1. For condemning attacks on their embassies, states go to the UN Security Council with a draft presidential statement. Washington did not apply to the Security Council. So, the world reaction did not interest him. (Clarification. It turns out, it’s still more interesting. The Americans submitted a draft statement to the UN Security Council press and it is on the “default procedure” until 10 AM January 3 NY. That is, first a missile strike, and then everyone else’s opinion. Appeals on holding the meeting Sat on this issue or discussion of this topic in consultations sat in a different format to date not received)
That is, I was interested in a change in the situation in the region. By the way, over the past 5-6 years, the US has repeatedly blocked statements by the Security Council chairman condemning attacks on embassies of other countries - there are a lot of examples.
2. The key is the assessment of Iraq itself, as a state subjected to rocket fire by another state, and it is given: “Acting Prime Minister of Iraq Adel Abdel Mahdi regards an air strike at Baghdad airport, as a result of which the deputy head of the Iraqi Shiite militia was killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, as an act of aggression against his country "
3. In addition to the escalation of tension in the region, which will certainly hit millions of people, this will lead to nothing.