"Iranian-backed factions cause 45 US casualties" Topic

So the US Biden admin and the Biden Pentagon team have been caught lying about US casualties caused by Iranian-controlled factions in Yemen, Syria and Iraq launching drones, mortars and rockets at US bases.

First there were no casualties.
Then there were 21 casualties
Then oopsie it's actually 45 casualties.

So far there have been x38 separate attacks against US troops. Why does Biden's POTUS 44 team continue to downplay Iran's role as the key puppet master in this conflict?

Forty-Five U.S. Troops Report Injury in Iraq, Syria Drone Attacks, More Than Twice the Number Disclosed by Pentagon

link

Were they actually lying, or increasing numbers as they became apparent?
"…an additional 24 troops have *since* reported such injuries"

Hard to say. But this Admin's first impulse is to usually downplay and CYA.

Plus, nothing is done to stop it. Boy, us doing nothing will make Iran stop. We will show them!

1) The injuries evolved over a period of days as Soldiers report symptoms from blast effects.

2) The military has a process to notify family members when there is a casualty and it takes some time.

3) US has responded with strikes that have been reported in the news. And some that are probably not told directly to all of us experts on TMP.

4) You don't want to broadcast the impacts of an attack immediately (casualties or equipment/structure damage). It provides the enemy free BDA so they can plan adjustments to tactics.

Good points, Tanker11.
Inch High Guy and Grattan54 +1

"The injuries evolved over a period of days as Soldiers report symptoms from blast effects."

Time for my early out and a monthly check from the government for the rest of my life… I am not saying every casualty did this, but some injuries are hard to disprove as malingering.

Why isn't Iran a smoking ruin? Never mind, I know.

It is very easy to start a war, but never as easy to get out of one. Personally I prefer when a response is measured and thought out. It is easy to forget the suffering involved in war when playing with minis
Don't interpret this comment as meaning that there should not be response. I just don't like knee jerk reactions.

If casualties have evolved over time it sounds like ears ringing and other "injuries". I also guess that troops took the chance to report even the slightest discomfort as caused by the attack. Better to have reported a sprained ankle than to not report it. Who knows maybe troops can later sue the army and get some money…

Don't interpret this comment as meaning that there should not be response

Under POTUS 45 when Iran used Shiite Iraqi militias to attack US troops, POTUS 45 had the leader of Iran's Revolutionary Guard who controlled and ordered the attacks, and his closest aids, blasted into charred meat chunks. No more attacks on US troops. Go figure.

Oh good, let's start another war in the Middle East. ‘Cos the last ones went soooo well…

Tanker11 +1

Maybe the Pentagon should report to us. We can help tell everybody in the world what happened and whose fault it is.

Soledad and Dragon Gunner- yes, the leaders of these troops want them to report and document the injuries, including any suspected TBI. TBI gets worse with reoccurring incidents. I think 2 of the 45 were evacuated for further monitoring. Does not sound like malingering or a cheap way to a VA check for these Soldiers serving in Iraq and Syria.

SBminisguy- wrong, there were attacks after we killed Soleimani, and the planning to get him took months/years.

Choctaw- make a country a smoking ruin…nuke them? Really? Population- 90 million.

For the record, I am a conservative Republican…but this is a matter of realpolitik in a complex region. The US has stumbled because we lack a consistent strategy across administrations.

What's at stake here does not compare to the issues the last POTUS team faced in the ME.

These attacks were designed by Iran to provoke a response from the U.S. which they hoped could be used as a basis for playing the victim and instigating a more general conflict against the US and Israel. An uprising and general turmoil across the region blamed on the usual infidels who keep coming back to start trouble.

Martyn K you are right about a measured response. I am ready to commit an act of war by taking out those refineries. I am sure nobody here thinks I have a clue. I can confirm this. But someone, not us,is working out possible consequences with secure info.

I object to the characterization about Biden's courage. None of us have any real idea of the deliberations going on, the intel, or what the CIA director is up to in Tel Aviv. Or actually much of anything else….

According to the previous POTUS, Biden is leading us into WW2! So which is it? Warmonger or coward? Or maybe something in between. No answer needed, none of us know what is going on except through the outrage bullhorn.

As of now I feel Biden is being "played" by those that want to hurt the west.
His weakness was shone by Afghanistan, which has only encouraged others to do so. He is now playing catch up in showing the world that the United States is a strong and powerful defender of Democracy.

Well as long we allow the Shia militias who are puppets of Iran, continue to attack our troop with drones and rockets at our locations in Syria & Iraq. They will not stop until they are some punitive actions.

The only action in response was 1 F-16 & 1 F-15 each struck IRGC ammo and weapons warehouse in Syria. The next day the Shia militias continued to attack our location there again.

Again because of our weak top leadership who are risk adverse to everything. They are playing the same game that another POTUS played. The Red Line game … But instead of doing anything that POTUS just kept moving the red lines. So basically, they were doing nothing.

So, this time two Carrier Groups, 1 LPD, and now a nuclear-powered sub with 152 cruise missiles, plus USAF fighters have been deployed to the region. Little at a time, one by one. That is the new version of the Red Line game. But with combat assets …

As the US leadership does not understand i.e. the Iranians, Shia militias, etc. are not afraid of those powerful US assets. As they know the weak risk adverse US leadership probably won't use them.

The US leadership also does not get. These islamists only respect strength. And the US leaders are not demonstrating that. Just the opposite in islamists eyes.

It is very easy to start a war, but never as easy to get out of one. Personally I prefer when a response is measured and thought out. It is easy to forget the suffering involved in war

Yes, very true, however, if every time one of our troop locations are hit. We send some cruise missiles, drones, etc. to hit military targets in Iran. Not an all-out attack, but demonstrate to them. There are negatives to attacking US troops. One time take out a couple of radar stations, the next time some IRGC HQs, etc., some ADA and anti-ship missile sites, then some oil refineries, etc., etc. If it keeps up TLAMs, etc., hit their nuclear production locations.

Iran knows they can't go toe-to-toe with the US military in a conflict. We don't even have to land troops, etc. No reason too. Just use our airborne firepower assets, to do damage until they get the idea. We have the assets in the region, and they know it … but again they see the US leadership as weak, nothing to fear nor respect.

Oh good, let's start another war in the Middle East. ‘Cos the last ones went soooo well…

That is not going to happen. Iran has few allies in the region. They have few military assets compared to the USA. We have already shot down missiles on the way to Israel. They know that. And we'll do it again. What would Iran do if we started surgically taking out some of military, etc. targets ?

Not talking about civilians like Hamas, islamic jihadis, and the Russians do. They target population centers. We take a lot of care to avoid killing non-combatants or create CD.

Hard to say. But this Admin's first impulse is to usually downplay and CYA.

Plus, nothing is done to stop it. Boy, us doing nothing will make Iran stop. We will show them!

Biden has everything he needs to take action against Iran except courage.

Bingo ! On target !

Striking targets in Iran will not start WWIII. Even if they say they are at war with the USA, "the great Satan". After we take out a number of military, etc. targets. They must know the first salvos is only a warning to stop attacking our troops, etc. But still they will take significant damage. No matter what … If they don't get it … Well how many TLAMs are on all those USN warships in the area ? How many drones and strike aircraft including USAF assets in the region can we field ?

Iran must know they cannot go one on one with USA's high tech/firepower. Pretty sure Russia or China will not attack the USA if the US surgically takes out some of Iran's military, etc. Russia has now where near the assets to attack into Alaska. Not does the PRC/CCP. They will not go to war or use WMDs over Iran getting hit with US TLAMs, etc. …

The biggest threat to the USA is the gov't dictated open Southern border which many on the terrorist watch list were caught. But what about the ones that got away?

I also worry about the ones who slip through. They almost all arrive from the north or in airports. but the number on the southern border has seen a slight uptick. Still way under 1% of the total. The southern border is not a favored point of entry, inconvenient, slow, chaotic, you end up in the middle of nowhere.

But while we have been catching more up north on the terror list, there is no way to know who has slipped through. Easy enough to get across.

POTUS 45 had the leader of Iran's Revolutionary Guard who controlled and ordered the attacks, and his closest aids, blasted into charred meat chunks. No more attacks on US troops.

You mean other than the ballistic missile attacks on two US bases that injured over 100 US personnel?

The numbers of US injuries reported that grew steadily from initial reports over weeks?

Potus 45 did exactly zilch to Iran after those missile strikes which were in direct response to Solemani. Both that Administration and the current one had/have zero desire to risk a full fledged conflict and the American public absolutely would not support one. As to whether a full fledged conflict would result, it is a two sided decision and the bad guys on the other side get a vote. A more likely scenario is that a US strike on Iran results in an Iranian strike on Israel which is a potential third front Israel doesn't need and weakens attention on the Ukraine making Russia the big winner in that scenario.

North Korea, Russia, Iran, Hamas; they are all on the same team together. Keep the West unsure on who to fight or where to fight. Keep us busy in the Middle East so we can't supply Ukraine with ammo and missiles because Israel or the US may need then in against Iran.

All because since the end of the Cold War we have allowed our military production to decline, even our mining of raw materials for weapons. Now we have trouble even supplying Ukraine with artillery shells because our production is so slow.

It's all the same war, with the same enemies. China is waiting for just the right time to step in. Will it be Taiwan because the US is weak or distracted? Or will it be Siberia because Russia is weak and distracted?

Only time will tell.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

Bunkermeister+1

The are all still afraid of us, but chipping away, influencing our politics as well. They are stretching us out, looking for openings. Hoping we do the job for them with our ridiculous internal fighting. Next year is scary.

McKinstry +1. The impact of the previous POTUS has been exagerrated here. Fortunately, he did not face more complex issues. The Kushner accords simply left out Gaza issues. Think about the first year of pandemic logistics. We may not be making enough artillery shells but we all have toilet paper.

To this point we have done nothing but hit an ammo depot. No videos of said attack. Normally they always broadcast the air video.

It reminds me of Carter's "response" to the hostage taking.

Again 35th, why give this gift of a video to Iran? They want this to show their neighbors and the world how much they are suffering because of the big invaders.

Tort we have done this every time I can remember. Even when we killed the wrong man in Afghanistan claiming he was the terrorists who killed our troops.

We do it for our own people and for others to show that the US will not be patsies for those who kill and wound our troops. We need to show strength, especially now. Afghanistan made us look weak to all our enemies (I know some want to deny that). We have done nothing since to make us look better. The radical Islamic world only understands strength. You are either to be feared, or a victim.
I do not think we are far from another attack on our home soil.

The radical Islamic world does not need the videos to Gen up hate. They produce their own hate. We are infidels, less than human. You want them quiet, give them reason to fear you.

I know some disagree, but that is how I see it.

"Oh good, let's start another war in the Middle East. ‘Cos the last ones went soooo well…"

It appears to me the war has already started. But only one side is fighting. Shades of 9/11.

"…but again they see the US leadership as weak…"

You say this just about every post. I honestly don't think you understand all of the consequences of a major strike on Iran (even just from the air), intended or unintended consequences. Have you seen what they're like?
Firstly, they are probably way more prepared for such a thing than we realize – they know full well there is a good chance this will happen to them at some point in the future. Iran is pretty big you know.
Their leaders are ready to accept massive casualties, and carry on.
Their supported militia and terrorists worldwide would go into overdrive.
As Tortella has said, we have no idea what is going on behind the scenes.

And weakness? Little compares to negotiating with terrorists. Please don't shoot us and we promise not to shoot you. Oh, the Afghan troops? Yeah, they're fair game. Come over for coffee at Camp David, why don't you.
Sorry, maybe 'negotiating' was a little harsh, it's just the art of the deal.

This was my first post in this thread. I know those who voted for the current administration, want to view things as being positive. Sorry that many of us disagree.

What we are showing right now in the face of Iran and their proxies is weakness. You do not show Islamic terrorist weakness. It looks bad and emboldens them to further atrocious.

I remember Operation Praying Mantis, and the joke: "How does the ayatollah view his navy? Answer: From a glass bottom boat". Direct attack on Iran?

No one says you declare war, but there is much you can do to their proxies and possibly their leadership.

The Israelis had a truce with Hamas and the Palestinians. How well did that work for them on 10/7.

Radical Islam is radical Islam. We are not Muslim, therefore open to whatever they want to do to us.

It is time to show strength in a form they will understand.

35th, I think this is an honest difference of opinion on the strategic implications much as we had over whether we should have built up Ukraines borders before Putin invaded. I don't entirely disagree with you.

By now I would have told Iran to tell their friends to produce the hostages for release or your refineries will be destroyed. But I know almost nothing about the details of what is happening.

The other side of this is- Keep Iran owning its pariah status. If they are suddenly attacked by what they will call the big infidel bully they will have something to rally on.

I am only guessing, but I am pretty sure the State Dept., CIA Mossad, etc. are looking for tangible evidence to tie Iran to the October attack on Israel. Evidence for the UN, The Hague, etc. if we attack first we are actually violating the international Court's aggression statute. Not that we really care, we refuse to sign on to the Court. But we don't need PR comparing us to Putin.

Or Hamas – and Iran will spin the living @#$& out of a surprise attack. Unless we document their involvement inthe atrocities.

"This was my first post in this thread."
Sorry. My quote was actually from Legion.
I certainly do not view everything this admin does as positive. For instance, while I feel the Afghan withdrawl was inevitable (and desired) after the scale-back and deal of 45, the execution was abysmal.

I assumed you were thinking of Legion. 🙂

You say this just about every post. I honestly don't think you understand all of the consequences of a major strike on Iran (even just from the air), intended or unintended consequences.

No I understand unintended and intended consequences. I study history as most of us do. We understand e.g. how WWI started.

I don't know if some understand. Surgical air strikes will make Iran think about not supporting attacks on US Forces with their proxies. Otherwise, the attacks will continue if there is no real punitive action. Iran knows they can't declare war on the US.

Who will support them in this attack ?

What would China & Russia send ? They won't send ships, aircraft etc. Will they go to war over Iran ?

Who will send physical assets to support them ?

How will Iran's assets compare to US assets that could be used in a war ?

Etc., etc., etc. …

Firstly, they are probably way more prepared for such a thing than we realize – they know full well there is a good chance this will happen to them at some point in the future. Iran is pretty big you know.

Does not matter how big they are, we will use only surgical strikes on military, etc. assets. There is no reason of need to occupy anything. Most places in Iran can be hit by TLAMs, Drones, strike aircraft, etc. Very low risk to those US assets. How well are they prepared ? They can't be as well prepared as the 2 USN Carrier Grps, 1 USN sub with TLAMs plus forward deployed USAF air assets.

Their leaders are ready to accept massive casualties, and carry on.
Their supported militia and terrorists worldwide would go into overdrive.

Many islamic nations and even Russia and China are willing to take high losses. That is a given.

Many of the other moslem nations are mostly Sunni and don't really support Iran as Iran are Shia. And only about 20% of of islam is Shia. You may overestimate the support Iran will get from other islamic nations. E.g. no moslem nation will take all the high numbers of Palestinian refugees. No moslem nation will challenge the PRC/CCP with their genocide of Chinese moslems, the Uigurs.

Also note, the threat to the US by islamic terrorists has been elevate many times over. What is the #1 reason for that ? The open US Gov't's dictated Southern border… The number of all types are streaming across the open border. The capture of those on the terrorists watchlist has hit all time highs. Those are the ones we captured. How many are got-aways ?

Sorry, maybe 'negotiating' was a little harsh, it's just the art of the deal.

The other US leadership let the Taliban know if they started to attack US/NATO forces. US airpower would strike. Literally telling them, we know where your village is.

Anyone who knows anything about military ops saw the debacle of the US withdrawal as a unbelievable Cluster. Again, I was an Infantry Officer who crossed trained with the USAF. I was a Bn Air Ops Officer in the 101 know as my comrades know how that retreat from A'stan was a total . Should have lost no one and are lucky we didn't lose more.

we have no idea what is going on behind the scenes.

No we don't but based on previous actions by this leadership, e.g. giving Iran billions of $. USD I and many others don't trust how our current "leadership makes deals".

This current leadership knows 0 about "harsh" negotiations … Giving an enemy billions of dollars is not a negotiation …

My quote was actually from Legion.

You should know better than to quote him !!!

I certainly do not view everything this admin does as positive. For instance, while I feel the Afghan withdrawl was inevitable (and desired) after the scale-back and deal of 45, the execution was abysmal.

Yes, again you know how I feel about that Rat of a retreat from A'stan. But you can't blame the past admin for that total mess …

The current admin pulled out all US troops, abandoning Bagram and leaving US civilians in place like the Embassy. That was not a decision made by military leadership. It couldn't have been.

Bagram was a fortified airbase. With longer and more runways and apron space. With US air and ground assets there. No one would have been stupid enough to attack Bagram. But it was abandoned and left to the Taliban/AQ.

Not informing our NATO Allies of the withdrawal until it was over.

After giving up Bagram, the US had to make a deal with the Taliban/AQ to let them use the smaller less fortified airport next to Kabul. Withdrawing from an airport next to a city that the enemy already controlled. We were not taught anything that dumb at the US Army Infantry courses or Combine Arms school, etc.

Well, I've talked about this all before. There is no excuse for any of these actions taken by US top leadership … But weakness and incompetence … IMO of course …

I agree with every one of your points above, on the Afghan debacle. Incompetance and stupidity certainly.

Maybe some in the world are starting to understand the danger.

Subject: TommyRobinson1 on GETTR: Chants of "Spain is Christian, not Muslim" on the streets of Madrid as the people grow tired of the far left Socialist government…


gettr.com/post/p2u63ag39f6

The prior administration did NOTHING in response to a direct ballistic missile attack on US bases launched directly from Iranian territory in response to Solemani. Why? Because both the current and former administrations have determined that fighting a limited proxy war is acceptable but the risks of a direct conflict are not. The Iranian Solemani response was the only action launched directly from Iran and the response was still nothing.

The US struck multiple Iranian proxies after multiple Iranian proxies struck at US forces yet the biggest Iranian proxy in the region, Hezbollah, has remained relatively quiescent with token skirmishing more for internal consumption than militant impact.

Violence is an uncertain risk and nobody knows what one military action may trigger from the other party. The idea that selective bombing works to keep the other party intimidated is mostly not supported by history. For every Ghaddafi intimidated by a strike there are a hundred Talibans, NVA, Hezbollah and both the UK and Germany in WW2 in which bombing simply strengthened resolve. If TLAM and other "selective" missile strikes worked, Kiev would be flying Russian flags.

I do have a problem regarding any leadership that considers US troops killed, injured and captured as suckers and/or losers as strong relative to any administration anywhere except possibly that of Neville Chamberlain.

If you want to know how the previous leadership felt about veterans, Marine General John Kelly describes what he heard and saw on this topic during his years as Chief of Staff.

Couple of very good points.
Veterans should take note of the attitude of the previous admin. "suckers and losers". Disgusting.

Read Irresistible Revolution by Matthew Loemeier

Here you go. Someone you can make an example of without attacking Iran directly. They have already fired missiles we have intercepted. We have provocation. Do I think you get much bang from it… no. But at least the current administration can say they actually did something.

"Houthis shoot down US MQ-9 Reaper drone off coast of Yemen

A U.S. defense official confirmed to Fox News that the Iranian-backed Houthis shot down a US MQ-9 Reaper drone near the Yemeni coast, as the Israel-Hamas war continues.

"We can confirm that a U.S. military MQ-9 remotely-piloted aircraft was shot down while in international airspace over international waters off the coast of Yemen," the official said. "U.S. Central Command officials are assessing the incident."

The MQ-9 Reaper drone was reportedly surveilling Yemen when a Houthi militia fired at it. The drone is estimated to cost around $30 USD million.

The last time a MQ-9 Reaper was shot down by Houthi fighters was on June 6, 2019. The Biden administration removed the Houthis from the US list of terrorist groups in 2021."

Subject: hamas-cartoon.jpg 1,200×824 pixels



Well we hit another weapons depot. 🤔 We are Hell on munitions depots.

"U.S. military forces conducted an airstrike against a weapons facility in Syria Wednesday in retaliation for dozens of attacks against US bases in the region over the past several weeks.

U.S. troops in the Middle East have been attacked at least 42 times since mid-October, with two new attacks happening in the last 24 hours.

A U.S. defense official has confirmed the developments to Fox News on Wednesday. The recent attacks on U.S. bases began on October 17th, amid turmoil in the Middle East from the Israel-Hamas war.

American troops in Iraq and Syria has been repeatedly attacked by groups likely backed by Iran. Militants have been firing one-way drones and rockets.

The official explained that the newest attacks did not injure personnel or damage infrastructure. One of the incidents occurred at the al-Shaddadi base in Syria, while the other happened in Iraq.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III released a statement about the recent airstrikes on Wednesday.

"Today, at President Biden's direction, U.S. military forces conducted a self-defense strike on a facility in eastern Syria used by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and affiliated groups," the statement read. "This strike was conducted by two U.S. F-15s against a weapons storage facility. This precision self-defense strike is a response to a series of attacks against U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria by IRGC-Quds Force affiliates."

"The President has no higher priority than the safety of U.S. personnel, and he directed today's action to make clear that the United States will defend itself, its personnel, and its interests," the statement added."

I agree with every one of your points above, on the Afghan debacle. Incompetance and stupidity certainly.

Yes … It is obvious to anyone with common sense … Like many of us here !

Because both the current and former administrations have determined that fighting a limited proxy war is acceptable but the risks of a direct conflict are not.

That may or may not be true. Based on the situation, etc. Iran has already declared a de facto war on the US and Israel …

Violence is an uncertain risk and nobody knows what one military action may trigger from the other party. The idea that selective bombing works to keep the other party intimidated is mostly not supported by history.

Again it depends on a number of factors. Would Iran try to attack US assets directly in the region if some surgical strikes took place on their territory ? Many more former US Military leaders believe that Iran knows that they wouldn't last very long vs US Air and Naval assets. However, I talked about this in my posts above already. You can disagree or not.

If TLAM and other "selective" missile strikes worked, Kiev would be flying Russian flags.

Russia was targeting civilians and infrastructure. Not just military targets.

If you want to know how the previous leadership felt about veterans,

I know that story. Don't use me being a Vet against me. Yes, the previous US leadership at the top was not a nice person, to say the least.

However, many things IMO and others were better than then now. Many people just didn't like him, I get it … I don't either think he is as great as some say. There is no way can I say myself or the USA is better off now than then.

Again, opinions may vary. But FWIW we just lost a Reaper as 35th posted. From Iranian weapons used by the Houthi. Those ADA weapons may even be crewed by IRGC …

For the record, I am a conservative Republican…but this is a matter of realpolitik in a complex region. The US has stumbled because we lack a consistent strategy across administrations.

Exactly … realpolitik is generally the bottom line in many situations.

Legion, I would never do that, your opinions are always well considered and your service appreciated. And you expertise is a great asset.

I made a general reference to Kelly based on his accounts. I would not repeat his specific comments here. I think he went through a lot, as did other high level officers. I referenced this on behalf of veterans, not to use against any of them, most especially you, and meant no disrespect.

US Military MQ-9 Reaper Shot Down Off Coast Of Yemen

YouTube link

link

U.S. Launches Airstrikes Against Iranian-Backed Groups In Eastern Syria

YouTube link

link

Armand

Legion, I would never do that, your opinions are always well considered and your service appreciated. And you expertise is a great asset.

Much appreciated ! Thank you !

BTW … the US Military has taken 46 WIAs with 25 suffering TBI, since after 07 Oct. 2023. From Iranian weapons in their proxies' hands … So, I guess we have to wait until they kill one of our troops before we do some surgical strikes on the head of the snake i.e. Iran. IMO Iran does not need some of those launch and radar sites, IRGC HQs, missile supply points, etc. Will they go to war with the most powerful[hopefully still ?] USN and USAF on the planet for these surgical strikes ?

They know how that will end … And they know they will get little to no support from fellow moslem nations.

I listen to GENs/ADMs RET and former intel assets … I know they know more than me … Or any of us here ?

So, I guess we have to wait until they kill one of our troops before we do some surgical strikes on the head of the snake i.e. Iran

Not going to happen. As said earlier, the US and Iran, through multiple administrations of both parties, have settled into a proxy war and neither side has any desire to risk the uncertainty of escalation. If the US did not respond to a direct ballistic missile attack, launched from Iran on US bases causing 100+ casualties, it isn't going to strike Iran over actions of their proxies. I'm fairly certain the Mullahs, as with Sadam, will take the easy route and toss missiles at Israel if the US hits Iran proper whereas the proxies are "free' targets and still involve killing the Revolutionary Guard.

As said earlier, the US and Iran, through multiple administrations of both parties, have settled into a proxy war and neither side has any desire to risk the uncertainty of escalation.

Except POTUS '45 -- he took direct action that killed the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

POTUS 45 killed Solemani in Iraq, not Iran, and did absolutely nothing when the Iranian response hit two US airbases injuring over 100 US troops. No US Administration has hit anything in Iran proper since Bush 1.