Iran's missiles intended to 'kill personnel' in Iraq, Pentagon says

[War Thunder]

Pentagon officials believe that the more than a dozen missiles launched at two bases in Iraq housing U.S. forces Tuesday night were designed to kill Americans, but the Iranian efforts were thwarted by the military's Early Warning Systems, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters on Wednesday.

“I believe based on what I saw and what I know is that they were intended to cause structural damage, destroy vehicles and equipment and aircraft and to kill personnel," Milley said.

U.S. military officials were warned about Iran's pending ballistic missile strike "when the air defense systems went active," he said.

President Trump, Vice President Pence and senior White House advisers Tuesday evening in the Situation Room. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

Milley added that “a little bit of early warning” and “normal defensive procedures” at Al-Assad Air Base prevented American troops from being killed in the missile strike.

US MILITARY HAD ADVANCE WARNING OF IRANIAN BALLISTIC MISSILE ATTACK, OFFICIALS SAY

“In my estimation from what I know now, I think it has more to do with the defensive techniques that our forces used as opposed to intent,” Milley said, adding that U.S. forces "took sufficient defensive measures.”

Speaking to reporters after a returning from a briefing with Congress, Esper said that the 16 short-range ballistic missiles (originally estimated to be 15), were fired from three locations inside Iran during the attack early Wednesday local time, and were intended to avenge the death of Iranian Quds Force Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who was killed in a U.S.-led drone strike at Baghdad International Airport last week.

Video
Milley said that between 1,000- to 2,000-pound warheads were sitting on top of the Iranian missiles fired into Iraq.

The defense secretary also said he believes the U.S. has reestablished deterrence from another Iranian attack but added that he expects to be challenged by Shiite proxy militias in the region.

Esper confirmed that the missiles hit two military bases -- the Al-Assad Air Base and a separate military base in Erbil, which house U.S. forces in Iraq. Eleven of those missiles hit Al-Assad and one hit Erbil. Four of the missiles malfunctioned and failed to hit their target.

The damage at the bases was largely contained to “tentage, taxiways, the parking lot, damaged helicopter, things like that, nothing I would describe as major,” Esper said.

Video
Pentagon officials met with President Trump twice in the past 24 hours following the attack, Esper said. Trump announced earlier Wednesday in a nine-minute address to the nation that he would be imposing even more sanctions on Iran in response to the attack.

Democrats on Capitol Hill criticized Trump's initial decision to take out Soelimani without first consulting Congress or allies in the region, which has led to escalating tensions in the Middle East, and have since demanded answers from the administration about the alleged imminent threat that sparked the Soleimani attack, and how Trump will de-escalate the tensions with Iran and keep Americans safe.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced plans for the House to vote Thursday on a War Powers Resolution that aims to limit Trump's military action toward Iran, saying Democrats have “serious, urgent concerns about the administration’s decision to engage in hostilities against Iran and about its lack of strategy moving forward.”

President Trump and administration officials monitored the Iran strikes in the White House Situation Room on Tuesday night. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressed concerns coming out of Wednesday's Iran briefing about the administration bypassing Congress' approval for military escalations.

“Most members of Congress do not have access to the intelligence that I think is the most compelling. That’s simply the nature of the intelligence and it’s restricted the Gang of 8,” Esper said, referring to the term for the bipartisan group of eight lawmakers who are briefed on classified intelligence matters.


https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-missile-attack-iraq-intended-kill-pentagon

 

[War Thunder]

 

[Dante80]

That is a pretty slick way of changing your tune for propaganda purposes in the space of three hours or so.
It seems to me that in this debacle every actor is literally wearing clown shoes.

 

[War Thunder]

That is a pretty slick way of changing your tune for propaganda purposes in the space of three hours or so.
It seems to me that in this debacle every actor is literally wearing clown shoes.

Check the other thread I posted. Iranians hit them hard and in the right spots.
Early warnings might have helped them evacuate but that doesn't mean the infrastructure was left as is and damage is done regardless of who accepts and who doesn't.
I believe its just trump being the clown now and shying away from the war he was so eager to open his mouth about.

 

[Crystal-Clear]

Check the other thread I posted. Iranians hit them hard and in the right spots.
Early warnings might have helped them evacuate but that doesn't mean the infrastructure was left as is and damage is done regardless of who accepts and who doesn't.
I believe its just trump being the clown now and shying away from the war he was so eager to open his mouth about.

so thats the price of soleimani a damage foriegn airbase . .
.
.
what will be the price for khomeini ? a damaged foreign naval base?

 

[Dante80]

so thats the price of soleimani a damage foriegn airbase . .
.
.
what will be the price for khomeini ? a damaged foreign naval base?

You do understand that if Iran actually chose to escalate it would have been a very bad thing for the region, right? Including Pakistan.

 

[SIPRA]

so thats the price of soleimani a damage foriegn airbase . .
.
.
what will be the price for khomeini ? a damaged foreign naval base?

In geopolitics, often, one's choices are limited.

 

[Jungibaaz]

US propaganda machine is stunning to behold when it’s in full swing like this. If they intended to kill anyone, there would have been casualties, just how many casualties depends on how many that wanted to inflict. Since there are no casualties, there was probably no intent.

This is the same as Indian propaganda when we saw precise calculated misses of our strikes on Feb 27 and they started spinning it as PAF missing it’s mark or attempts to cause casualties ‘thwarted’ etc.

so thats the price of soleimani a damage foriegn airbase . .
.
.
what will be the price for khomeini ? a damaged foreign naval base?

Iran is playing it well and should not go overboard. They have just won a massive political and global image victory over the US, same as we managed with Feb 27 but on a much grander scale.

If they play it safe, and do not escalate. They can show their restraint and make the US look like the belligerent war monger that it is. If they escalate, it’s a game they can’t win and they’ll pay the price every time.

 

[Enigma SIG]

US propaganda machine is stunning to behold when it’s in full swing like this. If they intended to kill anyone, there would have been casualties, just how many casualties depends on how many that wanted to inflict. Since there are no casualties, there was probably no intent.

This is the same as Indian propaganda when we saw precise calculated misses of our strikes on Feb 27 and they started spinning it as PAF missing it’s mark or attempts to cause casualties ‘thwarted’ etc.


Iran is playing it well and should not go overboard. They have just won a massive political and global image victory over the US, same as we managed with Feb 27 but on a much grander scale.

If they play it safe, and do not escalate. They can show their restraint and make the US look like the belligerent war monger that it is. If they escalate, it’s a game they can’t win and they’ll pay the price every time.

Kinda like how India went back to the drawing board after the February debacle. The message delivered by Pakistan targeting their HQ and not blowing it up was that we can deliver a punch if pushed into a corner.

 

[R Wing]

Check the other thread I posted. Iranians hit them hard and in the right spots.
Early warnings might have helped them evacuate but that doesn't mean the infrastructure was left as is and damage is done regardless of who accepts and who doesn't.
I believe its just trump being the clown now and shying away from the war he was so eager to open his mouth about.

People seem to forget the symbolism here; this is the first time since WW2 that a sovereign nation has directly attacked a US installation using its own military. The aura of invincibility is gone. The "god king" can bleed. They used sophisticated EW to jam the Patriot's phased array radars --- this makes a lot of US bases suddenly look much more vulnerable. It was brilliant. Just the right amount of force.

US propaganda machine is stunning to behold when it’s in full swing like this. If they intended to kill anyone, there would have been casualties, just how many casualties depends on how many that wanted to inflict. Since there are no casualties, there was probably no intent.

This is the same as Indian propaganda when we saw precise calculated misses of our strikes on Feb 27 and they started spinning it as PAF missing it’s mark or attempts to cause casualties ‘thwarted’ etc.


Iran is playing it well and should not go overboard. They have just won a massive political and global image victory over the US, same as we managed with Feb 27 but on a much grander scale.

If they play it safe, and do not escalate. They can show their restraint and make the US look like the belligerent war monger that it is. If they escalate, it’s a game they can’t win and they’ll pay the price every time.

I totally get the analogy you're trying to make, but there are a few very significant differences:
1.) We didn't have the balls to actually hit Indian bases; our munitions fell outside all base perimeters and therefore gave the Indian propaganda machine very good material with which to spin it as a PAF failure (due to quick interception by the IAF)

2.) Iran did this with the US of f***ing A which can destroy any country on the planet more quickly and aggressively than we can even comprehend; India is a backwater with which we have MAD because of our nuclear triad and second strike capability --- and we still didn't hit their bases (even just an air field or hanger or runway.)

3.) The global propaganda victory is largely meaningless as the mil-industrial complexes of NATO nations need to sell their wares to the India def establishment.

Iran's got balls. We almost do --- but not quite.

Kinda like how India went back to the drawing board after the February debacle. The message delivered by Pakistan targeting their HQ and not blowing it up was that we can deliver a punch if pushed into a corner.

The Indian high command definitely got the message. We should have gone a step further than just locking.

 

[Crystal-Clear]

You do understand that if Iran actually chose to escalate it would have been a very bad thing for the region, right? Including Pakistan.

i do . my only problem is the hype iran created that as if she is going to kill all us personnel present in M.E.

 

[Dante80]

i do . my only problem is the hype iran created that as if she is going to kill all us personnel present in M.E.

Yeah, I think that you hyped yourself though on that. Iran never said that. In broad strokes one could say that the Iranians reacted somewhat competently to the assassination of Suleimani.

1. They accurately targeted and attacked military assets in accordance with Article 51 of the UN charter, as promised. Can you remember the last time an official state did this to the US? We are not talking about proxy wars here, but a direct attack.

2. They informed the Iraqis prior to the attack, with the immediate aim of avoiding any loss of life or symbolic damage to the country's territorial integrity. An indirect purpose for said warning was to alert the US forces to the same.

3. The attack was not a "spray and pray" but showed the Iranian Army's ability to project power across borders (they had already shown this, of course, with the attack on the refinery in S. Arabia). Note that Iranians have literally thousands of ballistic and cruise missiles, with middling to terrific accuracy, depending on the model. They also have the HUMINT assets in Iraq to know exactly where to point them. The fact that there were no victims was no accident.

4. The attack (which should be partly seen as a product for Iran's domestic consumption) has allowed both sides to de-escalate.

5. As Iran has said, the "revenge" will be complete when the US leaves the region. Given the situation in Iraq right now, we are probably heading towards that, one way or the other.

I don't get the "who won, who lost" talk about this. This is not a video game, or a basketball match. The only thing that could or should be said about this, is that the whole world won, at least for now..Because the alternative was war.

 

[Crystal-Clear]

Yeah, I think that you hyped yourself though on that. Iran never said that. In broad strokes one could say that the Iranians reacted somewhat competently to the assassination of Suleimani.

1. They accurately targeted and attacked military assets in accordance with Article 51 of the UN charter, as promised. Can you remember the last time an official state did this to the US? We are not talking about proxy wars here, but a direct attack.

2. They informed the Iraqis prior to the attack, with the immediate aim of avoiding any loss of life or symbolic damage to the country's territorial integrity. An indirect purpose for said warning was to alert the US forces to the same.

3. The attack was not a "spray and pray" but showed the Iranian Army's ability to project power across borders (they had already shown this, of course, with the attack on the refinery in S. Arabia). Note that Iranians have literally thousands of ballistic and cruise missiles, with middling to terrific accuracy, depending on the model. They also have the HUMINT assets in Iraq to know exactly where to point them. The fact that there were no victims was no accident.

4. The attack (which should be partly seen as a product for Iran's domestic consumption) has allowed both sides to de-escalate.

5. As Iran has said, the "revenge" will be complete when the US leaves the region. Given the situation in Iraq right now, we are probably heading towards that, one way or the other.

I don't get the "who won, who lost" talk about this. This is not a video game, or a basketball match. The only thing that could or should be said about this, is that the whole world won, at least for now..Because the alternative was war.

so the summary is . " it was a face saving attack"

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

People seem to forget the symbolism here; this is the first time since WW2 that a sovereign nation has directly attacked a US installation using its own military.

What?? What about all the scuds Saddam launched towards US bases/facilities. They actually killed US personnel.

 

[Dante80]

What?? What about all the scuds Saddam launched towards US bases/facilities. They actually killed US personnel.

That was after Desert Storm started, and a state of war (expiration of resolution 678) existed between Iraq and the coalition. Generally speaking, I don't remember anyone using UN Charter Article 51 to attack US military assets in peacetime. Could be wrong here.