by Ramin Mazaheri for the Saker blog (Written for PressTV and cross-posted by permission)
I am deeply skeptical that the US ever initiated a missile strike against Iran and then called it off, as was claimed by The New York Times.
Of course, the US “paper of record” routinely does terrible journalism – they repeatedly rely on anonymous sources, as they did for this claim. Anonymous sources cannot be considered credible, even if the The New York Times resorts to it over and over and over.
But their bad journalism does not stop there: the Times runs a scaremongering, tabloid, belligerent headline like Trump Approves Strikes on Iran, but Then Abruptly Pulls Back, and yet goes on to write:
“It was not clear whether Mr. Trump simply changed his mind on the strikes or whether the administration altered course because of logistics or strategy. It was also not clear whether the attacks might still go forward.”
About as clear as mud, I’d say. A smarter editor would have held the story… but this is The New York Times.
Every person and every nation has their own style of negotiating.
The historical US style is defined by never keeping promises, and by refusing to negotiate until peak US leverage has been obtained. US President Donald Trump’s business-influenced style is to use chaos and instability as a way to create turmoil among his opponents in order to increase his leverage. Trump Uses Chaos To Get Things Done, to quote a recent headline from The Atlantic.
Iran’s style is defined by transparency in their moral values – this causes vast consternation among the cynical practitioners of realpolitik who are a (overvalued) dime a dozen in the West. Iran’s style is also marked by the patience to follow a long term strategy – for example, in 2016 Iran signed a 25-year strategic relations agreement with China, another patient group.
Europe and the Eurozone nations – which are governed by the undemocratic structures of the European Union and the Eurogroup, respectively – have a negotiating style which can be defined as a high-class appearance which hides a pathetic, yet aggressive, servility.
It’s clear that negotiations between these groups and individuals reached a major impasse months ago, and also that the new lines and positions are now becoming clear.
As they have for nearly 40 years, the stance of the Iranian people continues to surprise and confound the West. Of course, they are used to dealing with compliant governments and puppet leaders….
The “aborted attack” on Iran proves that the shooting down of a US drone is viewed as a huge loss by the US: It is so important that many in Washington apparently want to start a war over it. But Iran’s drone victory is just a capper to a series of events and discussions in Iran which are proving the nation’s unity following the obvious failure of negotiating with the West.
(I write “the West” not because I am “anti-Western”, but because the non-Western JCPOA signatories (China & Russia) have actually upheld their word.)
After Washington reneged on the JCPOA in May 2018, it was natural that there was existential angst in Iran – years had been spent pursuing diplomacy, and then the nation’s archenemy said that diplomacy was impossible. It is natural that the Iranian people were exasperated by such Western belligerence and false promises, and that they did not know which way to turn back then.
However, it is clear one year later that the nation has recomposed itself and moved on.
There is routine public discussion in the tea houses and at the top levels of government that Iran should not even denigrate themselves with more diplomatic discussions. Clearly, Iran is not afraid – it is disgusted by the way the West has failed to honor their word. Politics change, but it seems as if Iran is going to wait until the 2020 US elections before seriously restarting more diplomatic efforts. This would also give the EU some time to grow a backbone. To the self-appointed “masters of the universe” in Washington – this reluctance to answer their phone calls is yet another slap in the face.
Not jumping at more negotiations, shooting down a drone, Iran publicly and politely declaring they will resume uranium enrichment, unexplained attacks in the Persian Gulf – all of these have caused the US to lose so much face in recent weeks.
Iran is making the US look bad, very bad. Therefore, it is little wonder that Washington and The New York Times have chose to wage maximum sabre-rattling with this “near attack”.
Frankly, I am unimpressed, and I think Iran will react the same way.
Iranians now appear united in their stance: negotiations were made in good faith and thus must be honored, or else there can be no new negotiations – certainly no jury would disagree. If a Western attack happens – sadly, it won’t be the first one.
Of course, this is merely the latest chapter in the effort to destabilise Iran to the point of civil war. The Iran-Iraq War, shooting down an Iranian passenger plane, sanctions on medicine, sanctions to achieve $0 in oil sales – for 40 years the US and their allies have single-mindedly sought to destabilise Iran to the point of creating a reactionary response which would overturn the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution.
Iranians have understood this reality for quite some time – they are united in this view as firmly as they are united in their wish that the West would honor diplomatic accords. Sadly, Westerners do not understand this reality – that the US goal in Iran is civil war, chaos and the end of Muslim Democracy. The Western public has been betrayed by their media and their 1% by decades of orchestrated Iranophobia.
Washington and Trump have actually foolishly painted themselves into a corner – after an “aborted attack” the only further escalation is an “actual attack”.
Of course, an attack on Iran has no future – 2019 Iran is not Afghanistan nor Iraq, to list two recent US military failures. An attack on Iran is to continue US policy: foment instability inside Iran, because Iran cannot be invaded.
But I would advise Iran not to play games with a cornered aggressor, and one led by such an inexperienced politician with such a lack of tethering to the idea of the “public good”.
Perhaps in the final 1.5 years of his term the erratic Trump can be switched to good sense on Iran? Perhaps Europe, China and Russia can help show that Iran is too strong to be endlessly antagonised? Perhaps the world will see that Iran has – in the Straits of Hormuz – a trump card it can play to demand the lies, sanctions and exclusions finally stop?
This will take more time. But Trump must know – at least instinctively – that Iran is not Syria, and that any strikes will have real consequences to Americans and American interests. That’s why he called off the strike… if he ever even called it on.
Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China.
Thank you Ramin; I have been looking forward to your breathing some sanity and grounded Iranian integrity into this discussion. Here in the USA it is very difficult to not be taken in by the ridiculous reporting style of the New York Times and get caught up in their insane head games. Your sane exposure of their flaws is a blessing and calms my mind.
It is now clearly visible to me that the real problem is that the historic egoism of the West is culturally grounded in the sense of a difference between one and the alien other. As if one is not connected to the other. Hence war against the other seemed for a long time to do no harm to self. How ever we have all now moved to a new form of world where all is so interconnected that there is no longer room for the Western illusion of the separate other, that is free of interdependence with self. To harm the other is to harm the Self. The realities of global existence prove this. USA attacks the other whether China or Iran or Russia and it massively harms its own direct well being. The objective interdependence is now so palpable it is amazing that the habit bound Western mind cannot now see and adjust to this. Perhaps it needs a lesson. One way or another the point is going to get through.
It is very easy not to be taken in by the New York Times. It begins with one very simple step, and if that step is always followed one can be certain of not being fooled again. The one simple step is …… do not read the New York Times.
What really happened?
The tough-talking, chest-beating American Empire blinked like a b!tch.
The Americans know that the consequences of an escalation of its current proxy war against Iran into a conventional out-of-the-closet war will, as Vlad. Putin said, have catastrophic consequences–not just for other countries in the region or the world but for the USA itself.
If America further plays with fire, it will get burned–alive.
Best to swallow your pride, declare “victory” and then beat a hasty retreat.
Iran refrained from targeting US plane with 35 on board flying beside downed drone – commander
https://www.rt.com/news/462387-iran-refrained-shooting-us-plane/
I do not doubt however that various actual plans have been made by the USA for differing scenarios and escalations.
Their 60 page document being discussed eg at RT about a nuclear winnable war written in accountants profit and loss style clearly shows their psychopathic lack of a sense of reality and humanity. Their current confusion or lack of decision or deliberate obscurity shows they are convinced their dangerous games keeps the world in needless stress and tension to keep their fingers on the trigger of their self belief in righteousness.Further staged or provocative events can easily occur.
However I am not certain about events and would appreciate that apart from the known tanker “attacks” what else is occuring eg “reports” of Iranian ships on fire ??????etc etc cheers.
‘I’m not sayin’ that we wouldn’t get our hair mussed….’ Dr. Strangelove looks more and more like a documentary.
“European Union and the Eurogroup, respectively – have a negotiating style which can be defined as a high-class appearance which hides a pathetic, yet aggressive, servility.”
Eaxctly.
Trump’s whole MO is based on being the bully and appearing to set the agenda by issuing threats. This facade has been publicly punctured. Suffering such a public loos of face could well be fatal for all his foreign policy ‘initiatives’. He is still hoping for a trade deal with China, but the Chinese won’t back down. Russia has never backed down, even punny Venezuela didn’t surrender. Who will save him from himself? Who are his friends?
It is a dangerous time.
An outstanding reporting indeed. Saker bravo for never disappointing!
I add to this stellar journalist’s journaling:
>>the worm has turned.
>>China, Russia, Iran >CIRCIRV to the worst of our species Israel was to be the power center of the One World Government. Putin told Bush Jr. there is not to be a unipolar world. Puppets AKA POTUS are controlled or they and their families die. Future is a mystery. However, the CIRV, Et Al compos mentis, are the genuine NWO to change Chosenites into historical barbarians gone again.
Thanks for this incredible post Saker and wow Journalist thanks for the Who, What, Where, When, Why and How! 5 W’s & an H true top journalism!
Thank you Ramin. Somehow I was waiting for you all through the morning. Trump’s bluff, if he actually bluffed, was called.
Now we need to add the passion of George Galloway:
Attacking Iran, US will open the gates of hell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvTPVvj_IE
From this point onward, Trump is in campaign mode. Actually, he always has been. But, now its official.
Trump has always been one to say whatever makes the crowd cheer. If claiming that Obama’s birth certificate was fake made the crowd cheer, that’s what Trump said. If claiming that he would drain the swamp made the crowds cheer, that what Trump said. If when running against a Bush he found that claiming that the regime change wars were a mistake made the crowds cheer, then that’s what Trump said. None of it represents a plan or a policy. Trump’s policy is to say whatever makes the crowd cheer.
Trump is a failing President. No President with a polling approval rate below 48% has ever been reelected. Trump’s polling approval rate is stuck at 42%. Even worse for Trump, it doesn’t move. The key middle ground of American voters has made their mind about Trump, and its not favorable. They simply do not pay attention anymore no matter what Trump does or says or tweets. Thus, Trump is getting more and more desperate to try to move that approval rate higher than its current lose-by-a-historic-landslide level. I sensed this during his desperate bluffing against Venezuela. Now that that gambit has failed, he’s trying to act tough against Iran. And yet, I’d bet the polls don’t move that number. Trump will likely stagger around searching for a victory. Trump managed to bully the Mexicans, but that doesn’t impress Americans much. So far, Trump is having problems finding others to bully.
My basic feeling is that time is on Iran’s side, because the U.S. is led by an incompetent president, and Iran would do well to adopt a low-key strategy that reduces the chances of war. If Sanders is elected in 2020, I think he will seek peaceful relations with Iran that are not dictated by Israel, and cease U.S. aggression. Biden would probably be more competent and dangerous then Trump, but my guess is he won’t secure the nomination, given HRC’s failure in 2016.
It is hard to assess what Iran’s response should be because we lack a detailed picture of how strong Iran’s position is vis-a-vis America. They could actually be in a very strong position or they might be weak and vulnerable. We just don’t know. The U.S. military is considering using nukes to win battles, which is probably a threat against Iran. This means they fear losing a conventional battle with Iran.
If the U.S. did nuke Iran, it would increase the absurdity of the American position to another level, since the U.S. justifies its actions against Iran as needed to prevent Iranians, who are supposedly not as responsible as Americans, from acquiring nuclear weapons.
If Sanders was elected, an impossibility given his true role, he would co-operate fully with his tribal confreres in Tel Aviv.
I don’t think so. Sanders is not a Zionist. He has been leading the effort to end U.S. involvement in Yemen. He has also been trying to push the Democratic party toward a more neutral position on Palestine. I think if he were president he would try to restore the nuclear agreement and end the sanctions, if Iran will agree to this. The X-factor in all this will be his staff appointments and his degree of independence from Israel. From what I can see so far he is relatively independent from Israel for a U.S. politician.
It should be kept in mind that a President Sanders is not just one person but represents a political movement. His actions are circumscribed by his political base which has a large anti-war component. His campaign funding also is mostly from small donations and not large donors.
Edward, the USA is actively assisting in the destruction of Yemen, and the Palestinians are still considered vermin in US public life. And the BDS movement is being outlawed. If Sanders is trying, he’s not very successful at it. As for being ‘…relatively independent from Israel for a U.S. politician..’, that just means that you can see his feet hanging from Bibi’s posterior like a dag on a sheep’s rump, rather than having disappeared fully from view.
Sanders position on Palestine can be found here:
https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-israel-and-the-palestinians/
Actions count more then words, and Sanders has taken some actions that challenge AIPAC. One was to nominate Palestinian advocate James Zogby to the Democratic Party central committee. There were a couple of other actions that I can’t remember now as well.
There is a basic problem above who is president and that is how to break Israeli control over the U.S. government and how to “regime change” the terrible, criminal deep state that is entrenched in Washington today. I think that Sanders understands that Israeli control of our government is a problem and is trying to figure out what to do about it. No, his positions are not as strong as what you or I would want, or in some cases just plain wrong, but he is leading a movement that is challenging the entrenched power in Washington.
Well, Edward, if you’ll forgive my persistence, I am judging Sanders by his behaviour last time, as the DNC openly stole the nomination from him, and he then rolled over, without a whimper, at the Convention. I see him as a sheepdog, designed to neutralise the young, Leftist, opposition within the Democrats. We’ll see this time, and it will prove me correct, or just a cynical defeatist.
Like it or not, that’s the way the political process works. Regardless of whether or not the nomination was stolen from him, Sanders had no chance of being selected as the nominee by the Democratic Party leadership at the Convention. Any other response would not have helped him. His decision to support and campaign for Clinton was a painful one for his supporters but Sanders preferred a Clinton presidency to a Trump presidency.
As far as the “sheep dog” theory is concerned. The theory might have had some credibility had Sanders been chosen as the Vice Presidential nominee. In that way, Democratic voters viewing Clinton as too close to Wall St could have been thrown a bone. But it was clear that the DNC would not tolerate anyone from the Left of the party (such Sanders or Elizabeth Warren) even in that role. The fact that this didn’t happen simply made this obvious and in the end his supporters had nothing to show for their efforts and hopes. In my opinion, this hurt Clinton’s candidacy as well as the credibility of the DNC in the eye of Sanders voters.
So, David, when the Bernouts with enough nous saw the double-cross, they, wisely, decided not to bother voting for the supposed ‘lesser Evil’, Clinton, which was very, very, Evil indeed. Abstention was the winner, was it not? Sanders could have insisted on a Left Veep candidate, but the DNC ticket was two fascist imperialist servants of the ruling plutocracy. Whereupon staying at home became the only honourable choice. And, if Clinton had won, we might already all be dead in a thermo-nuclear war with Russia.
Sanders could have done so, yes. It would have done absolutely no good, of course. He had no leverage to exert. The DNC showed itself committed to serving the interests of their big money donors, as the Republicans have always done. Had Sanders and his supporters simply stormed out of the convention, Sanders would have been branded a spoiler and a sore loser. Trump still would have won and Sanders and his supporters would have been blamed and Sander’s policy points discredited by association.
>if Clinton had won, we might already all be dead in a thermo-nuclear war with Russia.
We might, although I doubt it. We have no way to know. On the other hand, given her support for Obama’s policies and the JCPOA we might not be on the verge of war with Iran. Not to mention Venezuela or North Korea.
As far as what Sanders voters did after the nomination, I don’t know. Personally, I voted for Sanders in the primary and Stein in the general.
“the DNC openly stole the nomination from him, and he then rolled over”
I don’t think Sanders had a choice about this. In 2000 Al Gore was able to destroy the Green Party by blaming Nader for Bush’s victory in the election. This wasn’t true, IMO, but that didn’t matter; voters blamed Nader and the Greens, fair or not. This is what would have happened if Sanders had not supported Clinton. He and the left-wing Democrats would have been destroyed because they would have been blamed for Trump’s election victory. Some Clinton people tried to blame Sanders anyway, but didn’t get anywhere. Instead, Vladimir Putin was blamed, and to a lesser extent Clinton. Sanders escaped that trap.
Gore won the election, then acquiesced as the Republicans stole it in Florida. Nader is almost Christ like in his moral and intellectual stature in comparison to Gore, Bush, Sanders, the Clintons, Trump, Obama and the whole sordid sewer. As long as you insist of ‘moderate’ slaves of the real rulers, the parasite elites, domestic, dual loyalty and foreign, the USA will continue going down the toilet. And there’s not much left to be flushed.
Is somebody pulling The Donald’ strings?
https://www.chabad.org/news/article_cdo/aid/3985366/jewish/Trump-Meets-With-Rabbis-in-Oval-Office-Proclaims-Education-Day-2018.htm
Ivanka Trump and Family at Chabad-Lubavitch Ohel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5rdX6Fzexg
One may want to check what Chabad’s beliefs are and who got their last Leader, Schneerson, out of the then German occupied place Schneerson was Living…
I think Trump is influenced by Adelson, Singer, ect. and their checkbooks. He is also influenced by FOX News and to a lesser extent the other press. And I would not be surprised if this shady character is being blackmailed or threatened.
The donor issue is really bad:
lobelog.com/trump-has-a-259-million-reason-to-bomb-iran/
Did you know John Bolton has a superpac? I didn’t.
Sanders is a dual citizen hypocrite!
Why do you think he is a dual citizen? This is news to me.
Well there are a couple arguments there,
1.) Is that Sanders is not a dual citizen
2.) Sanders, being Jewish can apply for dual-citizenship anytime he wishes
So it is irrelevant, like the orange-moron crypto-jew, where is father is buried in a jewish cemetery, and his mother was ‘full jewish’, Sanders at best, is another flavor of crypto-jew, where dTrumpf spent his whole life being a bad-jew, but not a jew in NY real-estate biz, Sanders has spent his entire life being socialist/progressive in Vermont where he is loved by the goy,
Certainly because dTrumpfs mother is jewish, dTrumpf too could certainly get a dual-citizenship, should he wish to ask,
Sanders did not make Israel’s rule that Jew’s automatically are granted Israeli citizenship, and the rule doesn’t tell us about Sander’s politics, or about the politics of other Jews by itself. It is as if the Klu Klux Klan extended its membership to me without my consent because I am white. Would such a declaration mean I am a white supremacist? No, because the declaration is made by someone else, not me.
Sander’s website refutes the dual citizen claim in this Q & A:
Jewish Heritage
Wait, Bernie’s Jewish?
Yes. His father was a Jewish immigrant from Poland, where the Nazis decimated the Jewish population during the Holocaust. Bernie’s brother Larry has stated that their father and uncle immigrated to the U.S. and the rest of their family died in Europe. Bernie has said that his Jewish heritage showed him the importance of politics at a young age:
“A guy named Adolf Hitler won an election in 1932. He won an election, and 50 million people died as a result of that election in World War II, including 6 million Jews. So what I learned as a little kid is that politics is, in fact, very important.”
Since he’s Jewish, is Bernie also Israeli?
No. Despite false reports to the contrary, Bernie is only a citizen of the United States.
Well, Bernie’s Jewish and his family died in the Holocaust. He must support Israel over the Palestinians, right?
No. Bernie doesn’t “support” Israel over the Palestinians. He believes both have the right to exist, stating:
“…the bottom line is that Israel must have the right to exist in peace and security, just as the Palestinians must have the right to a homeland in which they and they alone control their political system and their economy.”
https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-israel-and-the-palestinians/
I believe that, so long as the Talmudist Orthodox Rabbis who control Israeli religious affairs agree, the citizenship of Israel for every Jew is automatic, whether you want it or not. Renunciation would probably be a tricky affair, too, I suspect.
It could be, but I don’t think Sanders has agreed with any of this. I doubt he pays Israeli taxes, votes in Israeli elections, or has served in the IDF. I suppose Israel’s Rabbis could declare you or me Israeli citizens but would it make either of us Zionists?
Thanks Ramin for an insightful and well written post. This is Iran’s victory. Even if later on everything comes to naught, still, right now, they and we who care for them have cause for celebration.
Other commentators have also said this, but we have passed a turning point of world political-military nature. The American way of war has been increasingly to retreat into fantasy: the fantasy story line, and fantasies of technological prowess. High (and safe) in the air, bombing little people of a different culture. And using robot killer technology.
No longer does the American style war involve a rough reciprocity. You can kill me; I can kill you. We are brothers under the skin. Now, American boys sit half a world away operating computer game consoles.
But the world has turned: the mythical magic cloak of stealth turns out not to protect you. You were afraid the Iranians would get nuclear weapons. It’s worse. They have a device which can stab you right through your delusions.
The attack was called off with planes in the air, not to spare the lives of the aircrews. But to avoid a deadlier blow: the destruction of the myth of invincibility (conferred by the cloak of invisibility).
The fantasy is more important than any fact. And that is, I think, pretty much all that is left in the Empire’s armory.
P.S. And little Venezuela outplaying the mighty American Intelligence Community! “This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end . . . ” But maybe a little celebration is warranted.
“The attack was called off with planes in the air,”
If this is so—if the putative attack was really under way—then what was to stop the Iranians from blowing those planes out of the air, just like the drone?
Katherine
To Katherine: “planes in the air” is not the same as “at or beyond the point of no return”.
An attack by multiple aircraft will generally involve staging the aircraft, in the sky, as they maneuver into the formation planned for the attack. There is some boundary on the ground or in the air that marks off the enemy’s territory, and is the point where the enemy defenses start to engage the attacking aircraft.
Multiple news reports, quoting US official sources, implied that the aircraft were in the sky, being marshaled for the attack, when the attack was called of. And these reports made it clear that the aircraft had not crossed that final boundary. And it is clear from news reports sourced from the Iranian side, that the Iranians did not view the attack as having been launched.
The other part of your question: what was to stop the Iranians from blowing the planes out of the air, is very interesting in this context. There was another American aircraft near the drone at the time of the shoot-down, I believe a P-8 Poseidon. The Iranians stated they belied that it contained a crew of about 30 — but that number was not confirmed by the US side. However, the US military did not deny the Iranian report about the Poseidon.
What this means is that the Iranians could “see” both the stealthy drone and the very unstealthy Poseidon (about the size of a civilian air liner). And the Iranians picked out the drone and shot it down and spared the Poseidon. This action right there blows away the entire stealth story. And shows Iranian capabilities that the US side had not foreseen in their worst nightmares.
It was clear to the US side that many attacking aircraft would be shot down. This was the reason the air attack was called off. If they can’t take on sitting ducks in a gallery, they are going to take their toys and go home.
What I don’t understand is why, after 40 years of sanctions, is Iran not more self sufficient?
Take pharmaceuticals for example. Most medicines used by most people most of the time are very basic stuff and not too difficult to make. The only problem areas might be cutting edge medicines and medicines under foreign patents. But then this is only needed by a small number of people.
Similarly with industrial products. If Iran is able to make missiles and rockets that can deter the US military there is no reason why it is not able to make other industrial products. Many of the anciliary industries needed for making missiles can also be used for making other industrial products.
What are the products that Iran needs so badly from the outside and is not getting it that is causing such crisis and stress?
Even under near total embargo by the west life expaectancy in Iran has been constantly increasing reaching 76 years in 2016. Saudi and Iraqi life expectancy are 74,6 and 69,9 in comparison even without embargo. Until the year 2009 Saudi life expectancy was higher than the Iranian.
This developement seems to indicate that Iran has a high focus on health care and that they are quite successful at it.
And US life expectancy is falling.
Dear Ramin, that is just another top notch article of yours. You hit the nail on its top. Western self-contention is a guiding path to doom. I think Europes peak is reached and the neoliberale and servile stance is fully indulged, so from Europe there is nothing to expect morally, philosophically. “Our” leaders are just the breed of transatlantic education. And we forget who really liberated us, so look towards east is completely blurred.
The current narrative is that the NY Times article must be valid because Trump himself is talking about how he called back the attack at the last minute, and that he says the planes were “all but in the air.” I would say they do not know Trump.
I would say that Trump knew nothing about any plan of attack until he read about it in the Times. Then a light dawned in his little brain. “I can use this to make myself look good,” he thought. He then calls a press conference and tells everyone about his wisdom in saving 150 lives by calling back an attack, failing to mention that that the attack had never actually existed.
I don’t read the NY Times. I read what people say who do read the NY Times. I applaud those who mock the Times and/or are angered by the idiocy, and I feel sorry for those who take the Times seriously.
Israel has 80-90 nukes, SIPRI report says, as Tel Aviv continues to accuse Iran of nuclear obsession
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/06/20/israel-has-80-90-nukes-sipri-report-says-as-tel-aviv-continues-to-accuse-iran-of-nuclear-obsession/
the americans were simply worried that iranian air defense can shoot with accuracy like that discriminating the unmanned uav from the manned P8. as reported already iran’s coast is hardened with different types or air defenses. forget about the bullshit 150 iranian lives trump was very much worried. he was worried on the capability of the iranians to strike back, hence his hesitance or put it explicityly his reluctance to attack.
now the americans start to realise that the iranians had a very clear picture of the uav’s flight details where it came from, what time it took off from abu dhabi and it’s very much detailed flight path over the iranian coast notwithstanding the P8 orion that was flying alongside the downed drone. why the iranians knew these details? well, iran’s radar system definitely is very modern and capable of detecting the american’s surviellance activities. put it, the iranians would say, we know that they didn’t know we knew.