BREAKING: Iran Launches Missile Attack Against U.S. Base in Iraq

WEDNESDAY UPDATE: As CNN reports, there have been no reported American casualties from last night’s missile attack by Iran on American bases in Iraq–and it appears that may have been design, with the Iranians trying to de-escalate the situation while still appearing tough:

Wednesday morning’s missile strikes against al-Asad airbase and Erbil airport — both of which play host to US troops — were clearly not an act designed to kill the most Americans possible…

The missile attacks don’t make sense if Tehran’s goal was to really hurt US troops in large numbers — as some had been pledging to do.

They do make sense, however, as the execution of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s order to strike back openly, military-to-military, in response to the killing of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani.

Or, maybe Iranian missiles are just crappy. Either way, it’s being interpreted as restraint.

—–

As NBC News reports:

A U.S. military air base in Iraq’s Al Anbar province was hit by more than two dozen ballistic missiles from Iran on Wednesday local time, according to the Department of Defense.

“It is clear that these missiles were launched from Iran and targeted at least two Iraqi military bases hosting U.S. military and coalition personnel at Al-Assad and Irbil,” the department said in a statement.

It is unclear whether there is any damage to Al-Assad air base or whether there are any casualties.

Iranian state TV described it as Tehran’s revenge operation over the killing of top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, according to the Associated Press. NBC News has not confirmed the report.

Obviously we will update this post as more information becomes available.

1 Shares

26 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Gilpin Guy says:

    Pray for the little people who are cannon fodder for this brand of insanity.

  2. itlduso says:

    WWPD?  
    What would Putin do?  We’ll find out soon enough.

  3. kwtreekwtree says:

    I hate it when kids ask me questions I can’t answer honestly. “Will there be another world war?” 

    And the best I can say is “Maybe”. 
     

    It is not at all comforting to distract by asking them to define “world war”. 

    Or it’s almost as comforting as when a kindergartner shows me the closet they’re supposed to hide in “ If a bad man comes in”. 

  4. Diogenesdemar says:

    I can’t hardly wait to see what fucking crazy, untenable options the military braintrust gives Ttump on their menu of retaliatory possibilities this time??? …

    … I mean, I kinda’ hope they’ve sorta’ figured out that it’s the craziest, unthinkable shit he’s likely to go for?

  5. Initial assessments seem to indicate that Iran aimed away from the populated parts of the bases. The President is scheduled to speak at 9am our time.

  6. itlduso says:

    Once again, Colorado’s own Congressman Jason Crow distinguishes himself as a smart, calm and perceptive voice in opposition to Trump’s reckless behavior.  Jason Crow was the first member of Congress to be interviewed today on Morning Joe.  Importantly, he refused to call Suleimani and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as terrorists noting that they are not stateless, but are representing the state of Iran.  This is a critical point that de-escalates the rabid rush to war hyped by the GOP and some in the media.  
    Thank you for your input, Rep. Crow.&nbsp
    ;

    PS, It was pointed out on Morning Joe that Elizabeth Warren stupidly said that “of course Suleimani was a terrorist”. She is a fool.

    • One can be a terrorist and also a state actor. The IRGC has been on the terrorist list for years; Iran has been on the list of terrorist-supporting countries for years. Soleimani's list of credits puts him IMHO squarely in the category.

      Being a high state official is what distinguished Soleimani and should have prevented us from assassinating him. We shouldn't be questioning his terrorist supporting ways.

      Who is being foolish here?

      • itlduso says:

        Crow disagreed with putting the IRGC on the terrorist list.  He noted that it sets a dangerous precedent when designating a foreign government military and its soldiers as terrorists.  He said that it sets a cascading effect where the other side designates us as terrorists (which they have done), whereby the rules get set aside and everyone can do whatever they want to do.  That is smart thinking from a Bronze Medal holder.  I think Elizabeth Warren is yet another female politician, a la Hillary Clinton, who thinks she needs to compensate by appearing aggressive in war matters.

        • I'll have to disagree with him, then.

        • Now that I'm not on a phone…

          The IRGC has been on the terrorist list for more than a decade. Iran designated our military this week after the assassination of Maj. Gen. Soleimani. That would seem to indicate an ability to distinguish between petty tit-for-tat actions and fact-responsive decisions.

          Placing the IRGC and Iran on the terrorist list has enabled our country to invoke standardized sanctions powers using legitimate concerns and accurate designations. Until Mango Mussolini decided to target Iran's leadership militarily, it had worked Just Fine through several administrations.

    • RepealAndReplace says:

      Warren really said that? That is not going to endear her to her colleagues on the Harvard faculty.

  7. allyncooper says:

    If you break it, you pay for it. Bush-Cheney broke it 17 years ago with the disastrous invasion of Iraq based on lies, a country that never attacked us and was no threat to us. After spending so much blood and fortune "liberating" the Iraqi people, they now are demanding we leave. The stated reason for killing Soleimani to protect American military and civilian personal in Iraq is a valid one – it is imperative to protect our people in harms way. However that reason would be moot if those Americans weren't there in the first place.

    If you break it, you pay for it. And the US is paying dearly for breaking the balance of power in the middle east and establishing an unwanted military presence that produces resentment and retaliation.

    Come Home Amerika

     

  8. Powerful Pear says:

    OMG OMG OMG………

  9. JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

    Iranian missiles aren't "crappy."  Reports from the attack with drones and cruise missiles on the Saudi oil facility last year said nearly all hit targets, and accuracy on the hits was within 10 meters of what appeared to be the targeting.

    Israel's Netanyahu warned "Iran wants to develop precision-guided missiles that can hit any target in Israel within five to 10 meters.”

    • Very true. Last night's missiles were generally very well placed, and they were not the same type or even class of weapon used on the Saudi facility.

      • harrydobyharrydoby says:

        It was a classic "shot across the bow" with precision placement to avoid human casualties so as not to give Trump any more excuses to start a war.  Evidently, their missiles are extremely accurate (and luckily no one wandered into the fire zone accidentally).

        They made it very clear they do not want to escalate, and our military (although not likely Trump) understood the message clearly.  Sad statement when a rogue terrorist state has wiser, more mature leadership and judgement than our own.

        Every world leader, especially dictators large and small, have got Trump’s number and can play him like a fiddle.

  10. PseudonymousPseudonymous says:

    Let's give the last word to Bill.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.