telling us that getting your leaders whacked, and being able to replace them is a cunning strength…..
Seems like a lot of western media are carrying water for the IRGC.
And doing so gladly, even.
Or re-interpreting international law on a whim, depending on how the wind blows.
For instance:
-US and Israel targeting bridges and power-plants > war crime.
-Them doing it > war crime.
-Them talking about it > war crime by default.
However, on a tangent:
No mention of a war crime here, in fact it is praised.
Which, in a rather ironic turn of event, is made even more hilarious by the fact this footage is a few years old but somehow the-telegraph thought it was a good idea to bring it back right now.
But what is the difference?
One is a Russian held bridge, and destroying it is good.
The others are IRGC held bridges, but destroying them is bad.
Hitting Russian civilian energy infrastructures is good, because it hurts Russia. And Russia hits Ukrainian energy infrastructures.
Hitting Iranian civilian energy infrastructures is bad, because it hurts Iran. Though Iran is hitting energy infrastructures of the neighboring countries all the same.