So Israel makes it clear that when Iran responds they'll respond again in turn. That's a useful message to send, since they want Iran's response to be small enough that they can possibly just ignore it or retaliate with some non-military response. But it's not in their interests to just go out and attack Iran. - albaby

-----------------

Returning to a never ending proxy war with Iran is not an option, especially when Iran is on the doorstep of nuclear arms. The problem is that Iran can sponsor all the proxy aggression it wants and pay no consequences themselves. That has to change. Deterrence is not achieved with proportional responses. The response needs to be massive with the promise of more of the same if Iran doesn't stop their proxy war.

That will take more than a feeble US president repeatedly saying "don't". The massive naval presence we have assembled in the area is no deterrence at all without the enemy's sincere belief that you have no problem using it. Given Trumps track record (Soleimani, dropping the MOAB in Afghanistan), Iran would have something more credible to worry about than a policy of "Don't"

Fun Question for the day: How would Iran respond if Trump announced, "If the MV Behshad is still present in the Red sea when I become president, you will lose it."