In a brief televised address on the Iranian missile attack in the early hours of Beijing 9, Trump said there were no casualties in the attack and only military base installations suffered \"minor\" damage. At the same time, he said iran had \"backed down \", so america's subsequent response would be\" economic sanctions \", but also said it could resume nuclear talks with iran later.
We won't repeat anything else about mr. trump's remarks, but only from the above point of view, the \"us-iranian war\" looks like it won't happen, and the u.s. military shouldn't retaliate further against iran.
From this photograph we can see the landing sites of the four missiles, as well as the destruction of the U.S. Army's \"expedition hangar \"(which is actually a tent) and the destruction of some of the buildings.
At one point, Assad's base was closed in 2011, but later, with the rise of ISIS, U.S. forces re-opened it, where the main facility consisted of tent-type \"expedition hangars\"
The \"Expeditionary Hangar\" was damaged by missiles, with the crater between the two hangars, the air wave completely overturned and the other partially damaged, with the CV-22 Osprey parked on the runway not far away, possibly flying back afterwards
As these photos show, most of the attack's \"conqueror 313\" missiles were at least close to the base's facilities, and did not deviate significantly from the target, demonstrating iran's revolutionary guard's fairly good technical skills and planning capabilities.
Some would have thought the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was a bunch of self-destructing fanatics, but it wasn't, in fact, that the author mentioned the impression of Iran when he was communicating with a military-industrial complex technician who had done business with a number of countries in the Middle East -\" their army's tosss are often bizarre and unreliable, but the Revolutionary Guard has done something solid.\"
The Revolutionary Guard's "economical "type of weapons, often using the introduction of some relevant "military-military "techniques, combining North Korea and Russia, and certainly some parts of China and even Western parts and key technical equipment, then "saving" themselves, instead of tampering with some of the more "earth "but still quite practical weapons – such as the "conqueror 313"missile.
Furthermore, the research institutes in the Revolutionary Guard's command are capable of doing the same, and by copying the C-802 missiles, they have mastered the guiding and controlling technology of low-altitude flight of cruise missiles and have begun to use the technology to tamper with the weapons of similar principles, using the \"self-explosive drone\" used by Yemen to attack the Saudi oil field.
Earlier, the washington post, cnn and other media reported that iran may have informed iraq before the attack, the u.s. troops were also early news and evacuation, the attack may have caused only an unknown model of the aircraft suffered more serious damage. Some Pentagon officials say they believe Iran has deliberately chosen targets that will not easily lead to casualties.
Although it seems to be somewhat corroborating in the photos, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, mark mailey, told reporters that "based on what I've seen and understood, I believe they [iran] are trying to destroy planes, equipment and vehicles and kill people, which is my personal assessment." …… That would be interesting. Combined with iran's announcement that 80 u.s. troops had been killed,200 wounded and a lot of equipment damaged, it is not difficult to see that admiral mally's comments are more like "affirming iran's efforts ".
The latter added that the u.s. military had no casualties because of \"defensive measures\" and \"protective technology \"- but the editor of the drive magazine said sarcastically: one thing we are very sure of is that the u.s. military does not have anti-missile equipment in iraq, such as patriot missiles. In fact, in the past few years, u. s. troops have never prepared for a missile strike on iraq, and in the circumstances of yesterday, u. s. troops have done little, if anything, to deploy a patriot missile. In other words, the \"defense and technical means,\" as Admiral Miley calls them, are they suspicious?
It should also be explained here that the Patriot 3 missile system can simultaneously confront five incoming targets, with an anti-missile interception range of only 40 km, while Assad's base is less than 300 km away from the border between Iraq and Iraq, and the other missile can only carry out at most one round of interception, that is to say, even if Iran fired only 10 missiles yesterday, and the Patriot interception efficiency reached 80%, there are still 5-6 missiles capable of hitting the US military base.
Given the speed of the Conqueror's 313 missile (Max. Mach), it was less than 10 minutes from launch to hit. In other words, even if the missile over there is a bit of fire, the U.S. military infrared warning satellite immediately found, and then no delay in issuing an alarm, ordering the missile to hit the range of all U.S. troops to run to the bunker, given the time it takes for the message to pass and the alarm, how long can the U.S. soldiers at Assad base get up from the quilt and then roll up to the dormitory gate? In this way, the speed of the u.s. response is remarkable, and a taiwanese blogger has previously calculated that the pla's missiles may not have been alerted when they landed at their usual rate.
So if Iran really wants to cause some casualties to the U.S. military, it's likely to cause a lot of casualties just by aiming at the U.S. dormitory bombing. In this case, we can only say that the information previously disclosed by China Post is likely to be true, that Iran has issued a prior warning to give U.S. troops time to evacuate.
As an important u. s. air force base in iraq, there are ammunition storage areas near assad's airport, which, if destroyed, could seriously undermine the ability of the u. s.to carry out sustained operations in iraq, but iran has not fired a missile there, why?
In other words, this time it looks like iran has saved face for the u.s. and the president of the u.s. u.s. r.s. council has also \"taken the ling son \", convinced that iran has tried to retaliate and given iran a face.
And the speeches of the two top leaders were interesting, with Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, previously giving the United States a slap in the face at home, while Trump stressed yesterday that Iran had "backed down" and that each side had declared victory – or tacitly. When the US assassinated Sleimani, the author predicted that Iran's most likely counter-attack was a missile, but it was unlikely to use the missile to attack U.S. military targets or oil field installations in Saudi Arabia and other countries.
This time, Iran's use of precision-guided tactical missiles to carry out such a "reasonable, albeit not entirely "strong,"attack is acceptable to both the US and Iran – and, of course, Iran's authorities are trying to kill 80 US troops at home, while the US emphasizes "no casualties, only minor damage,"which is needed for each side to declare victory.
Of course, when speaking on the Internet, it is easy to touch the mouth skin," Iran Jedi counterattack "," Iran beat the United States emperor "," the United States emperor is a paper tiger, the most afraid of guerrilla warfare ”…… That sounds revolutionary - but don't substitute emotion for reality.
Nor can it be impossible for Iran's top decision-makers to go as far as North Korea does, but there is no way out from doing so, and there is a huge investment, even if it is to say that \"the non-big husband cannot do the same,\"which is not a little difficult for a country that negotiates decisions with religious bureaucrats. Sulaimani, for all his high prestige, has made it difficult to say whether his tragic death will convince all the upper echelons of Iran.
Moreover, if this path is taken, it will be extremely dangerous before a truly reliable strategic strike capability, and it will be necessary to seek a relatively stable internal and external environment, too risky to fail, or even make \"subversive mistakes \".
This may not seem to be in line with the Iranian media's all-day rhetoric, but if we don't listen to it for the time being, we'll see that the Iranian government's actions are sensible, not to mention whether the attack on the US military base was a \"deliberate\" attempt to reduce casualties, at least as a case in point when the attack was immediately followed by a public pause.
For Iran, its strategic goal is to compete for the leadership of the Islamic world – even if it retreats, it seeks to unite the Shiites, restore the glory of the "Persian Empire "and become a dominant force. But this strategic goal is hard to achieve in the face of America's aggressive repression of the Middle East – unless a large-scale conflict at the level of the Vietnam war is launched, but even if that eventually forces the US out of the Middle East, Iran will be beaten worse than Vietnam, and its strategic objectives will be impossible.
But for Iran, the good news is that the first 20 years of the US strategic focus on the Middle East is largely due to the neglect of the rise of China and Russia – when they finally think of the emergence of a two-decade war on terror, East Asia and Eastern Europe are almost "out of control,"and it can be argued that once the US forces have devoted themselves to the new "Cold War,"the US's "return to the Middle East "is extremely difficult, and the Middle East may return to the Cold War's "old War "( in effect, when all parties are unable to focus on the situation here, to nurture agents to compete); and because of Russian power, Putin is already lacking, it cannot be compared with the former Soviet Union.
At this point, if Iran has a full-fledged industrial system – especially if it does possess nuclear weapons by then, it may even really play an important role in the new "cold war "of the new century – or so it can be said: China's rise in the second half of the 20th century has provided the space for too many countries to dream of.
It is understandable why some in the United States in previous years, such as Mad Dog Mattis, have strongly advocated the use of force against Iran – including this time around in Pompeo, where less than 2,000 missions could destroy Iran's nuclear program. If expanded, it could undermine Iran's industrial base to a considerable extent, reducing its ability to fill the strategic space left by the US retreat.
We know that the united states pulled out of vietnam in the 1970s and was hoping that south vietnam would continue to resist, but who knew that south vietnam would have pushed it down and left vietnam on its own, and if it hadn't invaded cambodia and china, it might have continued to expand its influence in southeast asia. And now if the United States withdraws fully from the Middle East, leaving behind a badly infiltrated Iraq and a harmless Iran, then the consequences...
Iran also now has a \"small and complete\" industrial system, which it absolutely doesn't want to be smashed into \"jar cans \". Although the Chinese model may not be able to replicate, you can't stop later countries from doing\" Chinese Dream \".
Mr. Trump is now essentially in a \"good deal \", with the goal of a\" good deal,\" by making the basics \"good\" for the 2020 election, and iran is now \"lame\" and \"meticulous\" for a while, until the u. s. pulls away from the middle east and goes \"no way back \"(having to devote itself to europe and east asia).
And Trump won't beat Iran too easily, because from his "good governance" perspective, hitting Iran has only long-term strategic interests, and there may be some immediate interests, but short-term risks are huge and uncontrollable... How could Trump do something like this? ？？ ？
So what Iran needs now is "pouch,"or,"to hide its power "—but Trump's unpredictable nature is so strong that he suddenly blew up Suleimani, and if he doesn't retaliate, he can't account for it at home.
In a difficult situation on both sides, it ended up like this – more than a dozen Iranian missiles did not cause casualties to the U.S. military, a Boeing 737 crashed but actually killed more than a hundred people, but officials on both sides pretended it hadn't happened – and if we combined the various "small calculations "between the U.S. and Iraq, we could see that there were more than two forces, or motives, to undermine the aircraft at a sensitive time. Therefore, the water behind this matter, probably not shallow.