It can’t be “severely” destroyed because if the bunkers collapsed then you’d see the cave-in deforming the mountain. All you can actually see is 6 punctures, therefore no cave-in, therefore the bunkers are structurally intact.
If the US does not retaliate, or only does something token, then I’ll believe the scenario that the Fordow strike was permitted escalation by Iran.
It’s conceivable that the US said “we will evacuate this base and let you strike us back” in which case ok that theory holds together but if the US responds with more than half a dozen tomahawks then that theory is bunk.
TEHRAN, Jun. 23 (MNA) – News sources reported a mortar attack on a US base in Syria.
Informed sources announced on Monday that an American military base in Syria has been attacked.
The sources stated that the American military base in an area in western Hasakah province of Syria was targeted.
These sources announced that following the attack strict security measures were taken at the main entrance.
If Iran can’t trust the US’ assurances when it comes to the previously signed agreements then they wouldn’t trust US assurances that these B2 bombers were just going to leave a scratch.
It seems an almost fantastical theory. Not completely impossible but it seems too implausible.
Like, he invoked “game theory” to explain the war escalation ladder, a theory that assumes players are rational and seeking to maximize benefit, and he gives the IRGC the motivation of “they just want to kill Americans to get revenge for the US supporting the Shah.”
kkkgrhamás is wrong but kkgrhatá is right?