I don't think thats correct. If I'm reading this right, a Chinese tanker heading to and from a Saudi port would theoretically be allowed passage by both sides.
Middle East Defence & Security
- Thread starter MaenZ
- Start date
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
^ Yes, of course. I now mean a Chinese vessel carrying Iranian oil since the CENtCOM changed the context of the previous assumption. We will see what happens.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Went to Costco today for beer and the pump lineup for gas sucked so I went home and enjoyed the beer.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
Lol. Sounds about right and probably my plan as well. The trick here is to go 15-30 minutes before closing. Usually empty. Didn’t work in Ontario though.
Rescission is the fastest way for any government to lose power. Economic misery almost always leads to political turnover, social unrest, and the rise of populist movements that elites actually fear because they lose control of the narrative.
Inflation is a double edged sword for debt. It’s true that inflation "inflates away" the value of old debt, but it also makes new borrowing incredibly expensive. Trump would know this better than us.
Bondholders quickly demand higher interest rates to compensate for inflation, which can actually make a government's total debt burden less manageable in the long run. High energy prices don't just hurt households; they crush the industries that the "elites" rely on for profit. When manufacturing and trade slow down due to energy costs, corporate margins shrink and tax revenues fall, leaving the government with even less money to manage that "uncontrollable debt".
Most economists argue that the global economy is too vast and chaotic for any small group to perfectly "goal" a specific crisis. External shocks like the war in Ukraine or supply chain shifts are often cited as the real drivers that caught leaders off guard; Five reasons why your power bills are sky high–and how we can help bring them down | Climate Council.
It often feels like they are "evil" because the consequences of their mistakes are so devastating for regular people, while they remain insulated from the winter bills and grocery prices they've helped create. The "evil" or "incompetent" view isn't just about people it's about a system that has run out of roads. It could be debt, money or resources that bring the whole thing down.
"Collapse is considered a breakup of institutions and entire socio-economies says Wolfram Elsner is Professor of Economics (retired). Collapse has accompanied socio-economic history, but seems to have become more topical again in recent decades."
Whether viewed as a cautionary tale from the past or a looming shadow over our future, the study of collapse serves as a vital reminder: the systems we depend on are only as resilient as the foundations we choose to protect.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
As to my question yesterday, Chinese explicitly state that they are intending to keep buying Iranian oil:
Their Ministry of Foreign Affairs made a similar statement. We will see what happens. Today, only one oil-related vessel (at least with transponders on, though over the past few weeks these numbers are mostly confirmed by the satellite-obsessed guys)) passed through the strait, Chinese from UAE:
US Energy Secretary anticipates traffic normalization in the coming weeks:
His anticipation is probably related to this:
Trump gave Iran another two weeks (he really likes a fortnight) today to make a deal, but went “soft”, without civilization and the like, just bad consequences or whatever he said. Reports also indicated today that the deal the Americans were offering in Islamabad to Iran is freeze on any enrichment for 20 years, while Iran insisted on 5. I guess the common conclusion is no enrichment period is off the table. Some expressed outrage about that, including Senator Graham, FDD, this guy:
He also has a strategy to achieve his goal::
Israel, via its ambassador to Italy, strongly condemns the reality and says it is hard to prove whether it is AI or real in the comments to the post:
The photo used for the cover:
To his credit, he didn’t play the antisemite card. Others did though. A little on that and the opposing views, as well the cover itself, can be read here:
www.wantedinrome.com
Some photos stick through time, like the Terror of War (aka The Napalm Girl), The Tank Man, etc because they capture only a moment in history but depict an entire period.
Edit: Of note, Wright’s “in the coming weeks” is too late for the seeding season in North America.
Their Ministry of Foreign Affairs made a similar statement. We will see what happens. Today, only one oil-related vessel (at least with transponders on, though over the past few weeks these numbers are mostly confirmed by the satellite-obsessed guys)) passed through the strait, Chinese from UAE:
US Energy Secretary anticipates traffic normalization in the coming weeks:
His anticipation is probably related to this:
Trump gave Iran another two weeks (he really likes a fortnight) today to make a deal, but went “soft”, without civilization and the like, just bad consequences or whatever he said. Reports also indicated today that the deal the Americans were offering in Islamabad to Iran is freeze on any enrichment for 20 years, while Iran insisted on 5. I guess the common conclusion is no enrichment period is off the table. Some expressed outrage about that, including Senator Graham, FDD, this guy:
He also has a strategy to achieve his goal::
Israel, via its ambassador to Italy, strongly condemns the reality and says it is hard to prove whether it is AI or real in the comments to the post:
The photo used for the cover:
To his credit, he didn’t play the antisemite card. Others did though. A little on that and the opposing views, as well the cover itself, can be read here:
L'Espresso Cover on West Bank Abuses Draws Enraged Response from Israel
L'Espresso's cover depicting an Israeli settler filming a Palestinian woman has drawn a furious response from Israel's ambassador to Italy, who called it manipulative and hateful. The magazine has not backed down.
www.wantedinrome.com
Some photos stick through time, like the Terror of War (aka The Napalm Girl), The Tank Man, etc because they capture only a moment in history but depict an entire period.
Edit: Of note, Wright’s “in the coming weeks” is too late for the seeding season in North America.
Last edited:
They are trying to Blame shifting because they fired for the N° time on Italian UN mission
Italy summons Israeli ambassador after shots fired at UN in Lebanon | Reuters
Israel policies, were able to eclipse the Neo-ottoman politics from Turkey(that historically for us italians are kinda more dangerous since we share the same sphere of influence, and viceversa for them), sometimes i catch myself thinking positively of Ankara...and i realize how ridiculous is the situation.
Italy summons Israeli ambassador after shots fired at UN in Lebanon | Reuters
Israel policies, were able to eclipse the Neo-ottoman politics from Turkey(that historically for us italians are kinda more dangerous since we share the same sphere of influence, and viceversa for them), sometimes i catch myself thinking positively of Ankara...and i realize how ridiculous is the situation.
The one thing i am wondering. Why would they not do what they do now ?
There is no country that is ready to build any other infrastructure than Fossil Fuels.
They will pay whatever price you ask from them and never look other options.
The only thing that will change is that they whine more, but they will pay whatever you ask after you are in a position to dictate the market.
So why not do it ?
There is absolutely no downside in it. No one will even attempt to build any other infrastructure no matter what you do so that option is out of the table. The demand on Fossil Fuels will only go up no matter what you do so what you do can not alter the rise of demand. It can only alter the available supply, which you are able to control.
You can whine all you want that what you do is this and that. But you will never start to seek other options than Fossil Fuel. So who is the one to blame ? The one who asks you now more, or the one who always pays whatever they ask, and never even think of other options ?
So what if gallon of fuel will cost you 20 dollar. Would you not pay it ? You will. And then you will double down on it, and buy your son a combustion engine too.
And then if you have a famine because of the fuel price, you will still do nothing, and only action you take is whine about it and pay what they ask.
So why exactly should they not be doing this, if the whole world will eat from their hand no matter what they do ?
1. Sanction all other parties that sell oil.
2. Conquer any other places that produce oil.
3. If you cannot conquer a place that produce and sell oil, then destroy their oil infrastructure, blockade them and make them destroy all other regional infrastructure from your competitors that also sell oil.
Check. You control now all of the oil market and the rest of the world, even those places that do not produce oil, will only answer on starting to build more fossil fuel infrastructure for you. The demand only grows and you are the one dictating the market.
In a way, they are not the cause in this. But you, consumers are.
You have exactly two options in your mind:
1. Pay what they ask.
2. First whine, and then pay what they ask.
There is no country that is ready to build any other infrastructure than Fossil Fuels.
They will pay whatever price you ask from them and never look other options.
The only thing that will change is that they whine more, but they will pay whatever you ask after you are in a position to dictate the market.
So why not do it ?
There is absolutely no downside in it. No one will even attempt to build any other infrastructure no matter what you do so that option is out of the table. The demand on Fossil Fuels will only go up no matter what you do so what you do can not alter the rise of demand. It can only alter the available supply, which you are able to control.
You can whine all you want that what you do is this and that. But you will never start to seek other options than Fossil Fuel. So who is the one to blame ? The one who asks you now more, or the one who always pays whatever they ask, and never even think of other options ?
So what if gallon of fuel will cost you 20 dollar. Would you not pay it ? You will. And then you will double down on it, and buy your son a combustion engine too.
And then if you have a famine because of the fuel price, you will still do nothing, and only action you take is whine about it and pay what they ask.
So why exactly should they not be doing this, if the whole world will eat from their hand no matter what they do ?
1. Sanction all other parties that sell oil.
2. Conquer any other places that produce oil.
3. If you cannot conquer a place that produce and sell oil, then destroy their oil infrastructure, blockade them and make them destroy all other regional infrastructure from your competitors that also sell oil.
Check. You control now all of the oil market and the rest of the world, even those places that do not produce oil, will only answer on starting to build more fossil fuel infrastructure for you. The demand only grows and you are the one dictating the market.
In a way, they are not the cause in this. But you, consumers are.
You have exactly two options in your mind:
1. Pay what they ask.
2. First whine, and then pay what they ask.
Last edited:
rsemmes
Active Member
The US can add a $238 million Triton.The War Zone stating there appears to be the wreckage of two Little Birds, either MH-6s or AH-6s at the crash site.
Night Stalker AH-6 Little Bird Helicopters Destroyed At Forward Landing Site In Iran
At least one burned-out AH/MH-6 Little Bird can be seen in photos of the austere airfield that served as a hub for the rescue of the F-15E WSO.www.twz.com
View attachment 54642
So likely tally of aircraft lossed/damaged in this rescue are.
Two MC-130Js destroyed.
Two AH-6s/Mh-6s destroyed.
One A-10 shot down.
Two HH-60H CSAR Helicopters damaged but managed to fly out of Iran.
Plus or Minus second A-10 which may have been damaged but able to get to Kuwait to land.
"As previously reported by the EurAsian Times, the US lost three F-15E Strike Eagles shot down in a friendly-fire incident over Kuwait, another F-15E that was downed by Iran, one A-10 Warthog that was part of the rescue mission over Iran, one E-3G Sentry AWACS, two MC-130J transport planes that had to be destroyed in Iran after they failed to take off, and at least 14-15 MQ-9 Reaper drones. In addition, seven aircraft have been damaged, including one F-35, one F-16, and five KC-135 tankers."
U.S. Navy Confirms Loss of $240 Million MQ-4C Triton Drone; Classifies it CLASS ‘A’ Flight Mishap
The US Navy has officially confirmed the loss of an MQ-4C Triton unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Interestingly, the Triton was not lost in combat but rather days after the US-Iran ceasefire took effect. On April 9, MQ-4C Triton high-altitude long-endurance (HALE) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)...
www.eurasiantimes.com
rsemmes
Active Member
You mean the +100 girls?
I'm reasonably confident he's talking about hardware losses, since it's a reply to a count of US hardware losses. Iran lost aircraft in this war, but Iran clearly still has flyable aircraft. We've recently seen some in the sky, during the ceasefire. I'm also reasonably confident you know that this isn't what he was asking about.
rsemmes
Active Member
True.
It was also reasonable to think that he knows that, with Iran being hit by the US (and Israel), its losses (in all categories) are extremely high. What is (not that) surprising is the US taking those losses; unless, of course, someone actually expected the US not taking losses at all.
Can we compare the US to Russia? Can we compare Iran to Ukraine? The situation is different but, at what safe distance from Iranian naval missiles is the US keeping its ships? It seems that, at least, that lesson was learnt.
It is obvious that military combat operations will increase fatigue, accidents an opportunities for incompetence, so: losses. Even without combat losses, the US has a carrier under repair and just lost a very expensive drone.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
Nuclear dust, I am assuming, refers to the stuff that was not obliterated after all.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
Freudian slip there:
Funny. Almost as good as this one a few years ago:
Edit: People are quick, lol.
Another edit: “They agreed to everything” (c) Trump.
Funny because true:
Funny. Almost as good as this one a few years ago:
Edit: People are quick, lol.
Another edit: “They agreed to everything” (c) Trump.
Funny because true:
Last edited:
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
3 european cruise ships (MSC EURIBIA, MEIN SCHIFF 4 and MEIN SCHIFF 5) just left the Gulf.
NOW is the time to do "NIGHT TIME" Air Drops (parachute) of small arms and ammo all over the civilian residential neighborhoods in Tehran and other locations. It doesn't matter if the arms land in their streets, yards or on their roof tops. Hand guns, semi auto rifles, grenade launchers and sniper rifles would enable the Iranian people to cause great chaos and casualties to the IRGC. It is the last thing that the IRGC would be expecting. The answer to ending the regime has to come from within from an armed population. They are 90 million "BOOTS" on the ground. ARM them. Let them fight for their freedom. We cannot just leave them to the mercy of another regime. They have been slaughtered by the thousands. Seeing family and friends butchered by this regime gives them the motivation and hate for the regime to fight to the death. Put yourself in their place. I would be praying for weapons to come raining down like manna from heaven. They can truly break the regime and IRGC. ARM THEM! In addition, I don't understand why we haven't carpet bombed all along the shore areas along the Straight of Hormus. I am a Marine Vietnam vet. Air drops of arms and ammo were commonplace in Vietnam. If it worked there, it will surely work in Tehran and other cities in Iran. I can only hope that someone reading this will see the sense in this and get it to someone that will take action on it. Arms through an intermediary was not smart. What I am proposing is.
MARKMILES77
Well-Known Member
Likely why the US is very keen not to restart hostilities.
CSIS has done research on remaining U.S. critical missile stocks.
Another period of fighting would completely empty inventories for some missile types, SM3, THAAD and Patriot.
www.csis.org
CSIS has done research on remaining U.S. critical missile stocks.
Another period of fighting would completely empty inventories for some missile types, SM3, THAAD and Patriot.
Last Rounds? Status of Key Munitions at the Iran War Ceasefire
The United States has depleted its missile inventories but still has enough to continue fighting this war under any plausible scenario. The risk is with future wars—particularly against a peer competitor like China.
I have hard time believing that is really true.
The US must have a larger stockpile.
For example, when the EU industries gets their act together, they will have similar assets in inventory by hundreds of thousands, if not even millions.
Even US is talking about producing Cruise Missiles at scale, to have a stockpile of millions of them.
Are the US really floating around the world with this kind of inventory ?
Then the majority of their force projection must really come from NATO, and not the US itself. Which makes it even more crazy to demand the dissolve of NATO on their behalf. With this kind of inventory, they would be very hard pressed to even take on Russia. I now believe that Russian person more who i was arguing, would they win US in war. He was adamant that US would have no chance against Russia in US vs Russia war. Somehow it all seems more believable if this information is correct. The US might actually lose to Russia because they dont have the inventory. Which might be the reason why they avoid confronting or angering them in any way, its as if they fear them. Maybe because they do not believe that they could win against Russia ? And if they do not believe they can win against Russia, how can they think they would fare against China, which is way more dangerous than Russia ? But when you think about it, they do seem to be very on the edge with China. It wont matter how good your interceptors are, if you run out of them and your new stockpile is zero. Your carrier strike groups are then sunk, and your infrsatructure, and industry is destroyed. And then they are left to make threats with their Nuclear Arsenal ?
How could US have deterred Soviet Union alone, which was way more powerful than Russia now. If they do not seem to even fare against Russia at the moment ? What kind of decline have happened in the US military ?
There is also information, that more than half of their troops are Latin American or African men by origin. What if they suddenly decide, that their loyalties lies elsewhere ?
And how could they draft more people, if most of their populace are overweight, and have diabetes or other health problems ? Many of them are so fat, that they wont even fit on those fighter jets.
How many soldiers they could actually muster ? Are their current army and army reserve the current limit that they could mobilize ?
Should they not get their act together, and somehow address these issues. Given, if they want to pose as the strongest military in the world, who can alone, deter two strong adversaries. I have seen their documents. They for real think that they can wage war in two fronts alone so, that they win one strong adversary in short period of time and then move their troops to support the other front. Meaning for example, they seriously might think, that they first for example, crush an adversary like Russia at ease in short period of time and then win China alone without any support from anyone else. With this kind of inventory, its hard to see that happening.
If this information is true. They are crazy to provoke the end of NATO. And it is also understandable why they only go against countries like Venezuela and Iran. And then avoid countries like Russia, China and even North Korea like plague. Because a country like Iran is the limit of their actual capabilities ?
The way they float themself. The dissolve of NATO would be a major disaster for the US.
I do believe, that the EU might be even now, a stronger actual military force than the US. And in the future, they will be stronger than US for certain. I believed so even without this information. And then lets say, that the NATO is dissolved. Then the US would have only 1/3 of their current Force Projection.
How i understand. Its actually the opposite way. EU could enforce leverage over US on threatening to leave NATO, and then demand things from US to make them stay. But i also do think, that EU is somewhat blind on their own military potential. And have been used to be in kind of under the US spell of believing, that they cannot manage on their own and for this reason, somehow owe them.
It is the US that fears Russia. I do not think that EU fears Russia as much as the US do. I do also believe, that the EU dont fear, or have no reason to fear China either. At least not as much than US. When you start to think about it, US might have a lot of insecurities and a lot of fear towards their adversaries.
At 2022 and 2023 time frame, Europe feared Russia way more than US. But it seems like the tide have shifted. EU have accustomed to Russian threats, and the fear is mostly gone, when in the US, the fear have been rising all the time and seems now to dominate their foreign policy, and forcing them on a stance of appeasement towards Russia. Somehow it shifted like this, and now the Fear of Russia seems to be in the US.
So how is it really like this, that the strongest military in the world is actually:
#1 China
#2 Russia
#3 US
And then most likely, North Korea.
And then if you take into account their allies, the #1 would be NATO. But the US without NATO would lose to China and Russia both.
It also seems, that the US under Joe Biden and under the Democrats was way more resilient, and could stand up against stronger adversaries than the Administration they have now. The Rebublicans might actually have more fear than the Democrats, and might actually be weaker. They put on a show of front, but do they actually have the conviction to back it up for real ?
How it seems to me, that under the Rebublican leadership, the US actually grows weaker.
Democrats do not fear Russia, but Rebublicans for certainly seem to. Democrats did not fear Iran either, and the Rebublicans for certainly dont fear them. But that seems to be the limit on what the US under Rebublicans can do. They can only take on Iran, but must avoid Russia because in their mind, Russia is stronger than them. In Democrat mind, or how it seems to me, Russia is at least equal to US, if not weaker.
It is also a strange thing. The US populace who vote for the Rebublicans might believe to be voting for Strength. When they are actually voting for Weakness. Who barks the loudest, might not actually always be the strongest one. And sometimes they do bark out of fear.
No this cannot be true. I have some old documents that state them having more than 10 000 patriot missiles in service. And that is only in service, not the reserve stockpile. Where have they all gone ? And they did not give to Ukraine that much during the last administration and have produced more since the document as it is old. I really dont think they have disassembled them either, as US is in no habit to do that but rather move them to reserve stockpiles. This is probably some selected information made on propaganda purpose ? To generate the exact reaction i just typed out earlier. On purpose of people starting to underestimate the US stockpiles, lowering their imagined force projection.
Maybe this is their active service stockpile at some moment, but not taking into account their reserve stockpile ?
The US must have a larger stockpile.
For example, when the EU industries gets their act together, they will have similar assets in inventory by hundreds of thousands, if not even millions.
Even US is talking about producing Cruise Missiles at scale, to have a stockpile of millions of them.
Are the US really floating around the world with this kind of inventory ?
Then the majority of their force projection must really come from NATO, and not the US itself. Which makes it even more crazy to demand the dissolve of NATO on their behalf. With this kind of inventory, they would be very hard pressed to even take on Russia. I now believe that Russian person more who i was arguing, would they win US in war. He was adamant that US would have no chance against Russia in US vs Russia war. Somehow it all seems more believable if this information is correct. The US might actually lose to Russia because they dont have the inventory. Which might be the reason why they avoid confronting or angering them in any way, its as if they fear them. Maybe because they do not believe that they could win against Russia ? And if they do not believe they can win against Russia, how can they think they would fare against China, which is way more dangerous than Russia ? But when you think about it, they do seem to be very on the edge with China. It wont matter how good your interceptors are, if you run out of them and your new stockpile is zero. Your carrier strike groups are then sunk, and your infrsatructure, and industry is destroyed. And then they are left to make threats with their Nuclear Arsenal ?
How could US have deterred Soviet Union alone, which was way more powerful than Russia now. If they do not seem to even fare against Russia at the moment ? What kind of decline have happened in the US military ?
There is also information, that more than half of their troops are Latin American or African men by origin. What if they suddenly decide, that their loyalties lies elsewhere ?
And how could they draft more people, if most of their populace are overweight, and have diabetes or other health problems ? Many of them are so fat, that they wont even fit on those fighter jets.
How many soldiers they could actually muster ? Are their current army and army reserve the current limit that they could mobilize ?
Should they not get their act together, and somehow address these issues. Given, if they want to pose as the strongest military in the world, who can alone, deter two strong adversaries. I have seen their documents. They for real think that they can wage war in two fronts alone so, that they win one strong adversary in short period of time and then move their troops to support the other front. Meaning for example, they seriously might think, that they first for example, crush an adversary like Russia at ease in short period of time and then win China alone without any support from anyone else. With this kind of inventory, its hard to see that happening.
If this information is true. They are crazy to provoke the end of NATO. And it is also understandable why they only go against countries like Venezuela and Iran. And then avoid countries like Russia, China and even North Korea like plague. Because a country like Iran is the limit of their actual capabilities ?
The way they float themself. The dissolve of NATO would be a major disaster for the US.
I do believe, that the EU might be even now, a stronger actual military force than the US. And in the future, they will be stronger than US for certain. I believed so even without this information. And then lets say, that the NATO is dissolved. Then the US would have only 1/3 of their current Force Projection.
How i understand. Its actually the opposite way. EU could enforce leverage over US on threatening to leave NATO, and then demand things from US to make them stay. But i also do think, that EU is somewhat blind on their own military potential. And have been used to be in kind of under the US spell of believing, that they cannot manage on their own and for this reason, somehow owe them.
It is the US that fears Russia. I do not think that EU fears Russia as much as the US do. I do also believe, that the EU dont fear, or have no reason to fear China either. At least not as much than US. When you start to think about it, US might have a lot of insecurities and a lot of fear towards their adversaries.
At 2022 and 2023 time frame, Europe feared Russia way more than US. But it seems like the tide have shifted. EU have accustomed to Russian threats, and the fear is mostly gone, when in the US, the fear have been rising all the time and seems now to dominate their foreign policy, and forcing them on a stance of appeasement towards Russia. Somehow it shifted like this, and now the Fear of Russia seems to be in the US.
So how is it really like this, that the strongest military in the world is actually:
#1 China
#2 Russia
#3 US
And then most likely, North Korea.
And then if you take into account their allies, the #1 would be NATO. But the US without NATO would lose to China and Russia both.
It also seems, that the US under Joe Biden and under the Democrats was way more resilient, and could stand up against stronger adversaries than the Administration they have now. The Rebublicans might actually have more fear than the Democrats, and might actually be weaker. They put on a show of front, but do they actually have the conviction to back it up for real ?
How it seems to me, that under the Rebublican leadership, the US actually grows weaker.
Democrats do not fear Russia, but Rebublicans for certainly seem to. Democrats did not fear Iran either, and the Rebublicans for certainly dont fear them. But that seems to be the limit on what the US under Rebublicans can do. They can only take on Iran, but must avoid Russia because in their mind, Russia is stronger than them. In Democrat mind, or how it seems to me, Russia is at least equal to US, if not weaker.
It is also a strange thing. The US populace who vote for the Rebublicans might believe to be voting for Strength. When they are actually voting for Weakness. Who barks the loudest, might not actually always be the strongest one. And sometimes they do bark out of fear.
No this cannot be true. I have some old documents that state them having more than 10 000 patriot missiles in service. And that is only in service, not the reserve stockpile. Where have they all gone ? And they did not give to Ukraine that much during the last administration and have produced more since the document as it is old. I really dont think they have disassembled them either, as US is in no habit to do that but rather move them to reserve stockpiles. This is probably some selected information made on propaganda purpose ? To generate the exact reaction i just typed out earlier. On purpose of people starting to underestimate the US stockpiles, lowering their imagined force projection.
Maybe this is their active service stockpile at some moment, but not taking into account their reserve stockpile ?
Last edited:
MARKMILES77
Well-Known Member
NBC News reporting that their sources tell them that damage to US bases in the Middle East was far more extensive than reported.
The number of aircraft destroyed/damaged in the attacks is in the dozens.
Interestingly an Iranian F5 managed to bomb one of the bases!
www.nbcnews.com
The number of aircraft destroyed/damaged in the attacks is in the dozens.
Interestingly an Iranian F5 managed to bomb one of the bases!
Iran caused more extensive damage to U.S. military bases than publicly known
U.S. bases and equipment across the Middle East came under attack — including from an Iranian F-5, despite American air defenses — and repairs could cost billions of dollars.