Also the thread topic title is completely dishonest and should be changed by the mods, because the US is neither officially at war with Lebanon, Iraq or Syria, nor is it currently doing anything that the overwhelming majority in any of those countries opposes.
All wars of the US after WW II were inofficial. So, this does not matter.
The US occupies illegally parts of Syrian territory, moreover, the Iraq has requested the US to send specialists to organize the withdrawal, but the US has officially refused to withdraw. So, it is illegally occupying Iraq bases too. The fighting of the Shia parts of the Iraq army - the Shia militias - has already started. Hizbollah, which is part of the government of Lebanon, has made clear statements about their participation in the revenge of the murder of Suleimani. So, there is occupation, there is fighting against them or clear statements about this.
With half of all Syrians displaced and receiving no representation from the Assad regime nor showing any inclination to return to his control, half of the remainder still fighting against Assad and most of those not currently fighting having to be constantly watched and commanded at gunpoint, even if the US started bombing Damascus one could not accurately say "the US is at war with Syria". Russia is not Syria and its hand-picked puppets don't represent the Syrian people.
LOL, funny fantasy numbers.
As for damage to equipment, no doubt Schmelzer is fantasizing that a dozen F-35's got blown up along with the entire US arsenal of patriot and cruise missiles, plus all command and control facilities, plus the janitor's closet.
Schmelzer
If you have a closer look at the images you posted can you see actual equipment/ hardware damage other than easily replaced buildings?
It appears all buildings hit, if indeed they were hit, were empty..
Even more fun, I have simply corrected what was wrong with the "only a single hit" claim by QQ, once he made it. I made no claims about the real damage, and I couldn't care less. The point of the attacks was the following:
1.) We are not afraid of a war, start to retaliate or be the chicken.
2.) We have rockets which can hit accurately the place we like to hit. We have a lot of them, that's why we have made the shots with the older ones.
3.) We do not aim in killing your soldiers in this first strike, that's why we have informed you about the attack before, giving them enough time to reach the bunkers, which is the only accessible US air defense which works, as we already know from the Houthi attacks against the Saudis.
If the US troops are already running away, leaving only empty barracks, fine.
Even if Iran had managed to do all that, which it clearly hasn't, the economic damage the US is doing to Iran through sanctions alone would still be far greater. That doesn't even count the billions of dollars in Iranian missiles, vehicles and buildings the US and Israel have been consistently blowing to smithereens between Iraq and Syria every time the militias try to ship them.
Iran is already under sanctions, so that this does not change anything. You seem to think that the US can sanction and sanction and sanction again, and each time this will be horrible. No. The US has already escalated the sanctions much more than "US sanctions" could do, by threatening to punish foreign firms for trading by robbing their US property. Those who trade with Iran and Russia and other sanction victims don't care about such US sanctions anymore, they have nothing to lose. Your "billions of dollars" is nonsense, you see, it is you who makes unbased claims about the damage done, in this case by the Israeli (not US, just to inform you if you care) air strikes against Shia militias in Syria.
By the way, wasn't that base which was hit the one Trump claimed to be worth billions, which he wants to get back if he leaves Iraq?
If I were Trump, my thinking on this (when I'm not busy doing favours for Putin) would be that equipment is always replaceable and sanctions are an adequate retaliation, but the life of every US soldier and US civilian in the middle east is worth more than that of Ayatollah Khamenei himself, and hence he would be personally targeted if he ordered any more flareups resulting in casualties, with plenty of advance notice before it got to that point.
Whatever the chicken thinks - he was the chicken, and run away. Khamenei would have started the third wave, this time a serious one, leaving a lot of dead soldiers, because without further information of the US, if Trump would have retaliated even with a single shot.
Of course, Khamenei is not that interested in a war too, so he has given Trump a chance to run away but allowing him to claim "no victims" to present himself as strong enough for the US chickens like CptBork.
Starting a thread that incorrectly and perhaps preemptively states that the USA is at war, is also a good example of paranoia...
Let's see. I have started the thread when the news came that the Iran has openly attacked US bases, and there has been the threat made by the POTUS that any Iranian retaliation would be answered with 52 hard attacks against Iranian targets. And you claim it is a good example of paranoia to name this war? Ok, it was nice to see that Trump, after this, simply accepted the role of the chicken and run away. And, as you can see from my second post in this thread, I have seen such a possibility already after the news that Khamenei promised the third wave coming together with the promised US retaliation. Once the US since WW II does not declare its wars, even the Korea, Vietnam and Iraq wars, declarations do not matter. Real war actions on the ground matter. They have started, with the US murdering an Iranian general, and the Iran retaliating by attacking the US bases. The war is, by the official claim of Khamenei, not finished, but will be finished only with the US leaving ME.
Look at the flags behind the Iranian general making a statement. These are the flags of the organizations at war against the US.
Irrelevant yellow press nonsense about family members of Iranian politicians disposed of.
