Nigerian Senator and public figure Shehu Sani recently took to his verified Twitter account to comment on the recent flare-ups between Iran and Israel, highlighting what he views as an unusual pattern in their conflict.
Sani’s post came after a series of reciprocal attacks between the two nations, each followed by immediate statements from both sides urging against retaliation.
“When Iran attacked Israel, Iran immediately issued a statement that it has concluded its action and warned Israel against retaliation. When Israel attacked Iran, Israel immediately issued a statement that it has concluded its action and warned Iran against retaliation,” Sani observed on Twitter. He went on to express his incredulity, asking, “What kind of war is this?”
Sani’s tweet reflects a growing public fascination with the seemingly choreographed nature of these exchanges. Unlike typical escalations, which often spiral into prolonged hostility, both Iran and Israel have engaged in a pattern of tit-for-tat actions followed by efforts to contain further escalation. By issuing statements signaling an end to hostilities and cautioning the other side against further action, both nations seem to be engaging in a calculated strategy of controlled aggression.
Public reactions to Sani’s comments have been mixed. Some analysts suggest that this pattern indicates an underlying recognition by both nations of the risks involved in a fully-fledged war. Others, however, argue that such calculated strikes merely heighten tensions and keep the region in a perpetual state of uncertainty. Sani’s post has sparked widespread debate, resonating with those who question the effectiveness and ethics of what appears to be a “gentleman’s war” approach, where aggression is strictly managed to avoid outright conflict while still asserting dominance.