The United States shot down more drones and missiles than Israel did on Saturday night during Iran’s attack, The Intercept can report.

More than half of Iran’s weapons were destroyed by U.S. aircraft and missiles before they ever reached Israel. In fact, by commanding a multinational air defense operation and scrambling American fighter jets, this was a U.S. military triumph.

The extent of the U.S. military operation is unbeknownst to the American public, but the Pentagon coordinated a multination, regionwide defense extending from northern Iraq to the southern Persian Gulf on Saturday. During the operation, the U.S., U.K., France, and Jordan all shot down the majority of Iranian drones and missiles. In fact, where U.S. aircraft originated from has not been officially announced, an omission that has been repeated by the mainstream media. Additionally, the role of Saudi Arabia is unclear, both as a base for the United States and in terms of any actions by the Saudi military.

“U.S. intelligence estimates that half of the weapons fired by Iran failed upon launch or in flight due to technical issues,” a U.S. Air Force senior officer told The Intercept. Of the remaining 160 or so, the U.S. shot down the majority, the officer said. The officer was granted anonymity to speak about sensitive operational matters.

  • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    We could have someone that helps more and does less evil.

    Really? Who?

    You “genocide joe” folks keep saying there’s a better choice, but nobody will give me a name, a website, a campaign address I can send money to, anything. Show the candidate that can literally win in 7 months. Otherwise, you’re asking me to put my family at additional risk for the payoff of helping exactly 0 people in Gaza… unless you define helping as Israel “finishing the job.”

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

      You want one name?

      Elizabeth Warren.

      But that’s not the only name.

      Hell, the major reason for voting Biden is literally that he’s not trump, a qualification everyone eligible to run for president shares, except trump.

      Do you honestly think 7 months isn’t enough time to run a general campaign? Why is the primary not scheduled to end for two more months if that’s true?

      Seriously, how can you rationalize the primary not being scheduled to end for two more months if that’s not enough time for a general campaign?

      I’m dying to hear your answer.

      • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        I actually voted for Warren in the primaries last cycle. As far as I know, she isn’t running this cycle and isn’t on the ballot in any states that have already passed the8r registration deadlines.

        I know for a fact that 7 months isn’t long enough to run a presidential campaign because, again, you have to have filed to run usually a year in advance. Unless you’re suggesting that Warren is running the best write-in campaign in American history. I’m happy to help her, but I’m a little worried I haven’t heard a word about it from her or any PACs.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          So you think if Biden did the right thing and drops out, she wouldn’t run?

          Before you were saying she couldn’t, now you’re saying she wouldn’t…

          I know for a fact that 7 months isn’t long enough to run a presidential campaign

          So why do you think the DNC only gives 5?

          And if they’re making such obvious wrong choices and you’re so much better at this, why are they still running the only party against trump?

          Shouldn’t we have people as smart as you running the party if you’re so obviously right?

          • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            If the bar for running a campaign is “knowing it’s hard to win the electoral college if you aren’t on the ballot” then yeah, I guess I’m qualified…but being so smart, I know there’s quite a bit more to it than that.

            I think that campaigns start during or before the primary…you know, when the media starts talking about who’s gonna run and what their positions are…then all the commercials start running…that all feels pretty campaigny to me. So I can’t really comment on why you think the DNC doesn’t let folks campaign before the convention. Feels like that’d make voting in all those primaries a lot harder.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              7 months ago

              . So I can’t really comment on why you think the DNC doesn’t let folks campaign before the convention.

              Oh ok, you don’t know what other people are saying…

              That’s why you can’t understand.

              Hope that helps. Best of luck in your future interactions

              • jak@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                I’m not the other person, but that’s obviously not helpful and simply makes you look immature. Either explain where you think someone’s gone wrong or leave out the “hope that helps.” Or don’t, and everyone reading is reminded of that scene from the big Lebowski