>>63905034
>. Israel bombed Shahr Rey refinery, then Iran bombed Haifa refinery
i am pretty sure you chronology is correct. i am pretty sure iran bombed the Haifa refinery first and in turn israel bombed the Shar Rey. that's how i remember it.

>Israel bombed Imam Hussein University, then Iran bombed the Weizmann Institute
israel didn't bomb the university for the lolz or the sake of bombing. i am certain the university is linked to iran's nuke problem. so they destroyed those parts of the campus. iran destroyed a section dedicated to cancer, genealogy research and things of that nature. just wanted to point that out

> It would be only natural that the Israeli air force's operational tempo would go down after the first few days
because they had less targets than they started with and no longer need to do SEAD/DEAD.

>If offensive sortie rates went down, then it would be only natural that retaliatory missile launch rates would go down.
the tit-for-tat argument doesn't make sense. israel would conduct multiple strikes per day. iran would only respond in either one launch of doezes of missiles or multiple small waves. for example when israel destroyed launchers, AD moving around, assasinations, or hitting missiles bases and factories, what were the responses by iran then? there was no tit-for-tat in the sense that you're imagining it. missile launch rates went down because launchers and operatives were getting killed on a regular basis


>Also, it has been said that Israeli interception rates went down due to lack of interceptors and due to Iran using higher quality missiles.
that's bullshit of course. and there's no proof of it. israel was prepared for a much large volume of fire from iran. iran basically shit the bed when compared to israel's estimated of what the war was gonna look like