Mission (not quite) accomplished: The F-5 and other inconvenient truths

It seems the narrative of complete and total US air superiority might require a slightly less enthusiastic edit.

New reports suggest that Iran’s recent military strikes on US bases in the Middle East were considerably more… impactful… than the initial, polished press releases let on. Apparently, when it comes to assessing battlefield damage, "total victory" and "over $5 billion in repair bills" are, shall we say, distinct concepts.

At the heart of this unfolding, and entirely unexpected, saga is the rather awkward claim that an Iranian F-5 fighter jet successfully bombed Camp Buehring in Kuwait. You remember the F-5?

The aircraft that debuted during the Cold War and is now primarily used by top-tier military forces and… well, Iran? It seems this vintage warrior defied both physics and the very robust (and very expensive) American air defenses surrounding the base.

It’s an achievement so improbable, it’s almost admirable—if one discounts the whole "violating sovereign airspace and attacking a base" part.

This, as NBC News reports (citing sources ranging from the American Enterprise Institute to actual, presumably embarrassed, officials), would be the first time in quite a while an "enemy fixed-wing aircraft" managed to, you know, actually hit an American base. So much for the exclusivity of that exclusive club.

This inconvenient detail seems to stand in stark contrast to the rather confident predictions made by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Back in March, Hegseth was channeling his inner Nostradamus, assuring everyone that Iranian missiles simply "would not make it to their targets." He declared, with refreshing (and possibly misguided) certainty, "There is almost nothing they can militarily do about it." One wonders if he includes decades-old jets in his "almost nothing" category, or perhaps the "military" part is the key qualifier.

The report suggests this "almost nothing" somehow translated into more than 100 targets being struck across 11 US bases, scattered like confetti across Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait. It turns out that when official assurances say "we will shoot them down," they might mean "we will shoot some of them down, eventually, after they’ve made their point."

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI), in an uncharacteristic display of fiscal sobriety, estimated the damage at well over $5 billion. This is, of course, entirely separate from the 13 service members who tragically lost their lives and the nearly 400 troops injured—casualties that the Pentagon’s official count, delightfully, had previously cataloged. It’s a cost that seems to climb faster than the reputation of certain defensive systems.

This "incomplete picture" (to use a diplomatic term for "we might have forgotten some details") is causing quite a stir, particularly among Republican lawmakers.

One congressional aide, speaking with the weary tone of someone who’s been asking the same question for weeks, complained to NBC News, "No one knows anything. And it's not for lack of asking." It appears that getting specifics on battle damage is roughly as challenging as getting the Pentagon to actually use its record-high budget efficiently.

President Trump, currently 79 and presumably occupied with other, non-air-defense-related matters, dismissed the idea that Iran could inflict such damage, insisting they had been "obliterated." He added that Washington held "all the cards"—one of which, apparently, is the "Complete and Total Ignorance" card regarding reality.

When asked for comment, the Pentagon, in a classic move of operational security—or perhaps just extreme modesty—stated, "We do not discuss battle damage assessments for operation security reasons."

They did, however, maintain that their forces remain "fully operational," executing their mission with "the same readiness and combat effectiveness." Which, based on recent events, sounds like a truly terrifying proposition.

The White House and AEI also found themselves strategically unavailable for comment, proving that silence, indeed, can be golden, especially when the alternative is explaining how a flying relic punched through multi-billion-dollar defenses.

And the lack of transparency isn’t just limited to charred equipment. The Intercept suggests that casualty counts might be, shall we say, conservatively estimated.

Furthermore, the report alleges the White House requested private satellite companies not to publish images of US bases post-strikes—a strategy that Planet Labs seemingly complied with, extending a 14-day blackout.

This, despite the fact that publicly available satellite imagery had already revealed before-and-after damage. It seems the White House believes that if you don't see the evidence, the explosion never really happened. A sophisticated approach to geopolitics, truly.