2 minutes ago, JerryM said:

13 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

[his will be TLDR for some - because one-liners are easier - but this isn’t a simple conflict.

The thing about one-liners is that people will actually read the one-liner.

Agreed - but if that’s all people reading on something this complex, they’re not really understanding the discussion, the issues or the debate.... they're better off on Facebook looking at cartoons and memes.

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Agreed - but if that’s all people reading on something this complex, they’re not really understanding the discussion, the issues or the debate.... they're better off on Facebook looking at cartoons and memes.

To really understand the situation I prefer the NY Times, not you.

9 minutes ago, JerryM said:

To really understand the situation I prefer the NY Times, not you.

Fair point - but you'd need more than one resource - and having been to an area yourself helps a bit too - pre and during a conflict.

... Still - I'm sure one liners are much easier for you.

44 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

... Still - I'm sure one liners are much easier for you.

I honed my social media chops as an NGO director involved (if only peripherally) in international intellectual property treaties when Twitter was limited to 140 characters.

To get your point across then took some precision, not bloviation.

And I have multiple sources -- just not you as I learned on our first encounter involving the Tomahawk missile strike on Minab.

9 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Perhaps that’s fair. I try to approach this without bias and with a broader perspective, though I accept that complete neutrality is difficult or almost impossible in practice. My views are shaped not only by what is reported in the media, but by first-hand experience and long-term exposure to the region.

I’ve spent considerable time in the Middle East and have been present in multiple countries during periods when Iranian missile activity was not just reported, but physically experienced. That perspective doesn’t make my view inherently superior - but it does mean that what many are only now encountering through headlines, I’ve been observing, in real terms, for well over a decade.

So yes, it’s possible that this experience introduces a degree of bias. But if so, it is not uniquely directed. I would hold the same concerns were any regional power - be it Iran, Saudi Arabia, or otherwise - to pursue nuclear capability while simultaneously threatening critical international shipping routes (i.e. the Red Sea).

So, I make a conscious effort to remain balanced. However, I struggle to arrive at a different conclusion on key points:

• Iran cannot be permitted the control or coercion of a strategic waterway such as the Strait of Hormuz - do do so (allow) carries global consequences

• Iran cannot be permitted to support of proxy militant groups as it destabilises the region and again carries global consequences

• Iran cannot be permitted to pursue and progress its nuclear enrichment programme,.

The question, then, is not simply one of criticism, but of responsibility: how should the international community respond to mitigate these risks? - What would you suggest ?

Not gaslighting here - but would you take the view that a nuclear-capable Iran does not represent a significant threat, and that there is no realistic intention to leverage control over vital shipping routes?

For the sake of clarity, I’m setting aside the deeper historical and sectarian context - centuries of regional tension, including Sunni-Shia dynamics - and focusing purely on these present-day strategic concerns.

You can't set aside the sectarianism from the fundemental reason Iran "wants" nuclear weapons (officially, it disputes that claim). Sectarianism was the reason Iraq invaded Iran, and attacked Iranian cities with chemical weapons. The world did nothing.

Fundementally, its about Iran's security. I've already discussed on the forum my suggestion. There is no need to repeat it. What would you say to Iran to guarantee that Iraq or other won't attack it again? This is something that predates the Iranian Revolution.

1937; the newly independant Iraq signs a border treaty with Iran, over the Shatt Al Arab waterway. The treaty was heavily loaded in Iraq's favour, and Iran was forced to pay Iraq a toll to use the waterway, Virtually all the shipping that used the waterway was Iranian, and the Iraqis forced Iranian ships to fly the Iraqi flag.

By 1969, the Iranians had built up their armed forces, and seeing how a series of coups had brought Saddam Hussein to power, decided to rip up the treaty, and had Iranian navy ships accompany ships down the waterway. The Iranians wanted the treaty renegotiated.

The 1974 Algiers Agreement basically awarded the Waterway to Iran. In 1979, Saddam Hussein took revenge, sensing Iran was weakened due to the revolution, and invaded Iran.

A precedent is the 1972 Shanghai Communique, when Nixon went to China, or the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. These were essentially non-agression pacts.

As a matter of fact "non-agression pact" is on the list coming out of Pakistan now:

So it's ok for another State in the area to attack Iran, not comply with UNSC resolutions, hold nuclear weapons, attack 6 other States (Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Tunisia, Qatar and Yemen) territories, hold over 2 million people in a state of imprisonment, under "Apartheid" conditions, in a virtual "Concentration Camp", withholding basic human rights, whilst continuing to steal other peoples land to set up illegal settlements against UN resolutions, all with the approval and financial support of the good ole US of A.

Anybody else see a problem here?

6 minutes ago, Jeff the Chef said:

So it's ok for another State in the area to attack Iran, not comply with UNSC resolutions, hold nuclear weapons, attack 6 other States (Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Tunisia, Qatar and Yemen) territories, hold over 2 million people in a state of imprisonment, under "Apartheid" conditions, in a virtual "Concentration Camp", withholding basic human rights, whilst continuing to steal other peoples land to set up illegal settlements against UN resolutions, all with the approval and financial support of the good ole US of A.

Anybody else see a problem here?

I don't see the problem. Moral equivalency doesn't work when one side (US and Israel) are more moral than the other (Iran, North Korea, China, Cuba).

10 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Not gaslighting here - but would you take the view that a nuclear-capable Iran does not represent a significant threat, and that there is no realistic intention to leverage control over vital shipping routes?

There was no intention to leverage control over vital shipping routes before nethanyahu and trump started this war.

Unfortunately it's too late now for reasonable nuclear talks, Iran now knows it needs nuclear to protect itself. One way or another they'll get what they need.

This from April 15 Truth Social:

It was only later that Trump let it be known that that does NOT include Chinese ships in and out of Iran ports.

On 4/18/2026 at 12:52 PM, SunnyinBangrak said:

Hopefully the extreme left will stop parrotting silly Iranian state propaganda now that egg is all over their faces. I knew critical thinking skills were low in youngsters these days, and yes, their beloved "credible sources" fake news msm carries some blame, but I think its safe to say Trump won this war. The strait is open. Oil prices are crashing.

Hooray DJT!

Its clear what blinds you.

I'n with the Iranians on this.

4 hours ago, JerryM said:

I honed my social media chops as an NGO director involved (if only peripherally) in international intellectual property treaties when Twitter was limited to 140 characters.

To get your point across then took some precision, not bloviation.

And I have multiple sources -- just not you as I learned on our first encounter involving the Tomahawk missile strike on Minab.

It was definitely bizarre that people were claiming as a serious possibility that Iran had bombed the school. If Iran was to create an incident, why choose a school that was adjacent to a military base? For less propaganda value in that than choosing a school nowhere near a military base.

11 hours ago, stevenl said:

22 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Not gaslighting here - but would you take the view that a nuclear-capable Iran does not represent a significant threat, and that there is no realistic intention to leverage control over vital shipping routes?

There was no intention to leverage control over vital shipping routes before nethanyahu and trump started this war.

Unfortunately it's too late now for reasonable nuclear talks, Iran now knows it needs nuclear to protect itself. One way or another they'll get what they need.

That’s not really accurate. Iran has been using the Strait of Hormuz as leverage for decades, long before any recent conflict involving Trump or Netanyahu. It threatened to close the strait in 2011–2012 and again in 2018–2019, and even back in 1987–1988 it actually laid naval mines in the area during the Iran–Iraq War - damaging ships like the USS Samuel B. Roberts.

So the idea that this strategy only emerged recently doesn’t hold up - it’s been part of Iran’s playbook for a long time (impacting global trade is 'monetising' the straight - using a financial impact as leverage - but I do conceded they didn't charge a fee for passage - until recently).

On the nuclear issue, it’s also more complicated than saying Iran now “needs” weapons. Its nuclear programme and the tensions around it go back to the early 2000s, with periods of both escalation and negotiation, including the 2015 deal. While increased conflict can strengthen the desire for deterrence, it doesn’t make a nuclear outcome inevitable - history shows the situation has repeatedly shifted between confrontation and diplomacy.

7 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

12 hours ago, JerryM said:

I honed my social media chops as an NGO director involved (if only peripherally) in international intellectual property treaties when Twitter was limited to 140 characters.

To get your point across then took some precision, not bloviation.

And I have multiple sources -- just not you as I learned on our first encounter involving the Tomahawk missile strike on Minab.

It was definitely bizarre that people were claiming as a serious possibility that Iran had bombed the school. If Iran was to create an incident, why choose a school that was adjacent to a military base? For less propaganda value in that than choosing a school nowhere near a military base.

There was a substantial amount of discussion and genuinely useful analysis shared in the aftermath of that incident - it was IMO, overall, a well-informed exchange with multiple perspectives grounded in available evidence - Also, IMO - there was better information and opinion and information than was provided in official media sources which are often to slow - but we also have to filter through reality, fabricated or opinionated bias.

One claim that circulated - that the United States deliberately targeted a school - and that remains, in my view, highly implausible and unsupported by any credible evidence. That was the central point I challenged at the time and still do. Deliberate targeting of a civilian school would represent a clear and extraordinary escalation, and no verified intelligence or official admission has substantiated such an assertion.

At the time, I outlined several possible explanations, and that position largely still holds. There is, as yet, no publicly available, definitive proof establishing exactly what occurred. Crucially, no conclusive technical attribution has been released.

The imagery presented as evidence of a “Tomahawk missile” was far too low in quality to support a reliable identification. Cruise missiles - whether U.S. Tomahawks or systems such as Iran’s Soumar - share broadly similar configurations, making visual confirmation from grainy footage inherently unreliable.

A number of alternative scenarios remain plausible. These include"

• A missile malfunction on the Iranian side, an interception event causing deflection,

• Guidance failure. There is precedent for such outcomes - for example, the widely circulated footage of a Patriot missile malfunction striking a residential area in Bahria illustrates that even advanced systems can fail unpredictably.

• That said, the most probable explanation, based on patterns seen in previous conflicts, remains a targeting error or intelligence failure. Reports have indicated the proximity of potential military assets in the vicinity, which could have influenced targeting decisions.

As of now, as far as I'm aware - the United States has not formally accepted responsibility, and the outcome of any internal investigation has not been made public. However, it is reasonable to assume that the U.S. military possesses detailed telemetry and tracking data that would allow it to determine, with high confidence, whether one of its systems was involved.

If it ultimately proves to have been a U.S. strike, credibility will depend on transparency. Acknowledging the error, explaining the circumstances, and taking responsibility would do far more to preserve trust than continued ambiguity or denial.

In the end, the facts will matter more than the narrative - and those facts almost certainly already exist within classified data, even if they have yet to be disclosed publicly - the void allows for speculation and conspiracy as well as 'anti-Trump rhetoric' - this is war, a tragic event occurred and the US could be / might well be at fault and I think they are / were - but that does not change the underling reasons or necessity for this war.

There is no publicly verified evidence that the United States, Israel, or Iran has an official policy of deliberately targeting civilians, and all parties are, at least formally, bound by the Law of Armed Conflict. However, in practice, civilian deaths occur on all sides, sometimes in significant numbers.

For the United States and Israel, civilian harm is generally attributed to factors such as targeting errors, intelligence failures, or strikes on military objectives located within populated areas. In Iran’s case, there is evidence that missile and drone attacks have struck civilian infrastructure - including residential buildings, hotels, and airports - and in some instances these strikes have been described by human rights organisations as unlawful or indiscriminate. That said, it is also plausible that many such incidents result from the inherent inaccuracies and uncertainties of warfare rather than deliberate intent - I don't believe Iran is the terrible operator some people believe it is and try to take a balance view there too - but they have been leveraging access to the Straits of Hormuz and threatening nuclear capability - thats not in doubt IMO.

From a practical standpoint, the scale of infrastructure across the Gulf region is vast and highly visible. If Iran intended to systematically target critical civilian infrastructure - such as desalination plants in Sitra (Bahrain), oil refineries, major aluminium production facilities in Askar (Bahrain), or large fertiliser plants like those in Mesaieed (Qatar) - it has the capability to easily do so. The same applies to major pipeline networks across the region, including Saudi Aramco’s East–West Petroline. To date, there has not been clear evidence of a sustained campaign specifically aimed at disabling such non-military infrastructure at scale.

Similarly, the United States has not been observed conducting systematic strikes against Iran’s purely civilian infrastructure.

The key distinction is that civilian casualties - even when significant or potentially unlawful - are not the same as a proven policy of deliberately targeting civilians, which would require clear, case-specific evidence of intent.

It is also worth noting that these risks are not theoretical. I have personally been in fully civilian locations, well away from any known military sites, where long-range munitions originating from Iran have impacted nearby (in three separate countries across the region) - The effects included significant pressure waves, localised damage, and shattered windows. These incidents predate the current escalation in 2026 and reflect the long-standing nature of regional tensions.

13 hours ago, Tyke said:

I'n with the Iranians on this.

With the Iranian people ? or the Supreme Leader of Iran, the Beit-e Rahbar, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Supreme National Security Council, the Guardian Council, the Expediency Discernment Council, the Judiciary, and President of Iran - all of whom have overseen tens of thousands of Iranian protestors executed ?

Because when you write, you are with the Iranians on this - which of them do you mean ?

10 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

It was definitely bizarre that people were claiming as a serious possibility that Iran had bombed the school. If Iran was to create an incident, why choose a school that was adjacent to a military base? For less propaganda value in that than choosing a school nowhere near a military base.

It was 'plausible' as an accident - I don't think anyone was suggesting Iran bombed a school full of children simply for a propoganda war. The bombing of that side was clearly unintentional - a tragic mistake by one side or the other - a catastrophic failure.

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

It was 'plausible' as an accident - I don't think anyone was suggesting Iran bombed a school full of children simply for a propoganda war. The bombing of that side was clearly unintentional - a tragic mistake by one side or the other - a catastrophic failure.

Initial Military Investigation Faults the U.S. For a School Strike in Iran

An ongoing investigation by the U.S. military has determined that American forces were responsible for a deadly missile strike on an elementary school in Iran late last month. The strike appears to be one of the most devastating single military errors in recent decades. Iranian officials have said the death toll was at least 175 people, mostly children.

The inquiry found that military intelligence officers used outdated information to label the school building, which was once part of an adjacent Iranian naval base, as a military target.

https://archive.ph/HvzIL

On 4/18/2026 at 12:52 PM, SunnyinBangrak said:

Hopefully the extreme left will stop parrotting silly Iranian state propaganda now that egg is all over their faces. I knew critical thinking skills were low in youngsters these days, and yes, their beloved "credible sources" fake news msm carries some blame, but I think its safe to say Trump won this war. The strait is open. Oil prices are crashing.

Hooray DJT!

Trump has won a 30% increase in gasoline prices in California. He won closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which was open to all ships prior to him starting the war. He has won a four-fold increase in expenditure on defensive systems to replenish what has been exhausted, paid for with cuts to education and health. Some winning.

The Strait is not open. That is a lie. Oil prices are not crashing, another lie.

Before you start talking about critical thinking skills, I suggest you learn some.

BTW, do not dishonestly modify my posts. Quote them in full if you wish to respond.

40 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

BTW, do not dishonestly modify my posts. Quote them in full if you wish to respond.

I did not respond to a lacessit post on this thread. Are you getting confused with another login?😅 why do the forum left need so many accounts to back and forth with. Quite sad IMO

1 hour ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Initial Military Investigation Faults the U.S. For a School Strike in Iran

An ongoing investigation by the U.S. military has determined that American forces were responsible for a deadly missile strike on an elementary school in Iran late last month. The strike appears to be one of the most devastating single military errors in recent decades. Iranian officials have said the death toll was at least 175 people, mostly children.

The inquiry found that military intelligence officers used outdated information to label the school building, which was once part of an adjacent Iranian naval base, as a military target.

https://archive.ph/HvzIL

Thank-you - That report is from 11-March... I don't think there is anything new in it.

I think the The school’s location next to an Iranian military facility is central to understanding the incident. The broader evidence points toward the United States military: the strike occurred during active U.S. operations in the area, matched the profile of a precision strike consistent with U.S. capabilities, and followed a pattern of coordinated attacks on the adjacent base.

Independent reporting from outlets like Reuters and The Guardian therefore describes U.S. involvement as “likely” though not definitively proven.

At the same time, there is no official confirmation or public release of definitive strike data, and the widely circulated explanation of a “targeting mistake” remains unverified. If such a mistake did occur, the most plausible explanation is not that the site was never military, but that it once was and later changed use.

Facilities can be repurposed over time - a former military building can become a school - and unless intelligence databases are continuously updated, they may retain outdated labels. In fast-moving operations, analysts may rely on existing target data and fail to fully cross-check it against the latest satellite imagery or on-the-ground changes.

Responsibility is also distributed across multiple agencies, which can lead to gaps where each assumes another has verified the information. From an aerial perspective, buildings near military compounds can also appear similar, increasing the risk of misidentification if scrutiny is insufficient.

Such a scenario - which I do accept and belief is the likley one is a serious failure of intelligence maintenance and verification rather than proof that the original classification was wrong.

In other words, the issue was likely outdated or poorly validated data as stated - rather than a single obvious mistake.

Thus: The overall picture, certainly as reported is that the U.S. responsibility appears probable, but still remains unconfirmed, and the specific cause - including whether this was a targeting error due to outdated intelligence - is still not fully established (although I believe likely).

Nevertheless - the US Military 'know' the answer by now - that leads to a lack of credibility that they cannot make an official statement on this issue - own up and apologies for the horrific error - no one else cab be blamed - or provide verfiable facts that it cannot be them (unlikely).

Owning up would certainly add to the credibility of the information the U.S. Military puts out there - though obviously comes with horrific optics - I think most people believe the deaths of the school children was a targeting error by now anyway - though a lot of the 'evidence' made public is either sketch or speculative.

32 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Thank-you - That report is from 11-March... I don't think there is anything new in it.

I think the The school’s location next to an Iranian military facility is central to understanding the incident. The broader evidence points toward the United States military: the strike occurred during active U.S. operations in the area, matched the profile of a precision strike consistent with U.S. capabilities, and followed a pattern of coordinated attacks on the adjacent base.

Independent reporting from outlets like Reuters and The Guardian therefore describes U.S. involvement as “likely” though not definitively proven.

At the same time, there is no official confirmation or public release of definitive strike data, and the widely circulated explanation of a “targeting mistake” remains unverified. If such a mistake did occur, the most plausible explanation is not that the site was never military, but that it once was and later changed use.

Facilities can be repurposed over time - a former military building can become a school - and unless intelligence databases are continuously updated, they may retain outdated labels. In fast-moving operations, analysts may rely on existing target data and fail to fully cross-check it against the latest satellite imagery or on-the-ground changes.

Responsibility is also distributed across multiple agencies, which can lead to gaps where each assumes another has verified the information. From an aerial perspective, buildings near military compounds can also appear similar, increasing the risk of misidentification if scrutiny is insufficient.

Such a scenario - which I do accept and belief is the likley one is a serious failure of intelligence maintenance and verification rather than proof that the original classification was wrong.

In other words, the issue was likely outdated or poorly validated data as stated - rather than a single obvious mistake.

Thus: The overall picture, certainly as reported is that the U.S. responsibility appears probable, but still remains unconfirmed, and the specific cause - including whether this was a targeting error due to outdated intelligence - is still not fully established (although I believe likely).

Nevertheless - the US Military 'know' the answer by now - that leads to a lack of credibility that they cannot make an official statement on this issue - own up and apologies for the horrific error - no one else cab be blamed - or provide verfiable facts that it cannot be them (unlikely).

Owning up would certainly add to the credibility of the information the U.S. Military puts out there - though obviously comes with horrific optics - I think most people believe the deaths of the school children was a targeting error by now anyway - though a lot of the 'evidence' made public is either sketch or speculative.

Given that Pete Hegseth is the Secretary of War, I doubt there's any rush to have the Pentagon address this issue. The reverse is more likely.

1 hour ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Given that Pete Hegseth is the Secretary of War, I doubt there's any rush to have the Pentagon address this issue. The reverse is more likely.

Agreed - and this is exactly the double-edged sword at the heart of it. If responsibility were established - even privately within the military - then openly acknowledging it and offering a clear apology could significantly strengthen the credibility of the United States military and political systems. A statement that reinforces a long-standing principle - that it does not deliberately target civilian infrastructure and focuses on military assets - while admitting a tragic error would carry weight. It would frame the incident not as intent, but as a failure within the chaos and complexity of warfare, and signal a willingness to take responsibility and learn from it.

The problem is that modern political reality often punishes that kind of honesty. Any public admission of fault - by any government, not just the U.S. - can quickly become a political liability, seized upon as weakness or incompetence. Careers, reputations, and even broader strategic positions can be damaged overnight. As a result, the space for saying “we made a mistake, we are accountable, and we will do better” is extremely narrow, if it even exist at all anymore.

That tension sits uneasily with the nature of war itself. Warfare is inherently imperfect, conducted with incomplete information and under pressure, where errors - however devastating - can and do happen. The paradox is that acknowledging those realities openly could build long-term trust and legitimacy, but in the current climate, it often carries immediate political cost. That leaves governments caught between transparency and survival, even in situations where candour might ultimately serve them better.

7 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

If it ultimately proves to have been a U.S. strike, credibility will depend on transparency.

Seeing all the above with the de rigueur platitudes makes me think of this:

48 minutes ago, JerryM said:

Seeing all the above with the de rigueur platitudes makes me think of this:

Looks longer than a one liner - was that one of the NY Times articles you've been reading ?

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Looks longer than a one liner - was that one of the NY Times articles you've been reading ?

No -- I have recently had 2 short comments published on the NY Times -- one received 135 recommends and the other 45 -- one a comment on their tarticle about Stephen Miller and the other on Hegseth which is probably a lot more than read any of your stuff.

23 hours ago, JerryM said:

To get your point across then took some precision, not bloviation.

I prefer brevity over bloviation.

1 hour ago, Effective altruism said:

On 4/20/2026 at 6:38 AM, JerryM said:

To get your point across then took some precision, not bloviation.

I prefer brevity over bloviation.

Just to note the the word 'then' in the above quote refers to the days when a Twitter post was limited to 140 characters.

10 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

With the Iranian people ? or the Supreme Leader of Iran, the Beit-e Rahbar, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Supreme National Security Council, the Guardian Council, the Expediency Discernment Council, the Judiciary, and President of Iran - all of whom have overseen tens of thousands of Iranian protestors executed ?

Because when you write, you are with the Iranians on this - which of them do you mean ?

All of em, ok? At least they re defending themselves and haven't killed millions through Israeli and USA forces and trump. Trump and his israeli acolytes have killed hundreds of thousands and let millions die through his withdrawal of foreign aid, medicare etc. Let me repeat. I am with the Iranians, whoever they may be, as long as they are resisting trump and accelerating his demise for israeli war crimes and for waging illegal wars. Wake up. Iranian civil problems are a deflection. The USA is a disgrace.

National Security Strategy

of the United States of America

November 2025

America will always have core interests in ensuring that Gulf energy supplies do

not fall into the hands of an outright enemy, that the Strait of Hormuz remain open,

that the Red Sea remain navigable, that the region not be an incubator or exporter

of terror against American interests or the American homeland, and that Israel

remain secure. We can and must address this threat ideologically and militarily

without decades of fruitless “nation-building” wars. We also have a clear interest in

expanding the Abraham Accords to more nations in the region and to other

countries in the Muslim world.

But the days in which the Middle East dominated American foreign policy in both

long-term planning and day-to-day execution are thankfully over—not because the

Middle East no longer matters, but because it is no longer the constant irritant, and potential source of imminent catastrophe, that it once was.

It is rather emerging as a place of partnership, friendship, and investment—a trend that should be welcomed and encouraged. In fact, President Trump’s ability to unite the Arab world at Sharm el-Sheikh in pursuit of peace and normalization will allow the

United States to finally prioritize American interests.

pages 28-29 https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf

10 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Thus: The overall picture, certainly as reported is that the U.S. responsibility appears probable, but still remains unconfirmed, and the specific cause - including whether this was a targeting error due to outdated intelligence - is still not fully established (although I believe likely).

https://aseannow.com/topic/1388594-takeaways-from-the-iran-strike/page/15/#comment-20409959