Formal bombing. Iran hit US bases to save face?

Iran’s attacks on US military bases in Iraq, apparently, did not lead to any kind of large-scale destruction and casualties. This gives rise to skeptics to say that in Tehran, they specifically planned only formal responses to the assassination of General Kassem Suleimani.


Formal bombing. Iran hit US bases to save face?

The Washington Post published the opinion of an unnamed U.S. administration official who stated that the Iranian authorities had carefully studied where and how to beat in order to cause only minimal damage to the Americans and, at the same time, reassure the country's population with the illusion of revenge for the death of a popular general.

The American side could be aware in advance of the objects that would be hit in order to evacuate personnel and valuable equipment. Moreover, the Iranian military could inform Washington about the impending attacks. Of course, not directly, but through Iraqi intermediaries - Tehran announced its intentions to Baghdad, and the Iraqi side has already transmitted valuable information to the Americans. As a result, Iran was able to save face, but also to avoid harsh retaliatory actions by the States.

It is clear that if 80 American troops really would have died at American military bases, the Pentagon’s reaction would have been lightning fast. And American rockets, aviation would strike already on the territory of Iran itself. But that did not happen. Therefore, the version voiced by The Washington Post has a right to exist. Moreover, CNN also voiced it, also referring to unnamed sources in American diplomatic circles.

After all, with all the originality and importance, Major General Suleymani was only one of the many Iranian military leaders. He has already found a replacement. And it is unlikely that the Iranians themselves would benefit from a war over the death of this person. Indeed, in a war, hundreds of thousands of Iranians, both soldiers and civilians, would not simply have perished.

The Iranian regime itself could eventually collapse under the blows of the United States - however that may be, the forces of the parties are still incomparable. Yes, Iran would have lasted longer than Libya or Iraq, but at some point, the situation would have changed in favor of the United States.

The fact that the US is now ready for negotiations with Iran means that in reality Washington was not interested in starting a global conflict in the Middle East. The actions of both the United States in terms of the assassination of Suleymani and Iran in terms of striking at military bases were more demonstrative in nature. Moreover, it is possible that they were oriented to an internal audience even more than to an external one. Donald Trump wanted to show Iran his readiness for tough actions, and the Iranian leadership needed to respond no less abruptly to the “Big Shaitan”.

True, one more important factor should not be ruled out - the struggle of political forces both within the American and within the Iranian leadership. So, in the United States, by no means the entire establishment was pleased with Trump's actions. And the American president could be required to negotiate with Iran.

As for the Iranian side, everything is more complicated there. The Iranian elite does not consist of continuous "frostbitten" fanatics. To many Iranian politicians there is no reason for an armed conflict with the United States, it is much more important to come to an agreement and establish relatively neutral relations.

At the same time, both in the USA and Iran, of course, there are forces and are interested in further confrontation, so in the foreseeable future we will witness no less interesting events. While some politicians will try to normalize the current situation, others will wind it up.

A very interesting event is a sharp change of opinion of the Ukrainian leadership regarding the catastrophe of the Ukrainian liner in Iran. Immediately after the crash, Kiev completely ruled out any version other than a technical malfunction, but on the afternoon of January 9, Ukraine already called the missile attack one of the most likely versions of the crash. It is clear that at the suggestion of the Americans, who have an unconditional influence on the foreign policy of Kiev, the Ukrainian side can easily blame the Iranians for what happened.
Author:
Photos used:
https://express.co.nz/
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

48 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Deniska999 9 January 2020 12: 54 New
    • 8
    • 7
    +1
    Both attacks are against the general, and that the response to the base is the result of domestic political thrash in the United States and Iran. Everything else is purely for the media. The postmodern era, after all.
    1. Aaron Zawi 9 January 2020 13: 09 New
      • 12
      • 6
      +6
      Well, like Saltykov-Shchedrin.
      "They expected atrocities from him, but he ate a siskin."
      1. Lexus 9 January 2020 13: 55 New
        • 11
        • 1
        +10
        The outbreak of war is not in the interests, first of all, of Iran.
        1. Nyrobsky 9 January 2020 14: 43 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          Quote: lexus
          The outbreak of war is not in the interests, first of all, of Iran.

          This is debatable. As for me, at the moment, it is the United States that is least prepared to enter a full-scale war, since its geography will clearly not be limited by the borders of Iran, and the available forces and means in this direction are clearly not sufficient. By and large, at the cost of the life of one general and a demonstration of readiness for a retaliatory strike, the Iranians lost their arrogance from Trump and his entourage, since it is no secret that the Americans initiated contacts of their Qatari emissaries with the leadership of Iran in order to reduce the consequences of the retaliatory strike and limit themselves demonstration actions. Surely, a basket with "concession" buns was also handed over to cajole the topic and translate it into a solution by diplomatic means, which limited Iran’s missile consumption. Only mattresses differ in that they are not able to appreciate the “good gestures” and simply delayed the hour “X”, so that it would be better to prepare for a military operation.
        2. Grandfather-Shchukar 9 January 2020 19: 23 New
          • 2
          • 5
          -3
          Quote: lexus
          The outbreak of war is not in the interests, first of all, of Iran.

          Kakts offers to give up, as I understand it?
      2. Grandfather-Shchukar 9 January 2020 18: 56 New
        • 3
        • 5
        -2
        Quote: Aaron Zawi
        Well, like Saltykov-Shchedrin.
        "They expected atrocities from him, but he ate a siskin."

        Did you dig a trench Aron? Or do you have a bunker (just kidding) ..
        And then I look, you all disappeared sharply ..))) All cancel the alarm?
        You think this time too ... Well
        1. rich 10 January 2020 01: 02 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Formal bombing to save face?

          Immediately obvious specialist wrote. good I will not even try to explain the difference between bombing and ballistic missile attacks. I’m talking about something else, but the respected author does not admit that this was a demonstration to the enemy of the possible consequences? Personally, I was struck by the high accuracy of hitting Iranian BRs and more:
          Theodore Rasp (Theodore):I would like to draw attention to a small detail, namely, 18 DEFENSE PATRIOTS were launched to intercept 47 Iranian missiles and all 18 successfully hit their targets. Where the patriots went is unknown, most likely they fucked a Ukrainian liner
  2. iouris 9 January 2020 12: 54 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    But it seemed that this topic had already been discussed and exhausted due to the absence of any fundamentally new information.
  3. helmi8 9 January 2020 12: 55 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    The Washington Post published the opinion of an unnamed U.S. administration official who stated that the Iranian authorities had carefully studied where and how to beat in order to cause only minimal damage to the Americans and, at the same time, reassure the country's population with the illusion of revenge for the death of a popular general.

    And didn’t the USA act upon shelling Syria? There were many high-profile statements and issued Tomahawks, and the result was minimal ...
    1. Air force 9 January 2020 13: 25 New
      • 7
      • 6
      +1
      It’s like it or not, but the hegemon got a slap in the face and everyone saw it, and taking into account the fact that Trump said too much, about 52 blows in response not only to the attack of his bases, but also to the attack of the allies. The allies tensed, and plus everything, everyone sees that the hegemon has been talking recently, threatening, and in fact an sanction zilch. For example, what is the use of the hegemonic ally to “grab” a “crack” from Iran, and instead to hear about sanctions instead of protection. Of course, we can talk about “agreements”, but the very fact of “agreement” with Iran suggests that time is changing, and the hegemon is blown away. A lot of polarity where the United States is a strong nuclear power, but without ambition for military world domination, is replacing hegemony. But as for me, they will butt for a long time to return everything to sleep.
      1. Aleksandr21 9 January 2020 15: 14 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Quote: Air Force
        It’s like it or not, but the hegemon got a slap in the face and everyone saw it, and taking into account the fact that Trump said too much, about 52 blows in response not only to the attack of his bases, but also to the attack of the allies. The allies tensed, and plus everything, everyone sees that the hegemon has been talking recently, threatening, and in fact an sanction zilch. For example, what is the use of the hegemonic ally to “grab” a “crack” from Iran, and instead of the defense hear about sanctions .....


        It’s just not the time for Iran. From a military point of view, the United States is always ready for war, the only question is how long will it take to draw up forces in the BV. But from the inside, oddly enough the people are tired of the war, I'm not talking about the political leadership of the United States, but about the electorate. This became clear when Hillary Clinton lost the election and, oddly enough, Trump took the presidency, who came to make America great again and promised to concentrate on internal problems (taxes, economics, migration, etc.) and arrange a massacre in Iran now , with a second term he could say goodbye. It is possible that if within the political elite of the United States there would be unanimity on foreign issues, they would be able through the media to form the necessary point of view among the population about the great evil of Iran and all that stuff, but fortunately there isn’t, and their internal struggle delays the issues from foreign policy. Therefore, Iran will still live .... and regarding the slap in the face, Iran just saved its face, and was clearly afraid to cross the line beyond which a full-fledged war would begin:

        "Iran has completed revenge for the assassination of General Kassem Suleimani and will not take new military action if there is no aggression from the United States, said Iran’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Majid Taht-Ravanchi.

        “All our actions were proportional to the assassination of Kassem Suleimani. They are completed. If the United States will no longer take military action against Iran, on our part, we will also not take such actions, "the TASS Iranian diplomat quotes."
        1. helmi8 9 January 2020 16: 09 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: Aleksandr21
          From a military point of view, the United States is always ready for war

          Give an example - where the US army won the wars unleashed by them over the past 70 years ... Where there is a more or less trained army with air defense, this is already a big problem for the United States. Their main tactics in the war are humanitarian bombing, peacekeeping sweeps and mass arrests in the name of freedom of speech.
          1. Aleksandr21 9 January 2020 16: 23 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: helmi8

            Give an example - where the US army won the wars they unleashed over the past 70 years ...


            At least take the last major conflict in Iraq (2003), and in part we can recall Libya. Where is Saddam Hussein with Gaddafi? Both countries were destroyed as a result of the intervention of the US armed forces. The goals are met.
            1. Nyrobsky 9 January 2020 20: 17 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Aleksandr21
              At least take the last major conflict in Iraq (2003), and in part we can recall Libya. Where is Saddam Hussein with Gaddafi? Both countries are destroyed as a result of U.S. military intervention. The goals are met.

              They’ve dragged “democracy” by the ears! Not so Or is the destruction of prosperous countries itself an end in itself to American attention? And yet, yes, Iraq and Libya, unlike the DPRK, didn’t have nuclear weapons, otherwise mattresses would still be using weapons around them.
              1. Aleksandr21 9 January 2020 20: 30 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Nyrobsky
                They’ve dragged “democracy” by the ears! Not so Or is the destruction of prosperous countries itself an end in itself to American attention? And yet, yes, Iraq and Libya, unlike the DPRK, didn’t have nuclear weapons, otherwise mattresses would still be using weapons around them.


                Their goal was not to drag democracy, but to overthrow the regimes of the government of Iraq and Libya, with which they successfully coped. No Saddam, not Gaddafi, are now alive. It is hard to say how justified such a policy is, Iraq is now falling under Iranian rule, but as the state of Iraq itself is destroyed and the Americans are very densely settled in the BV, even if they leave Iraq now, their other bases in the region will not go anywhere. Well, you can’t even remember about Libya, the situation there is many times worse. As for nuclear weapons, if they had one, the situation could have been different, although again nuclear weapons are not jokes, it will fall into some kind of fanatics and there will be a serious threat to peace. Or radicals like in Ukraine will come to power, and with an aggravation they will wave a nuclear club, and God forbid, have enough intelligence to apply. So giving all countries nuclear weapons is not an option.
                1. Nyrobsky 9 January 2020 21: 40 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: Aleksandr21
                  Their goal was not to drag democracy, but to overthrow the regimes of the government of Iraq and Libya, with which they successfully coped.

                  Maybe you remind me of what the "regimes" of Saddam and Gaddafi threatened the United States, which are several thousand miles from them. Well, in Saudi Arabia, it’s almost publicly chopping people’s heads and hands in the squares online, but the mattresses with the Saudis kiss in a hickey, not counting them as a “regimen”.
                  Quote: Aleksandr21
                  There are now no survivors of Saddam, not Gaddafi.
                  The only thing is obvious. However, their elimination, for their subjects did not turn out to be anything good. Tens of thousands killed with mattresses, could still live safely with the overthrown "dictators."
                  Quote: Aleksandr21
                  Now Iraq is falling under Iran’s rule, but as the state of Iraq itself is destroyed and the Americans are very densely settled in the BV, even if they leave Iraq now, their other bases in the region will not go anywhere.
                  So much for the contradiction. If the mattresses had not entered Iraq, then its transfer under the control of Iran would have been impossible. The fact that they (mattresses and their bases) are located in many BV countries is not a result of military actions, but the result of agreements. The presence of the American contingent on the territory of the Middle East countries, is perceived by them today as a threat factor, and many would like to get rid of this “guardian”. Turkey, being a member of NATO, understanding what the “popandos” is in the light of recent events, immediately and categorically forbade the United States to use the Ingerlik base in operations against Iran.
                  Quote: Aleksandr21
                  Or radicals will come to power as in Ukraine, and with an aggravation they will wave a nuclear club, and God forbid, have enough intelligence to apply.
                  With the risks you mentioned, you need to fear Pakistan, which already has nuclear weapons, and a strong terrorist underground capable of coming to power through elections.
                  Quote: Aleksandr21
                  So giving all countries nuclear weapons is not an option.
                  How to know? For some countries, the presence of nuclear weapons is not a means of attack, but a means of defense, guaranteeing the non-interference of third countries, especially the United States with their view of the planet as their property.
          2. Aleksandr21 9 January 2020 16: 39 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: helmi8
            ... Where there is a more or less trained army with air defense - is already a big problem for the United States. Their main tactics in the war are humanitarian bombing, peacekeeping sweeps and mass arrests in the name of freedom of speech.


            What embarrassed you so much in the expression "From a military point of view, the United States is always ready for war"? There have been no major wars on the planet for a long time, if not to take the Iraq war in scale. The fact that air defense of any large country (not a banana republic) is a difficult problem is without a doubt, but given the number of carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic in the US Navy, there are very few countries that can really repel the attack, all the same, no matter how we love the United States, it’s worth recognizing that their The armed forces have the largest budget in the world, and the most powerful fleet to attack. And the Air Force is the largest ... And if the Americans do not start large wars now and do not attack opponents (like Iran), this does not mean that they do not have enough strength. The only question is the price ... returning to Iran, one should not forget about their nuclear program, and if Iran does not make concessions and tries to make nuclear weapons, then there is no doubt an international coalition led by the United States will use the force option.

            PS I do not take war with terrorists, Igilovites and others into account.
            1. helmi8 9 January 2020 17: 37 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Aleksandr21
              PS I do not take war with terrorists, Igilovites and others into account.

              I don’t even see the point of arguing with you about something ...
  4. Pashhenko Nikolay 9 January 2020 12: 57 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    There is also such a suspicion. And if you still wanted to get in and didn’t hit, then a lot of questions arise about Iran’s ability to withstand at least the USA.
  5. eagle owl 9 January 2020 13: 02 New
    • 8
    • 3
    +5
    There was no point in arranging meat. And so - the blow is even economically justified. Seems to be. at the airbase were in the hangars precisely drones. Even ONE strategic drone is more expensive than 15 missiles. Plus - they showed that they know how to hit precisely on targets. Plus - that the United States does not have a counter strike. Plus - the US can only wipe away in response. And by the way, the latter - precisely because there is no reason. There are no heaps of corpses to shake before the allies.
    And without corpses, what’s the answer when Erdogan’s NATO ally speaks plainly - “you can’t leave without any answer the assassination of any commander who was in the highest echelons of power in any country.”
    The principle of necessary and sufficient strength from Iran
    The American side could be aware in advance of the objects that would be hit in order to evacuate personnel and valuable equipment.

    One does not beat - see photos of the broken-down air base. Do you see helicopters 5 meters from the ruins of the hangar? Are they cheap?
    1. Rostislav Bely 9 January 2020 13: 16 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Apparently they could be faulty, under repair - their turntables do not like sand ...
      I doubt that they had a hope for their air defense or I foresee a general dismissal from the army
  6. RussianRoulette 9 January 2020 13: 05 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Obvious and probable. If you look at this situation from the side of the glass, which is half full, then it’s better to let dudes measure it with pipettes than horns on the floor and the globe of the crany. Victims, of course, do not count. It always makes you sad and puts a veil of hopelessness in the end.
    1. Sergey39 9 January 2020 13: 12 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      The guys just wrestled and parted. A draw, but everyone understands who won. Weight categories are different.
  7. Rostislav Bely 9 January 2020 13: 09 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    It is clear that if 80 American troops really would have died at American military bases, the Pentagon’s reaction would have been lightning fast. And American missiles, aircraft would have struck already on the territory of Iran itself. But that did not happen. Therefore, the version voiced by The Washington Post has a right to exist.

    I just think that everyone is comfortable with Trump's lack of presidency (his humiliation in the United States). Iran warned Iraq of strikes - it is a well-known fact that there wouldn’t be “baboons” shot on a smartphone (?), Since the bases have buffer zones filled with Iraqi troops ... If the United States responded to Iran, they would leave Iraq with large losses - to evacuate on "turntables" under the alleged Shiite fire is extremely dumb.
    Nobody canceled leaving Iraq ...
  8. Mavrikiy 9 January 2020 13: 11 New
    • 6
    • 7
    -1
    Formal bombing. Iran hit US bases to save face?
    Hit and save.
    with all the originality and significance Maj.-Gen. Suleimani was only one of the many Iranian military leaders.
    lieutenant general.
    And it is unlikely that the Iranians themselves would benefit from a war over the death of this person. Indeed, in a war, hundreds of thousands of Iranians, both soldiers and civilians, would not simply have perished.
    Are we friends with the head? If Trump is shot tomorrow, they will find a replacement even faster, though with a different sign. Will the US rush to fight or take the calculator?
    be that as it may, but force parties anyway not comparable. Yes Iran would last longer Libya or Iraqbut at some point the situation would have changed in favor of the United States.
    Do not watch cartoons from the USA. And think more yourself. I agree that comparing the stability of the United States and Iran is ridiculous, the United States will collapse in the second thousand 200s. and all their strength will go down to the drain tank. Libya and Iraq - this is strong, almost below the belt, but they were alone with the gang of bandits. Iran has behind China, Russia, and Europe, 100 green oil will not go to waste. So what good for the USA is a bummer. Suppressed by a cookie ?, oh it was you who made the choice. hi
    1. ML-334 9 January 2020 17: 36 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      In Europe, not a hundred oil and migrants can not be counted, but this is strength.
  9. spirit 9 January 2020 13: 12 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    In short, an agreement as in football hi nobody was ready for war and nobody needed it
  10. Thompson 9 January 2020 13: 14 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Formal, informal, and a slap in the face or a click on the nose is valid !!!
    1. ML-334 9 January 2020 17: 40 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      The second slap in the first is the Marines on their knees.
  11. Keyser soze 9 January 2020 13: 16 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Well, I wouldn’t call a bullet by amers a formality .... laughing
  12. Lynx33 9 January 2020 13: 16 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Naturally agreed. Who wants to start the 3rd World War.
  13. rocket757 9 January 2020 13: 19 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    All right, let's wait for the kid ... all of a sudden, Ivanka Trump will start tomorrow .... what troubles ???
    1. HAM
      HAM 9 January 2020 13: 35 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Wait for 28 days ...
      1. rocket757 9 January 2020 14: 07 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Oh, let's not think ... modern medicine works such miracles!
    2. Qwertyarion 9 January 2020 14: 21 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      Will tights be torn at an inopportune moment or will mascara flow before our eyes?
    3. Mavrikiy 10 January 2020 08: 07 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: rocket757
      All right, let's wait for the kid ... all of a sudden, Ivanka Trump will start tomorrow .... what troubles ???

      We look forward to the re-election of Trump.
      1. rocket757 10 January 2020 08: 33 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        We look forward to the re-election of Trump.

        This is the most obvious reason, that's just WHAT ??? What happened or what did not happen?
  14. husband 9 January 2020 13: 25 New
    • 3
    • 5
    -2
    In my opinion, it is very similar to what it is. Iran has retained its face in front of its citizens, the United States has a strong negotiating position on Iran’s nuclear program. A general is only a bargaining chip, the east is a delicate matter .. All Iranian leaders clearly understand that the United States will take out all their air defense and antediluvian aircraft in a week, destroy infrastructure and begin free hunting with hundreds of F-16s for surviving ground equipment. Concentrating 1000+ planes and cranking out an air operation like Yugoslavia is a good option for Trump. Forcing Iran to destroy centrifuges is also a good option for Trump. For him, in general, in this case there are no bad options, a very strong negotiating position. And Iran will try to lose with the least losses. Russia and China, of course, from the point of view of the universal anti-war, of course, but war is economically beneficial for us - oil will rise sharply, gas too, weapons can also be sold. In any case, Iran will eventually overthrow its fundamentalist leadership and transfer to a more secular government. Holding onto Khomeini and company is pointless.
  15. Loess 9 January 2020 14: 08 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    What matters to the states before Iran will save its face or not? Iran - yes, Iran warned in the hope of avoiding the escalation of the conflict. What is the use of the states in this “agreement”? Only if the states themselves are not ready for conflict. Or strongly unsure about the outcome of the conflict. And in this case there was an “agreement” or was not important anymore.
  16. Ham
    Ham 9 January 2020 14: 46 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Americans are losing more ... much more ...
    exchange is strongly not in their favor
  17. Amateur 9 January 2020 15: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    65,48 USD −0,31
    Brent oil today, 14:13 Moscow time
    Yandex.News

    It is necessary to wet another general so that the oil jumps over 70. Then the American shale oil will become profitable.
    America will be great again
    D.Tramp
  18. parusnik 9 January 2020 15: 46 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    This gives rise to skeptics to say that in Tehran, they specifically planned only formal responses to the assassination of General Kassem Suleimani.
    .... Well, if they are skeptics, who are the optimists then? .. Ilya, how do you imagine the war in the Persian Gulf? The interests of oil and gas transnational corporations are all tied up there. The production is divided, but there is a war of its own, buying up, buying back shares etc., but it is not profitable for them to destroy the infrastructure .. As Iran was not weak before the United States militarily, but the United States does not get rid of “tomatoes”, this war can affect both neighboring states and give rise to significant non-stability within European states and who have their interests in the Middle East and the war is not to their advantage on ... At least for one reason, in the event of a US war, they will certainly declare to their NATO partners: if you trust us to wage a war with Iran, give money ... Iran did successfully launch a missile strike ...
  19. Woland 9 January 2020 16: 15 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Iran (if it had to save face, and not take revenge) did not have to threaten the United States, and in silence it would wipe everything. And then picking up runways at the base that they gave out to Trump’s “slap in the face” is just ridiculous.
    1. LeonidL 9 January 2020 18: 54 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Ruslan - East is a delicate matter! What is funny to us is not very good for them. According to their logic, they complied with the innocence and acquired the Kaptalets, and they got rid of the rabid general too authoritative ... sort of like the wrong hands.
  20. LeonidL 9 January 2020 18: 52 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    The war is over, "Thank you all, everyone is free!" ... Iran’s losses 56 trampled to death and a couple of hundred trampled not to die ... + a successful strike on the empty bases of the Great Satan ... warned in advance - minus one poorly controlled government ayatol general. A curtain.
  21. Grandfather-Shchukar 9 January 2020 18: 52 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    Something strange things are happening in the world .. So Trump hit Syria with lionfish in milk, then Iran at the US base is also not very accurate ..
    Israel alone accurately shoots in its world media hehe heh
    It's only the beginning hi
    Is this a new tactic of war? Like then they struck a nuclear strike, there were no victims .. Are the world public prepared for such events?
    I feel all this is not casual, we are being prepared for something and our brains are washed ..
  22. Ryaruav 9 January 2020 19: 46 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    for this hefty erysipelas in the photo, a fragment of 200 grams from a grenade of-462 cries
  23. theodore rasp 9 January 2020 21: 15 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I would like to draw attention to a small detail, namely, 18 DEFENSE PATRIOTS were launched to intercept 47 Iranian missiles and all 18 successfully hit their targets. Where the patriots went is unknown, most likely they fucked the Ukrainian liner (my condolences to the victims ov)