I was reading a thread on a wargaming site about what's happening in the Straits of Hormuz and someone was protesting that Iran pushing the bounds of the nuclear agreement (they're resumed enrichment) was going to get them attacked, even if they hadn't been behind the tanker attacks, which struck me as assuming that being attacked was a negative for Iran. My reply turned into a bit of an epic, so I figure I might as well repeat it here/store it for future reference:

But would an attack be a negative for Iran? What happens if we let a little game theory loose on the potential outcomes?
(NB: Who carried out the tanker attacks isn't actually relevant to this, I'm open to several possibilities there)

Donald Trump berates London mayor over response to terror attacks

Here's what @SadiqKhan actually said. He is right to provide reassurance. I'm standing with resilient London & him.
 

"Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days.

"There's no reason to be alarmed."*

— Penny Mordaunt (@PennyMordaunt) June 4, 2017