Rendered at 22:25:53 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
statguy 5 hours ago [-]
This has massive strategic implications for the US. The US couldn't protect its bases in the middle east from a middle power like Iran and in fact its bases were the reason that its "allies" in the gulf were attacked. Iran would have no reason to attack those allies otherwise. The US has also shown that Israel is the only ally that it really cares about.
Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Australia are taking notes. Prediction: there is not going to be a war over Taiwan - Taiwan will gradually come to a Hong Kong like agreement with China.
nradov 5 hours ago [-]
Nah. Seeing how China reneged on the "one country, two systems" promise and wrecked Hong Kong has turned the Taiwanese people more firmly against reunification.
Iran would be attacking other nearby states regardless of whether they host US military bases. Iran has a long history of aggression, including sponsoring terrorist groups. Personally I favor a less interventionist US foreign policy but even if we completely disengaged from the Middle East it would still be a violent neighborhood — probably even more so.
pazimzadeh 4 hours ago [-]
> Iran has a long history of aggression, including sponsoring terrorist groups
The US has a longer history of aggression and sponsoring terrorist groups:
During the Iran–Iraq War, which began with the Iraqi invasion of Iran on 22 September 1980,[1] the United States adopted a policy of providing support to Iraq in the form of several billion dollars' worth of economic aid, dual-use technology, intelligence sharing (e.g., IMINT), and special operations training.[2] This U.S. support, along with support from most of the Arab world, proved vital in helping Iraq sustain military operations against Iran.[3] The documented sale of dual-use technology, with one notable example being Iraq's acquisition of 45 Bell helicopters in 1985,[4][5] was effectively a workaround for a ban on direct arms transfers; U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East dictated that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism because of the Iraqi government's historical ties with groups like the Palestinian Liberation Front and the Abu Nidal Organization, among others.[6] However, this designation was removed in 1982 to facilitate broader support for the Iraqis as the conflict dragged on in Iran's favour.
Nov. 4, 1979 Iran took fifty two American's hostage and held them for 444 days.
Iran has been calling for the death and destruction of me, my family, and my country my entire life. Seeing the Iranian mullahs, both the leaders of Iran and the highest religious leaders of one of the largest groups of muslims, call for my and my families deaths and the destruction of my civilization my entire life is the largest factor instilling fear and distrust of islam in me. I have never seen huge protests in the US calling for Iranian deaths. Yet no one bats any eye when examples such events in Iran are shown in media. It is just a given an cool with the world that Iran hates Americans and want us dead.
The continued bombing/killing of Americans throughout the middle east during the 1980s furthered highlighted to me that Iran targeted Americans for acts of violence.
statguy 4 hours ago [-]
The Taiwanese know they can't take on China directly, they now know that Western support is meaningless - in fact it pushes them more into conflict with China. Given a choice, I think the Taiwanese would prefer a Hong Kong like outcome to a Ukraine/UAE like outcome.
AFAIK Iran never directly attacked several countries (e.g. UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi, Bahrain) before this war.
fragmede 2 hours ago [-]
The question you have to ask is, in the story of offense vs defense, can Taiwan mine that srait and deny China access, or does China posses anti-mine technology that counteracts that.
maxglute 2 hours ago [-]
TW gets most of energy and calories from strait shipping. It would be PRC mining/denying TW for lulz if anything. Ultimately TW going to have to look to see if they want to be HKers, who got less retarded after kissing PRC boot (see HK kids going to SZ to party) or whether TW wants to be Gaza who capitulates to Israeli demand, because reality is with sufficient force asymmetry, one can destroy civic life enough to force capitulation. And PRC can do that to TW, trivially, with mainland fires alone. The only hold back is the "family across the strait" narrative.
TW forceful reunification even if depopulated husk basically done deal, the real question is whether PRC wants to do an Iran and push US security out of east Asia, which is ultimate grand strategic goal. And to be blunt TW is perfect casus belli to spark this. PRC would be net worse off long run getting TW peacefully and but still deal with US security in region. Hence whether Iran can squeeze US out of CENTOM (even marginally) will set huge precedence.
statguy 2 hours ago [-]
The down votes to this suggest that many in the west are in denial. China doesn’t need to fight a hot war with Taiwan, they can incrementally pressure Taiwan while their western allies issue impotent statements.
Saline9515 1 hours ago [-]
China also doesn't need to annex Taiwan. Chinese people have been brainswashed by the PCC into thinking that it was a life-or-death issue for the country. It is not, and China could live another millenia without controlling the island.
If anything, Taiwan proves that Chinese people can be perfectly fine and rich without the authoritarian grip of the PCC. That's the most likely reason why the PCC clique wants to invade TW.
SpicyLemonZest 1 hours ago [-]
The downvotes suggest that many in the West see it as unconscionable to call people “retarded” for preferring not to be invaded. If someone made a comment like this in my house, I would kick them out immediately and might well never speak to them again.
oa335 4 hours ago [-]
> turned the Taiwanese people more firmly against reunification.
I think this is Western-filtered copium.
The leader of Taiwan's largest opposition part just concluded a fairly conciliatory visit with Xi Jinping.
Taiwan is culturally and historically tied to the mainland, and China is ascendant economically and geopolitically. I can more easily understand why a Taiwanese citizen would chose to be under Chinese sphere of influence over US.
Saline9515 1 hours ago [-]
Maybe because the PCC is an authoritarian regime, with no respect for human rights (including using prisoners as living organ banks)?
seanmcdirmid 2 hours ago [-]
The KMT is not in power right now because they are pro-one china/unification. If it was just western-filtered copium, the KMT would not keep losing popular elections. The DPP remains in power because it isn’t the KMT.
Your view, as a matter of fact, is mainland-filtered copium. Yes, the rich Taiwanese mainlanders who used to dominate Taiwan politics want a return to the past, but native Taiwanese are more populous and have less vested interest in unification with the mainland do not.
_DeadFred_ 32 minutes ago [-]
HN, why allow these one sided discussions? This response was flagged dead because only 'correct' opinion is allowed, all challenges are hidden/flagged dead:
"US seized Maduro overnight, PRC strongly condemned. The PRC anti-air defense system did nothing. Venezuela was PRC's top ally in South America.
US killed ayatollah khomeini and his comrades in one day, PRC strongly condemned. The PRC anti-air defense did nothing.
US struck and removed most military threats in Iran in a few weeks, PRC strongly condemned. Iran was PRC's top ally in middle east.
US enacted blockade on Iran ports, and seized many oil tankers sending oil to PRC , PRC strongly condemned. PRC desperately needs the Iranian oil, now reaching deep into its 3 months reserves, which parts of it were used to prepare attacks on Taiwan.
US just enacted economic sanctions on honeypot oil refineries in China, which takes in Iranian oil. I'm sure PRC will strongly condemn.
PRC is a paper tiger, nothing more, nothing less."
watwut 3 minutes ago [-]
China not intervening in Venezuela or Iran situation does not make them paper tigers.
It makes them ... not idiots. They are not interrupting the ennemy while that ennemy makes a mistake.
And also, saying that "US struck and removed most military threats in Iran in a few weeks" is massive overstatement. Iran military targets went from being obliterated, to almost half destroyed, to 60% remain working and active, to "a lot more then we think is still functional" which only god and Iran knows what it means.
actionfromafar 5 hours ago [-]
That's a pretty wild prediction - Taiwan is also a middle power and could beef up if it wants to.
peruvia 5 hours ago [-]
[dead]
pazimzadeh 4 hours ago [-]
trump did literally everything backwards. he should have started with the blockade and increased the pressure over time, with decapitation strikes at the end if needed. also..help arm the people of iran before doing anything else. that would have made iran look like the aggressor when they eventually bombed their region.
instead the islamic republic's "strategic patience" fully paid off and now most rational people sees them as victims.
what trump's doing is like trying to cure multi-drug resistant bacterial infection with whatever random antibiotics are on hand - the very thing that created resistance.
karmakurtisaani 4 hours ago [-]
If we are on the topic of what he should have done, I think the first on that list is not go to war with Iran at all.
pazimzadeh 2 hours ago [-]
sure, I'm just talking pure strategy e.g. if you were going to war with iran, what's would be the ideal play?
2 hours ago [-]
fragmede 2 hours ago [-]
That option came off the table when the IRGC went through killing thousands of their own civilians and turned off the Internet.
pazimzadeh 2 hours ago [-]
Yes, the Iranian government brutally murdered thousand of civilians in January.
Are Iranians safe now?
The US put the Shah in power which directly resulted in torture and killing of Iranians, and led to the Islamic Revolution.
The US removed Iraq from the list of state sponsors of terrors specifically so that Saddam could bomb Iran, including with chemical weapons.
You sound like you’ve never heard the major arguments against your position.
srean 1 hours ago [-]
Yes, US sponsored chemical weapons attacks on Iran claimed 30 to 50 thousand Iranian lives that is still grieved like an open would today. To say nothing of downed civillian passenger jet by the Americans and the coup to oust Mossadegh.
Notably, Iran did not retaliate in kind to the US sponsored Iraqi attack with chemical weapons, now considered weapons of mass destruction. This might be related to the notion that WMDs are un-Islamic, which got formalized as Khamenei's fatwa against nuclear weapons.
jantissler 2 hours ago [-]
And how exactly is that the responsibility of the United States? And why just in Iran? There are so many other conflicts in the world. Sorry, but this argument has never made sense.
Daviey 1 hours ago [-]
If this has been a simple humanitarian mission, then why hasn't the US got involved in other recent situations?
Saline9515 1 hours ago [-]
The USA is not responsible for Iranians' safety.
FireBeyond 38 minutes ago [-]
That's weird, I thought we were there to bring democracy to the people of Iran?
Well, that was the reason last Tuesday, or was it the Friday before that? I forget, since there's been so many.
lostlogin 1 hours ago [-]
By that rationale, should America bomb China? Russia?
bdangubic 43 minutes ago [-]
there is no rationale to pure nonsense
watwut 1 hours ago [-]
That option was completely on the table.
seanmcdirmid 2 hours ago [-]
Trump’s reason for going to war with Iran had nothing to do with Iranian civilians lives or internet access privileges. The optimists say it was because of Iran’s nuclear weapons, slight optimists say it was over oil, cynics say it was a distraction from his role in the Epstein files. Literally no one thinks he actually had Iranian civilian best interests in mind.
FireBeyond 37 minutes ago [-]
> it was a distraction from his role in the Epstein files
I would love to know who chose the name "Epic Fury" (other than some kid in a COD lobby). Epic Fury. E.F. Epstein Files.
free_bip 2 hours ago [-]
No, it didn't. USA is not the world police. Trump literally ran on this, "USA first" and all that.
bdangubic 1 hours ago [-]
and we give a hoot exactly why? america first, yes? why aren’t we in sudan, a lot more dire situation. give us a break with this nonsense
cineticdaffodil 1 hours ago [-]
It takes two too tango, so Iran would stop its proxxy warring on the us if the us stopped responding? How did that work out under biden and obama?
lostlogin 1 hours ago [-]
> It takes two too tango
Wot? Will this apply if goes after Greenland too like he has threatened?
Daviey 1 hours ago [-]
Of course, Denmark is doing the fandango by not simply handing over the territory.
Same as the Ukrainian had the audacity to act as a sovereign nation and seek membership of alliances that benefited themselves.
_DeadFred_ 28 minutes ago [-]
The Islamic Republic of Iran and it's leaders, some of the highest Shia authorities, have called for my, my families, and my nations destruction publicly and often violently, for over 40 years. But you know that, you just want to post low effort propaganda presenting things as equivalent that are not.
cineticdaffodil 37 minutes ago [-]
Let me be more precise. One is enough to start a war and iran is a imperial local power that is constantly attacking its surrounding region with proxxies. The idea that only the mighty and resourceful can start wars is ridiculous. germany was an underdog in a jonny come lately situation compared to the french and British empire and started two wars. Same is happening here. Asymetric agressor can still be an agressor.
kcplate 4 hours ago [-]
I think that’s easy to say with the benefit of hindsight, but it seems to me that if the Iranians actually claimed they were 11 days away from a nuclear bomb during the prewar negotiations, it’s likely that the blockade first would not have been the right leading move.
Plus I believe that if you took the “11 days away” claim off the table I don’t think you accurately say that a blockade without the military campaign first would have been successful. Seems like we are in a “what came first the chicken or the egg” moment.
There is no doubt in my mind that a blockade with an intact Iranian navy would not necessarily look like this one.
pazimzadeh 2 hours ago [-]
> if the Iranians actually claimed they were 11 days away from a nuclear bomb during the prewar negotiations
Do you want to cite a good source for this? I think you're confusing having enough 60% enriched uranium for "11 bombs" with "11 days." If Iran was 11 days away then what was the point of the 12-day war last year? The first step would be not blatantly lying to the public
There's way more evidence that iran wasn't building a nuke than that they were:
Gabbard Says Iran Did Not Rebuild Nuclear Program After 2025 Strikes, Contradicting Trump (March 19, 2026)
Like i said, that is what the administration (Witkoff) communicated. You can believe it or not, dispute it all you want, but the only opinion of any importance here is if they (either Iran, the administration, and frankly also Israel) believed it. In that case, it would be a dangerous thing for the US and Israel to ignore. Some would suggest impossible to ignore.
In my opinion if it’s not true and Iran communicated it…that would be a huge miscalculation by Iran.
The administration stated many times their nuclear stockpiles were already obliterated.
tcp_handshaker 1 hours ago [-]
Its incredible how a living US president, in the 21 century, managed to transform the US into nothing more than a second rate regional power.
I know the inventory size of US military forces...spare me that argument. A superpower is defined by what it can make happen, not what it owns. Russia owns nukes and can't take Kyiv. The US owns eleven carrier groups and needs Pakistan to pass notes to Tehran. Inventory is not power. Outcomes are.
SpicyLemonZest 1 hours ago [-]
You’re just making the mirror image error of the current American regime. It’s not that the US could bomb Iran into submission if only it were more powerful; the strategy is flawed, it cannot work even in principle, because the IRGC prefers being bombed to sacrificing their nuclear capability and regional proxies.
watwut 1 hours ago [-]
> also..help arm the people of iran before doing anything else
What exactly would that be supposed to achieve? American belief that guns to random people solve everything is beyond absurd.
oa335 4 hours ago [-]
exactly this... this has been strategic disaster from US perspective. a blockade plus covert ops could have split IRGC leadership - instead public decapitation caused rally round the flag effect and gave immediate legitimacy to khamenei heir. completely idiotic
_DeadFred_ 25 minutes ago [-]
HN, why allow these political discussions where one side is just flagged into oblivion and it becomes purely propaganda against the USA?
The follow were flagged into oblivion:
"
Rekindle8090 2 hours ago [dead] | parent | prev | next [–]
I think if you see the country gunning down protesters and beheading women as "the victim" you're fundamentally unserious. The only victim is the people of the iranian regime. Calling Iran as a regime a victim is ridiculous. It's a fascist death cult"
nradov 3 hours ago [flagged] [dead] | parent | prev | next [–]
The primary goal of the attacks was to degrade the Iranian nuclear weapons program. We can argue about whether that was a sensible goal, but a naval blockade certainly wouldn't have achieved it.
Rekindle8090 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
nradov 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
karmakurtisaani 4 hours ago [-]
If you believe the nonsense reasons for the war. They struggled to provide any strategic goals for the war when they started.
The most plausible explanation to me is that Netanyahu managed to lure Trump into the war with the premise that if they kill the Ayatollah, they'll get an easy win.
nradov 3 hours ago [-]
I'm not stating that I believe the official statements about reasons for the war, just that a naval blockade wouldn't have been effective in achieving them.
pazimzadeh 2 hours ago [-]
I'm saying to begin with the naval blockade instead of ending with it. Not saying that blockade alone is sufficient.
Why would you start by creating a martyr out of a crippled 86-year old leader of a martyr religion but letting them keep selling their oil?
statguy 3 hours ago [-]
Exactly, Trump was high on the Venezuala “win” and Netanyahu managed to suck him into this war with disastrous consequences for US and the world.
bulbar 2 hours ago [-]
Exactly. People vastly overestimate the intelligence of decision makers.
oa335 5 hours ago [-]
my thesis is that the IRGC has successfully established deterrence by demonstrating relative resilience against US attacks (still have boats and missiles), ability to meaningfully strike US bases and its Allies, and willingness to sacrifice a lot of Irans civilian infrastructure. its hard to sift through the propaganda on both sides, but I haven't yet seen anything to disprove this convincingly. anyone else?
maxglute 2 hours ago [-]
IMO Ability to break US forward base sancturary breaks entire US expeditionary model. US+co land basing responsible for most of strike sortie generation/sustainment. Carriers are mathematically supplementary in theatre level conflicts.
Degrade land based strike sorties and support sorties and push CVG back to ~1000km (where strike stories drop to ~50% due to tanking) = entire strike sortie sustainment math breaks hard. Less strike sorties -> even more dependence on high-end munitions. Combined with resilient antiair also denied US ability to move to budget (i.e. JDAM) mop up phase. Strategically Iran being able to soak US damage and still fire back = US air campaign tactically failed to degrade Iran missile complex chokehold over region. Consider US used up ~half of highend standoff and interceptors (if you believe CSIS) then status quo after crippling forward bases simply broke US war logistics. US cannot sustain (not even matter of afford) to fight Iran with current highend munition burnrate + cvg sortie generation, and and defeat Iran tactically to rely on lowend munitions without more political exposure, i.e. a few more pilot rescues going to start meaningfully chip away at US CSAR fleet. Nevermind political fallout of failed rescue or F35 down in Iranian soil.
Hence Trump pivoted to threatened civil infra / counter-value, US saw limits / diminishing returns on ability to neutralize remaining Iranian counter-force threats. US simply cannot afford to prosecute prolonged counter-force standoff air campaig without further strategic exhaustion. Same reason Iran shifted to counter-value oil/infra because the damage to US basing already done, and their ability to degrade US CSG sorties limited.
Obviously this applies to WestPac.
karmakurtisaani 4 hours ago [-]
I also believe they have the upper hand as they are willing to play the long game. It's like when Russia attacked Ukraine, they gambled on taking Kiev with paratroopers on the first few days. Didn't work and they got stuck.
It will be ironic if Iran gets a stronger position than they had before the war as a consequence of a peace treaty.
ajross 3 hours ago [-]
It's not really an "if". Iran is in a stronger geopolitical position (than the one they held before the war) today. Any deal they make can only improve things for them, by definition (or else they wouldn't take it).
That's precisely the trap the Trump administration has created for itself. If the only way out is to lose, then you've already lost. And Iran knows it.
karmakurtisaani 3 hours ago [-]
I agree that they have this strong position now, but the war is not over yet. I doubt they'll lose it in any meaningful way, but still it remains to be seen how they manage to capitulate it in a possible peace deal.
actionfromafar 5 hours ago [-]
An AWACS was picked off sitting on the ground, that's a bad look. It took Russia years to get to that stage in the war.
One has to wonder how much of the bad US performance is due to deep, systemic problems and how much is due to a rushed and unplanned military operation.
sam_lowry_ 3 hours ago [-]
Russia lost its own AWACS early 2022 to a DJI drone attack, IIRC
pram 5 hours ago [-]
One thing I noticed in the videos on Twitter of quadcopter type drones being flown into US bases in Iraq, is there doesn't seem to be any current defense. They were flying around with impunity, taking their time looking for a target. It's definitely scary.
throwawaypath 5 hours ago [-]
Those are not US bases, those were Iraqi Armed Forced bases.
general1465 5 hours ago [-]
It could be either unused base (Camp Victory in Iraq) or fiber optic drones, which are effectively invisible for current systems because you need to have good enough radar to see them thanks to their size and used material and they are not having any RF emissions like usual FPV drone would have
OutOfHere 5 hours ago [-]
Article doesn't fully load. It says "Just a moment. We are getting your experience ready." and is stuck there.
dredmorbius 4 hours ago [-]
And Archive.Today can't seem to bypass that paywall:
internet archive, although more easily archive.today, should make a firefox extension to archive paywalled articles from people who have subscriptions and release them in the future (5, 10 years)
OutOfHere 4 hours ago [-]
Unfortunately, archive.today can never be trusted to have a safe Firefox extension. It is difficult enough to trust the site anymore after it was found that it was engaging in a DDoS attack against a different site. Imagine the hazard from an extension.
In the same spirit, however, it would help to have an extension that auto-archives unpaywalled versions of paywalled articles, and makes them auto-available to users subject to the paywall.
catlikesshrimp 2 hours ago [-]
The problem with INMEDIATE pirated access of paywalled content is that it really hurts journalism. I mentioned archiving paywalled content for preservation and reference years from now.
OutOfHere 1 hours ago [-]
You argument is invalid because nothing that is not available to the public is being hurt. Your argument is like saying that redistributing wealth really hurts rich people, so the poor shouldn't do it, and should just suffer being poor instead. Your argument would have merit only if unpaywalled journalism was being hurt, but it isn't.
nkurz 3 hours ago [-]
Full article:
American military bases and other equipment in the Persian Gulf region suffered extensive damage from Iranian strikes that is far worse than publicly acknowledged and is expected to cost billions of dollars to repair, according to three U.S. officials, two congressional aides and another person familiar with the damage.
The Iranian regime swiftly retaliated after the Trump administration attacked on Feb. 28, hitting dozens of targets across U.S. military bases in seven Middle East countries. Those attacks struck warehouses, command headquarters, aircraft hangars, satellite communications infrastructure, runways, high-end radar systems and dozens of aircraft, according to the U.S. officials and an assessment by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.
In the initial days of the war, an Iranian F-5 fighter jet bombed the U.S. base Camp Buehring in Kuwait, despite the base having air defenses, a rare breach that marked the first time an enemy fixed-wing aircraft has struck an American military base in years, according to two of the U.S. officials.
The U.S. bases that came under attack are home to thousands of American troops, and in some cases their families, though they were largely cleared out in the days and hours before the U.S. and Israeli went to war with Iran.
The Pentagon has not detailed the extent of the damage to U.S. military bases publicly or, according to the U.S. officials, to members of Congress.
“We do not discuss battle damage assessments for operation security reasons,” a Pentagon official said in a statement. “Our forces remain fully operational, and we continue to execute our mission with the same readiness and combat effectiveness.”
U.S. Central Command declined to comment on battle damage assessments.
Last month, the administration asked private satellite companies, including Planet Labs, to withhold imagery of the bases from the public, making the extent of the destruction difficult to assess, according to the U.S. officials and experts, including a statement from Planet Labs to their customers.
The administration’s request remains in place, a Planet Labs spokesperson said. A White House spokesperson declined to comment.
Some Republican lawmakers privately have expressed frustration directly to senior Pentagon officials about their refusal to provide information about the extent of the damage or any cost estimate for repairs, according to two GOP congressional aides.
“No one knows anything. And it’s not for lack of asking,” one of the aides said. “We have been asking for weeks and not getting specifics, even as the Pentagon is asking for a record high budget.”
Asked for comment, White House spokesperson Olivia Wales said the U.S. had achieved the military objectives of Operation Epic Fury. “As the president has said, this was the last, best time to strike, and — thanks to our heroic warfighters — the operation was a tremendous success,” Wales said in a statement. “President Trump took decisive action to ensure that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon to threaten the United States or our assets and allies in the region, and Americans are already safer for it.”
The damage to and cost of repairing the bases could reignite a yearslong debate over the merits of maintaining U.S. bases in such close proximity to an adversary like Iran. Some national security officials, including some serving in the Trump administration, have for years pushed to move U.S. bases in the region further east and away from Tehran’s reaches. The issue also could embolden critics of America’s military presence overseas who have advocated for shrinking the U.S. presence in the Middle East, one U.S. official and one person familiar with the matter said.
The three U.S. officials familiar with the damage to U.S. bases in the Middle East described it as extensive. The headquarters building for the U.S. Navy in Bahrain, the nerve center for the Navy’s operations in the region, sustained serious damage, the officials said. They said other parts of the base in Bahrain also suffered significant damage that is likely repairable.
Multiple hangars and warehouses at Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait also were struck, according to the American Enterprise Institute’s unofficial assessment that was reviewed by NBC News. The assessment also shows a munitions storage facility at a military base in Erbil in northern Iraq was damaged and a runway at the sprawling Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar was destroyed.
U.S. bases had been cleared of U.S. troops and other personnel, so many of the bases were left essentially empty and vulnerable to attack by Iranian missiles and drones. Many of the troops who were temporarily relocated are expected to return to the bases once tensions in the region subside.
Thirteen U.S. troops have been killed in the conflict and as many as 400 have been wounded, although more than 90% have returned to duty, according to the U.S. military.
The Pentagon has refused to provide specifics, but during an April 8 briefing, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine said the U.S. and partners in the Gulf region intercepted 1,700 ballistic missiles and one-way attack drones during the war. A fourth U.S. official said only a fraction of the projectiles actually got through the U.S. and ally defenses.
Congress is considering legislation to support the cost of the war, including unspecified repairs and other costs in a so-called supplemental bill that could exceed $100 billion, according to two of the U.S. officials and two other people familiar with the matter.
According to the AEI’s assessment, Iran hit more than 100 targets across 11 bases in seven Gulf countries. Those attacks fell on U.S. and host-nation bases in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
“As part of Epic Fury, the potential future costs to rebuild American military infrastructure overseas may include repair, reconstruction, outright replacement, or even abandonment/decommissioning of locales,” Mackenzie Eaglen, a senior fellow at AEI, said in a statement about the group’s assessment. “War damage also includes estimated costs for infrastructure that is unsalvageable.”
Eaglen’s cost estimate for repairing the infrastructure is more than $5 billion, but that amount does not account for some of the radar systems, weapons systems, aircraft and other equipment destroyed in the Iranian strikes, she said. Eaglen has worked on defense and budgetary and military readiness issues for years and is a former Pentagon official.
The Iranians damaged at least two air defense systems in the region, according to the U.S. officials.
Iran has also destroyed U.S. military aircraft. NBC News reported that at least one fighter jet, more than a dozen MQ-9 Reaper drones, two MC-130 tankers and four helicopters known as “little birds” were also destroyed.
Additional helicopters, tankers, an E-3 Sentry plane and two more helicopters known as Jolly Greens were also damaged, according to U.S. officials and information provided during a Pentagon briefing.
Radar systems in the UAE and a satellite communication system in Bahrain were also damaged the U.S. officials said, but it’s not clear whether Bahrain or the UAE would cover the cost of those systems.
missed the real message that "they" are desperate to hide, which is that Iran destroyed a great deal of infrastructure while causing very few casualties, because clearly they have very high precision armaments, and intel, so the message is : they can hit other targets at will and escelate
plus China stated that they are delivering new missles and systems that Iran payed for before this began, right about
now.
statguy 2 hours ago [-]
The casualties are low largely because US troops simply abandoned their bases and moved to hotels, treating the citizens of their gulf allies as human shields.
basisword 5 hours ago [-]
Not surprising. In years to come I'm sure we'll find the USG has lied as much to the public during this war as Russia and North Korea would to their citizens. The "laundry fire". The pilot "rescue". The lack of transparency on injuries and casualties. Look at Netanyahu's recent health issues. He didn't lie - he 'delayed the report'.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5 hours ago [-]
I think they just have a different strategy and goals than we in the West expect. We seem to think if we just kill a lot more of their guys that victory is certain but that's not the case.
Jamesbeam 5 hours ago [-]
Don't forget the emotional damage.
Their war propaganda is so much better than that of the US military.
Lego Trump, soul-crushing tweets, with Trump it is like taking candy from a toddler but still…
I’m glad the US is winning so hard they don’t know what to do about it.
Otherwise, they would look blatantly incompetent on a Russian army 3-day special operation level.
I am seriously no longer concerned about Greenland.
LePetitPrince 5 hours ago [-]
[dead]
sosomoxie 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
coredev_ 5 hours ago [-]
Can you please provide sources for your claims.
sosomoxie 5 hours ago [-]
Which one? There’s no proof that any of Israel’s claims were ever true. It’s on them to provide proof, which they of course have not. If you want to see Tel Aviv or US bases getting hit, go search Twitter. There are thousands of videos. While you’re their look at the tens of thousands of videos of the IDF committing war crimes.
actionfromafar 5 hours ago [-]
How many protestors were killed?
sosomoxie 4 hours ago [-]
None? They killed a bunch of Zionist infiltrators but certainly not 50,000 in a few days, producing zero proof.
actionfromafar 3 hours ago [-]
Thousands of Zionist infiltrators perhaps?
sosomoxie 3 minutes ago [-]
Perhaps, thankfully they were defeated and Iran won the war.
It is hard to understand why the U.S. cares about a random Middle Eastern country called Israel this much. Why not Zimbabwe or Thailand, but Israel? Weird stuff. I hope America comes back to its senses and stops dealing with these people.
legacynl 5 hours ago [-]
In essence it's not about Israel itself, but rather that the US wants an ally in the region that they can use to project power in the middle east. Of course nowadays there's mutual interests and lobbying, so the choice for Israel is very much set in stone, but in another universe it could have been a different country.
bambax 5 hours ago [-]
Israel is "western" outpost in the Middle East. It's not a random country. It's a colonial power with a geopolitical mission.
djeastm 5 hours ago [-]
It kind of made sense (strategic, if not moral) when we were a booming country very dependent on Middle Eastern oil in the last half of the 20th century and wanted to have a strong ally in the region. Makes less sense recently though.
Then perhaps Israel has surmised that the US might not be interested in sticking around and decided to make their play while they had an ally in the White House.
>It is hard to understand why the U.S. cares about a random Middle Eastern country called Israel this much.
Study the links between the American military industrial complex and Evangelical Christianity, in particularly the latter's view of Israel's role in end-times prophecy, and you'll get your answer.
general1465 5 hours ago [-]
You are getting downvoted, but you are correct. USA is failing in separation of church and the state and now it is going to have a war because ancient book said so.
tialaramex 4 hours ago [-]
Yeah. I think the instinct is "But that's batshit!" and like, yeah, that's exactly the problem.
To be fair to the ancient book, at that time it would have been understood by intellectuals that it's not a prediction of future events, it's a message to them about their past and present, not a message to us about our future. So us blaming the book, not the crazy people is the same mistake as if we were screaming at the author of "Don't Create the Torment Nexus". The author was writing fiction, the critics knew it was fiction, most of the readers knew it was fiction, the problem is that billionaire tech bro who thought it was a message from God telling them they need to spend $100Bn to create a Torment Nexus.
krapp 4 hours ago [-]
The Secretary of War, a Christian nationalist and white supremacist, has framed the war in Iran as a holy war to bring about the End Times. Many people in the government have said they consider America's military support of Israel to be an absolute Christian obligation. JD Vance and the President want to create a new Catholicism with blackjack and hookers and holy Zionist warfare because the Pope disagrees with them.
We live in batshit times.
basisword 5 hours ago [-]
Excellent propaganda and god knows how much blackmail. Just look at the US cities lighting up monuments etc. to celebrate Israeli independence day. And this during a war the majority of US citizens don't support.
LePetitPrince 5 hours ago [-]
[dead]
sosomoxie 5 hours ago [-]
The American people are well on their way to this realization. The problem is in our government, media and executive class, which are fully Zionist occupied.
actionfromafar 5 hours ago [-]
... government, media and executive class and a huge chunk of voters all in on Holy War.
Bender 5 hours ago [-]
I would expect more of this. Most of Iran's military infrastructure is deep under 500 to 800 meters of hard rock, heavily funded by US tax dollars bully lunch money and the oil industry. Most everyone else's military infrastructure is mostly on the surface just begging for attention.
My personal preference would have been that the US had built it's bases in the same manor is Iran or better. At least I think we could have possibly done better. Keeping most infrastructure under ground means less dependency on power for cooling, more surface land for other functions. Maybe put some earth-bermed greenhouses on the surface and grow some produce for the locals.
philipwhiuk 5 hours ago [-]
You can't rapidly scale up an FOB under 800m of rock and you can't land planes underground.
Bender 5 hours ago [-]
For sure no fast FOB but they can store planes underground and they can be towed out and prepped fast just as they are doing with their missiles today. The wings come off rather easily. My remote site ordered one by mistake from the old CAMS system. The driver was just as confused as we were.
I should add that one way to think of it is that Iran built those amazing underground missile cities just for the US to take over. It won't be easy and there will be mass casualties but I think that since we paid for them we should annex them. Some countries in northern Europe have similar underground bases. I would love to visit them. The closest to that I have been inside was NORAD.
olelele 4 hours ago [-]
So you are ready to sacrifice thousands of lives for that?
Bender 3 hours ago [-]
So you are ready to sacrifice thousands of lives for that?
It's not up to either of us but to your point I suspect that will occur regardless of what you or I desire. We stepped into the bog of eternal stench that is country #7 Iran. This has been planned for a very long time but every president has been able to back out of it.
Trump started it and only has authorization for about another 5 business days but I suspect congress will begrudgingly approve bipartisan authorization to not only keep our soldiers on the ground but to send another 500k to 700k as anything less would likely be ineffective against their defenses. This can not be solved by technology alone. I can only hope that we undo what we created 50 years ago and give Iran back to it's people and stop the endless proxy wars. Since I can spend hope it's free and nearly meaningless I also hope we welcome our soldiers back with more dignity than we did for the Vietnam veterans this time.
olelele 1 hours ago [-]
Is Iran yours to "give back" to its people?
Bender 1 hours ago [-]
Is Iran yours to "give back" to its people?
Obviously not me personally but is absolutely up to the USA that created the current Iranian government to do so. We made the mess and should clean up the mess. Iran used to be one of the top five most technologically advanced countries and one of the most progressive countries in the middle east up until the point we twerked it up by putting zealots in power and repeatedly funding them.
olelele 56 minutes ago [-]
From what I know the Islamic republic was founded in part as a reaction to US & British meddling in the internal Iranian affairs. Do you really think the US can achieve anything positive by putting troops on the ground? Have you learned nothing from Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or Korea?
Bender 32 minutes ago [-]
From what I know the Islamic republic was founded in part as a reaction to US & British meddling in the internal Iranian affairs.
Yes, exactly this. The US (CIA) and Britain (MI5) were playing let's topple a government and this was the outcome. Even if indirect the end result is that we created the current mess. What I stated holds true.
Do you really think the US can achieve anything positive by putting troops on the ground?
I did not say that. I said that is the only way the desired end result is going to happen and that toppling them through technology will not work such as air strikes, electronic warfare and such. There will be mass casualties, I said that.
Have you learned nothing from Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or Korea?
It is not up to me to learn something. If it were up to me there never would have been any kinetic wars at all. I prefer to start with economic warfare and then use discreet covert operations until they succeed. It takes longer but people are impatient and greedy. That's not my fault as far as I know.
I've enjoyed our conversation but I must get back on the gaming machine and sink some pirate ships to get my reputation up with the Brethren. Perhaps we can pick this back up tomorrow.
olelele 25 minutes ago [-]
I'm not sure the desired outcome will be achieved. Iran is not a pushover.
Good night!
Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Australia are taking notes. Prediction: there is not going to be a war over Taiwan - Taiwan will gradually come to a Hong Kong like agreement with China.
Iran would be attacking other nearby states regardless of whether they host US military bases. Iran has a long history of aggression, including sponsoring terrorist groups. Personally I favor a less interventionist US foreign policy but even if we completely disengaged from the Middle East it would still be a violent neighborhood — probably even more so.
The US has a longer history of aggression and sponsoring terrorist groups:
Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-pro...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq...Iran has been calling for the death and destruction of me, my family, and my country my entire life. Seeing the Iranian mullahs, both the leaders of Iran and the highest religious leaders of one of the largest groups of muslims, call for my and my families deaths and the destruction of my civilization my entire life is the largest factor instilling fear and distrust of islam in me. I have never seen huge protests in the US calling for Iranian deaths. Yet no one bats any eye when examples such events in Iran are shown in media. It is just a given an cool with the world that Iran hates Americans and want us dead.
The continued bombing/killing of Americans throughout the middle east during the 1980s furthered highlighted to me that Iran targeted Americans for acts of violence.
AFAIK Iran never directly attacked several countries (e.g. UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi, Bahrain) before this war.
TW forceful reunification even if depopulated husk basically done deal, the real question is whether PRC wants to do an Iran and push US security out of east Asia, which is ultimate grand strategic goal. And to be blunt TW is perfect casus belli to spark this. PRC would be net worse off long run getting TW peacefully and but still deal with US security in region. Hence whether Iran can squeeze US out of CENTOM (even marginally) will set huge precedence.
If anything, Taiwan proves that Chinese people can be perfectly fine and rich without the authoritarian grip of the PCC. That's the most likely reason why the PCC clique wants to invade TW.
I think this is Western-filtered copium.
The leader of Taiwan's largest opposition part just concluded a fairly conciliatory visit with Xi Jinping.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/what-the-taiwanes...
Taiwan is culturally and historically tied to the mainland, and China is ascendant economically and geopolitically. I can more easily understand why a Taiwanese citizen would chose to be under Chinese sphere of influence over US.
Your view, as a matter of fact, is mainland-filtered copium. Yes, the rich Taiwanese mainlanders who used to dominate Taiwan politics want a return to the past, but native Taiwanese are more populous and have less vested interest in unification with the mainland do not.
"US seized Maduro overnight, PRC strongly condemned. The PRC anti-air defense system did nothing. Venezuela was PRC's top ally in South America. US killed ayatollah khomeini and his comrades in one day, PRC strongly condemned. The PRC anti-air defense did nothing.
US struck and removed most military threats in Iran in a few weeks, PRC strongly condemned. Iran was PRC's top ally in middle east.
US enacted blockade on Iran ports, and seized many oil tankers sending oil to PRC , PRC strongly condemned. PRC desperately needs the Iranian oil, now reaching deep into its 3 months reserves, which parts of it were used to prepare attacks on Taiwan.
US just enacted economic sanctions on honeypot oil refineries in China, which takes in Iranian oil. I'm sure PRC will strongly condemn.
PRC is a paper tiger, nothing more, nothing less."
It makes them ... not idiots. They are not interrupting the ennemy while that ennemy makes a mistake.
And also, saying that "US struck and removed most military threats in Iran in a few weeks" is massive overstatement. Iran military targets went from being obliterated, to almost half destroyed, to 60% remain working and active, to "a lot more then we think is still functional" which only god and Iran knows what it means.
instead the islamic republic's "strategic patience" fully paid off and now most rational people sees them as victims.
what trump's doing is like trying to cure multi-drug resistant bacterial infection with whatever random antibiotics are on hand - the very thing that created resistance.
Are Iranians safe now?
The US put the Shah in power which directly resulted in torture and killing of Iranians, and led to the Islamic Revolution.
The US removed Iraq from the list of state sponsors of terrors specifically so that Saddam could bomb Iran, including with chemical weapons.
You sound like you’ve never heard the major arguments against your position.
Notably, Iran did not retaliate in kind to the US sponsored Iraqi attack with chemical weapons, now considered weapons of mass destruction. This might be related to the notion that WMDs are un-Islamic, which got formalized as Khamenei's fatwa against nuclear weapons.
Well, that was the reason last Tuesday, or was it the Friday before that? I forget, since there's been so many.
I would love to know who chose the name "Epic Fury" (other than some kid in a COD lobby). Epic Fury. E.F. Epstein Files.
Wot? Will this apply if goes after Greenland too like he has threatened?
Same as the Ukrainian had the audacity to act as a sovereign nation and seek membership of alliances that benefited themselves.
Plus I believe that if you took the “11 days away” claim off the table I don’t think you accurately say that a blockade without the military campaign first would have been successful. Seems like we are in a “what came first the chicken or the egg” moment.
There is no doubt in my mind that a blockade with an intact Iranian navy would not necessarily look like this one.
Do you want to cite a good source for this? I think you're confusing having enough 60% enriched uranium for "11 bombs" with "11 days." If Iran was 11 days away then what was the point of the 12-day war last year? The first step would be not blatantly lying to the public
There's way more evidence that iran wasn't building a nuke than that they were:
Gabbard Says Iran Did Not Rebuild Nuclear Program After 2025 Strikes, Contradicting Trump (March 19, 2026)
From the then U.S. Director of National Intelligence https://time.com/article/2026/03/18/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nucle...
Iran was nowhere close to a nuclear bomb, experts say (March 11 2026)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/iran-was-nowhere-...
In my opinion if it’s not true and Iran communicated it…that would be a huge miscalculation by Iran.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACqWRsde4Ys
https://thehill.com/policy/international/5751330-witkoff-ira...
I know the inventory size of US military forces...spare me that argument. A superpower is defined by what it can make happen, not what it owns. Russia owns nukes and can't take Kyiv. The US owns eleven carrier groups and needs Pakistan to pass notes to Tehran. Inventory is not power. Outcomes are.
What exactly would that be supposed to achieve? American belief that guns to random people solve everything is beyond absurd.
The follow were flagged into oblivion:
" Rekindle8090 2 hours ago [dead] | parent | prev | next [–]
I think if you see the country gunning down protesters and beheading women as "the victim" you're fundamentally unserious. The only victim is the people of the iranian regime. Calling Iran as a regime a victim is ridiculous. It's a fascist death cult"
nradov 3 hours ago [flagged] [dead] | parent | prev | next [–]
The primary goal of the attacks was to degrade the Iranian nuclear weapons program. We can argue about whether that was a sensible goal, but a naval blockade certainly wouldn't have achieved it.
The most plausible explanation to me is that Netanyahu managed to lure Trump into the war with the premise that if they kill the Ayatollah, they'll get an easy win.
Why would you start by creating a martyr out of a crippled 86-year old leader of a martyr religion but letting them keep selling their oil?
Degrade land based strike sorties and support sorties and push CVG back to ~1000km (where strike stories drop to ~50% due to tanking) = entire strike sortie sustainment math breaks hard. Less strike sorties -> even more dependence on high-end munitions. Combined with resilient antiair also denied US ability to move to budget (i.e. JDAM) mop up phase. Strategically Iran being able to soak US damage and still fire back = US air campaign tactically failed to degrade Iran missile complex chokehold over region. Consider US used up ~half of highend standoff and interceptors (if you believe CSIS) then status quo after crippling forward bases simply broke US war logistics. US cannot sustain (not even matter of afford) to fight Iran with current highend munition burnrate + cvg sortie generation, and and defeat Iran tactically to rely on lowend munitions without more political exposure, i.e. a few more pilot rescues going to start meaningfully chip away at US CSAR fleet. Nevermind political fallout of failed rescue or F35 down in Iranian soil.
Hence Trump pivoted to threatened civil infra / counter-value, US saw limits / diminishing returns on ability to neutralize remaining Iranian counter-force threats. US simply cannot afford to prosecute prolonged counter-force standoff air campaig without further strategic exhaustion. Same reason Iran shifted to counter-value oil/infra because the damage to US basing already done, and their ability to degrade US CSG sorties limited.
Obviously this applies to WestPac.
It will be ironic if Iran gets a stronger position than they had before the war as a consequence of a peace treaty.
That's precisely the trap the Trump administration has created for itself. If the only way out is to lose, then you've already lost. And Iran knows it.
One has to wonder how much of the bad US performance is due to deep, systemic problems and how much is due to a rushed and unplanned military operation.
<https://archive.is/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fworld%2Fi...>
(All current copies have the same issue.)
In the same spirit, however, it would help to have an extension that auto-archives unpaywalled versions of paywalled articles, and makes them auto-available to users subject to the paywall.
American military bases and other equipment in the Persian Gulf region suffered extensive damage from Iranian strikes that is far worse than publicly acknowledged and is expected to cost billions of dollars to repair, according to three U.S. officials, two congressional aides and another person familiar with the damage.
The Iranian regime swiftly retaliated after the Trump administration attacked on Feb. 28, hitting dozens of targets across U.S. military bases in seven Middle East countries. Those attacks struck warehouses, command headquarters, aircraft hangars, satellite communications infrastructure, runways, high-end radar systems and dozens of aircraft, according to the U.S. officials and an assessment by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.
In the initial days of the war, an Iranian F-5 fighter jet bombed the U.S. base Camp Buehring in Kuwait, despite the base having air defenses, a rare breach that marked the first time an enemy fixed-wing aircraft has struck an American military base in years, according to two of the U.S. officials.
The U.S. bases that came under attack are home to thousands of American troops, and in some cases their families, though they were largely cleared out in the days and hours before the U.S. and Israeli went to war with Iran. The Pentagon has not detailed the extent of the damage to U.S. military bases publicly or, according to the U.S. officials, to members of Congress.
“We do not discuss battle damage assessments for operation security reasons,” a Pentagon official said in a statement. “Our forces remain fully operational, and we continue to execute our mission with the same readiness and combat effectiveness.”
U.S. Central Command declined to comment on battle damage assessments.
Last month, the administration asked private satellite companies, including Planet Labs, to withhold imagery of the bases from the public, making the extent of the destruction difficult to assess, according to the U.S. officials and experts, including a statement from Planet Labs to their customers.
The administration’s request remains in place, a Planet Labs spokesperson said. A White House spokesperson declined to comment.
Some Republican lawmakers privately have expressed frustration directly to senior Pentagon officials about their refusal to provide information about the extent of the damage or any cost estimate for repairs, according to two GOP congressional aides.
“No one knows anything. And it’s not for lack of asking,” one of the aides said. “We have been asking for weeks and not getting specifics, even as the Pentagon is asking for a record high budget.”
Asked for comment, White House spokesperson Olivia Wales said the U.S. had achieved the military objectives of Operation Epic Fury. “As the president has said, this was the last, best time to strike, and — thanks to our heroic warfighters — the operation was a tremendous success,” Wales said in a statement. “President Trump took decisive action to ensure that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon to threaten the United States or our assets and allies in the region, and Americans are already safer for it.”
The damage to and cost of repairing the bases could reignite a yearslong debate over the merits of maintaining U.S. bases in such close proximity to an adversary like Iran. Some national security officials, including some serving in the Trump administration, have for years pushed to move U.S. bases in the region further east and away from Tehran’s reaches. The issue also could embolden critics of America’s military presence overseas who have advocated for shrinking the U.S. presence in the Middle East, one U.S. official and one person familiar with the matter said. The three U.S. officials familiar with the damage to U.S. bases in the Middle East described it as extensive. The headquarters building for the U.S. Navy in Bahrain, the nerve center for the Navy’s operations in the region, sustained serious damage, the officials said. They said other parts of the base in Bahrain also suffered significant damage that is likely repairable.
Multiple hangars and warehouses at Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait also were struck, according to the American Enterprise Institute’s unofficial assessment that was reviewed by NBC News. The assessment also shows a munitions storage facility at a military base in Erbil in northern Iraq was damaged and a runway at the sprawling Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar was destroyed.
U.S. bases had been cleared of U.S. troops and other personnel, so many of the bases were left essentially empty and vulnerable to attack by Iranian missiles and drones. Many of the troops who were temporarily relocated are expected to return to the bases once tensions in the region subside.
Thirteen U.S. troops have been killed in the conflict and as many as 400 have been wounded, although more than 90% have returned to duty, according to the U.S. military. The Pentagon has refused to provide specifics, but during an April 8 briefing, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine said the U.S. and partners in the Gulf region intercepted 1,700 ballistic missiles and one-way attack drones during the war. A fourth U.S. official said only a fraction of the projectiles actually got through the U.S. and ally defenses.
Congress is considering legislation to support the cost of the war, including unspecified repairs and other costs in a so-called supplemental bill that could exceed $100 billion, according to two of the U.S. officials and two other people familiar with the matter.
According to the AEI’s assessment, Iran hit more than 100 targets across 11 bases in seven Gulf countries. Those attacks fell on U.S. and host-nation bases in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
“As part of Epic Fury, the potential future costs to rebuild American military infrastructure overseas may include repair, reconstruction, outright replacement, or even abandonment/decommissioning of locales,” Mackenzie Eaglen, a senior fellow at AEI, said in a statement about the group’s assessment. “War damage also includes estimated costs for infrastructure that is unsalvageable.”
Eaglen’s cost estimate for repairing the infrastructure is more than $5 billion, but that amount does not account for some of the radar systems, weapons systems, aircraft and other equipment destroyed in the Iranian strikes, she said. Eaglen has worked on defense and budgetary and military readiness issues for years and is a former Pentagon official.
The Iranians damaged at least two air defense systems in the region, according to the U.S. officials.
Iran has also destroyed U.S. military aircraft. NBC News reported that at least one fighter jet, more than a dozen MQ-9 Reaper drones, two MC-130 tankers and four helicopters known as “little birds” were also destroyed.
Additional helicopters, tankers, an E-3 Sentry plane and two more helicopters known as Jolly Greens were also damaged, according to U.S. officials and information provided during a Pentagon briefing.
Radar systems in the UAE and a satellite communication system in Bahrain were also damaged the U.S. officials said, but it’s not clear whether Bahrain or the UAE would cover the cost of those systems.
https://old.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1svdezz/iran_ca...
now.
Their war propaganda is so much better than that of the US military.
Lego Trump, soul-crushing tweets, with Trump it is like taking candy from a toddler but still…
I’m glad the US is winning so hard they don’t know what to do about it.
Otherwise, they would look blatantly incompetent on a Russian army 3-day special operation level.
I am seriously no longer concerned about Greenland.
https://thegrayzone.com/2026/01/12/western-media-riots-iran-...
Then perhaps Israel has surmised that the US might not be interested in sticking around and decided to make their play while they had an ally in the White House.
Study the links between the American military industrial complex and Evangelical Christianity, in particularly the latter's view of Israel's role in end-times prophecy, and you'll get your answer.
To be fair to the ancient book, at that time it would have been understood by intellectuals that it's not a prediction of future events, it's a message to them about their past and present, not a message to us about our future. So us blaming the book, not the crazy people is the same mistake as if we were screaming at the author of "Don't Create the Torment Nexus". The author was writing fiction, the critics knew it was fiction, most of the readers knew it was fiction, the problem is that billionaire tech bro who thought it was a message from God telling them they need to spend $100Bn to create a Torment Nexus.
We live in batshit times.
My personal preference would have been that the US had built it's bases in the same manor is Iran or better. At least I think we could have possibly done better. Keeping most infrastructure under ground means less dependency on power for cooling, more surface land for other functions. Maybe put some earth-bermed greenhouses on the surface and grow some produce for the locals.
I should add that one way to think of it is that Iran built those amazing underground missile cities just for the US to take over. It won't be easy and there will be mass casualties but I think that since we paid for them we should annex them. Some countries in northern Europe have similar underground bases. I would love to visit them. The closest to that I have been inside was NORAD.
It's not up to either of us but to your point I suspect that will occur regardless of what you or I desire. We stepped into the bog of eternal stench that is country #7 Iran. This has been planned for a very long time but every president has been able to back out of it.
Trump started it and only has authorization for about another 5 business days but I suspect congress will begrudgingly approve bipartisan authorization to not only keep our soldiers on the ground but to send another 500k to 700k as anything less would likely be ineffective against their defenses. This can not be solved by technology alone. I can only hope that we undo what we created 50 years ago and give Iran back to it's people and stop the endless proxy wars. Since I can spend hope it's free and nearly meaningless I also hope we welcome our soldiers back with more dignity than we did for the Vietnam veterans this time.
Obviously not me personally but is absolutely up to the USA that created the current Iranian government to do so. We made the mess and should clean up the mess. Iran used to be one of the top five most technologically advanced countries and one of the most progressive countries in the middle east up until the point we twerked it up by putting zealots in power and repeatedly funding them.
Yes, exactly this. The US (CIA) and Britain (MI5) were playing let's topple a government and this was the outcome. Even if indirect the end result is that we created the current mess. What I stated holds true.
Do you really think the US can achieve anything positive by putting troops on the ground?
I did not say that. I said that is the only way the desired end result is going to happen and that toppling them through technology will not work such as air strikes, electronic warfare and such. There will be mass casualties, I said that.
Have you learned nothing from Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or Korea?
It is not up to me to learn something. If it were up to me there never would have been any kinetic wars at all. I prefer to start with economic warfare and then use discreet covert operations until they succeed. It takes longer but people are impatient and greedy. That's not my fault as far as I know.
I've enjoyed our conversation but I must get back on the gaming machine and sink some pirate ships to get my reputation up with the Brethren. Perhaps we can pick this back up tomorrow.