SO you think the reports were made up. Your refutation sets an absurdly high evidential bar. You don't need a declassified battle-assessment report to establish that an attack occurred. In recent days there have been multiple independent reports that Iran attacked US allies in the Gulf with drones: AP reported Iranian drones being fired at Kuwait and Bahrain, while Reuters reported Iranian missile and drone attacks on US installations in Jordan, Bahrain and Iraq. More importantly, “show me the battle assessment report” doesn't actually refute the original claim. A battle-damage assessment is an internal military product designed to establish things such as what was hit, how much damage resulted, and whether the target was neutralised. It is not normally the document on which the public record of an attack depends. If the claim was merely “Iranian drones recently attacked US allies”, contemporary reporting from multiple independent sources, statements from the governments concerned, and evidence of interceptions or impacts are perfectly legitimate evidence. Indeed, AP specifically reports drones being fired at Kuwait and Bahrain, with the attacks occurring after US strikes on Iran. So the appropriate challenge is: “What exactly are you disputing?” If you're claiming no Iranian drones were launched, that's a factual claim which needs evidence. If you're claiming no Iranian drone actually hit its intended target, that's a different and much narrower claim. And if you're demanding a classified military assessment before accepting that an attack happened, you're essentially saying “I will only accept evidence that the public is not normally allowed to see.”
