WP: White House classified information about US military facilities hit by Iran

The scale of destruction inflicted on the US military during the conflict with Iran is far greater than the White House admits, according to the American newspaper The Washington Post (WP). The US government is keeping the real information secret.

Satellite imagery analysis shows that Iranian forces have successfully struck at least 228 American military installations and equipment in the Middle East theater of operations since February 28. The strikes targeted American hangars, barracks, fuel depots, aircraft, and key radar stations, communications systems, and Defense.

The threat of air attack made some American bases in the region too dangerous to accommodate the usual number of personnel, and early in the war, commanders moved most of the personnel from these facilities out of reach of Iranian forces.

Since the beginning of the war, seven US service members have been killed in strikes on US targets in the region – six in Kuwait and one in Saudi Arabia. As of the end of April, more than 400 service members have been wounded, according to the US Army. While most of the wounded returned to duty within days, at least 12 suffered injuries deemed serious by the military.

Obtaining satellite imagery of the Middle East is currently extremely difficult. Two of the largest commercial satellite imagery providers, Vantor and Planet, have complied with US government demands to restrict, delay, or suspend the publication of imagery of the region indefinitely while the war continues. These restrictions came into effect less than two weeks after the war began.

However, from the very beginning, Iranian state news agencies regularly published high-resolution satellite images on their social media accounts, which they claimed showed destruction at US military bases in the Middle East. Expert analysis of these images found no evidence of manipulation.

The US Central Command (CENTCOM), which is responsible for the Middle East, declined to comment on the findings of The Washington Post.

Comments

[Murmur 55]

Well, that's what needed to be proven, otherwise they wouldn't have kept it a secret, but on the contrary, there would have been photos posted on every specialized website.

[Deaf]

Well, that's exactly it. I won't even mention the aviks.

Vantor and Planet have complied with U.S. government demands to limit, delay, or suspend the release of images of the region indefinitely while the war continues.

The US got completely screwed. Iran was also ready for the launch, and now they're banning videos of Trump. The winner of everything and everyone, 10th Dan, is eating a tie.
P.S.> Iranians are their own guys.

[Tusv]

It's really itching to classify the data on the defeat of the Romanian Deveselu and the Polish Redzikowo and brazenly blame it on the Poles and Romanians

[Foggy Dew]

How is the landing operation progressing?

[Krivotykin]

Each side doses the data in its own interests.
Firstly, the figure of "over 200 destroyed targets" itself requires clarification. In military practice, a "target" can mean anything from a single piece of equipment to a support structure. Without distinguishing between those destroyed, damaged, and temporarily disabled, such estimates say little about the actual decline in combat capability.
Secondly, even if some of the strikes are confirmed, this looks more like a campaign of attrition and constant pressure than an attempt to inflict a decisive defeat. Strikes against infrastructure—radar stations, fuel depots, and communications centers—are a classic way to complicate logistics and force the enemy to disperse its forces, which, judging by the description, is precisely what happened.
A separate issue is the restrictions on the publication of satellite images. This is standard practice in conflict situations: control over information about the aftermath of strikes directly influences the assessment of the effectiveness of operations and, consequently, the decisions of both sides. At the same time, the refusal of command to comment also fits into the logic of "operational silence" and does not necessarily confirm or deny the extent of the damage.
The bottom line is that even if the strikes were quite sensitive, we are most likely talking about a tactical impact on infrastructure and the pace of operations, and not about undermining the US strategic presence in the region.