re: NYT: Iran retains operational access to 90% of missile sites according to US intelligence

quote:

---

Sources say Im sure

Its the same bs every single time with these articles
Ppl that keep faling for it are dopes

---

Thinking that every single unnamed source is inaccurate is retarded.

We can have discernment and analyze information that comes from an unnamed source, even when the relayer of that source is biased (When is the last war the NYT did not enthusiastically support launching?).

Gee what are the odds?

quote:

---

Exactly who are these people giving classified info(by their own admission) to the NYT? Seems like there are still leaks to the press that need to be dealt with.

---

Wasn’t there a thread the other day about Brennan saying they still have people imbedded in the agencies?

I doubt the premise of the article is actually true.

It is the NYT, so the journalistic credibility is automatically suspect.

quote:

---

I doubt the premise of the article is actually true.

It is the NYT, so the journalistic credibility is automatically suspect.

---

I suspect the premise is true, but imprecise in a way that materially changes how to interpret the information.

I imagine how it was actually presented to the Congress was along the lines of:

quote:

---

Of the 33 Iranian missile sites, we believe 10 are operating at 25% capacity, 10 are operating at 50% capacity, and 10 are operating near full capacity

---

quote:

---

Thinking that every single unnamed source is inaccurate is retarded.

---

You are right. Its not like we have a decade of proof of them being about 99% inaccurate or anything

"Access" to 90% of the sites means literally nothing except new troops can show up, dig through rubble, stand watch, send reports and receive orders from whatever command structure there is.

From the part you quoted:

quote:

---

Iran has regained access to most of its missile sites, launchers and underground facilities.

Most alarming to some senior officials is evidence that Iran has restored operational access to 30 of the 33 missile sites it maintains along the Strait of Hormuz

---

This means the bombing campaign in fact rendered at least 30 out of 33 missile sites effectively inoperative. If so, Trump wasn't lying to say they were largely destroyed. Regrettably, it's not surprising that the NYT is trying to frame what was operational success at the time into a diss on Trump for being wrong or lying.

If new intel is coming in saying Iranian forces have used the ceasefire to "restore operational access", it doesn't mean it's anywhere near fully operational.

quote:

---

depending on the level of damage incurred at the different sites — that the Iranians can use mobile launchers that are inside the sites to move missiles to other locations.

---

If all the Iranian forces can do is scrounge up some mobile launchers and unfired missiles and move them somewhere else, then it sounds like many if not most of the 30 sites were devastated. Again, retaining / restoring "access" to these sites isn't much of an accomplishment since we're not firing at them.

Iran was and absolutely is a threat to shipping. It really shouldn't be surprising that they took advantage of the ceasefire to regroup over the past few weeks. The longer this goes on, the more operational ability they'll recover. But reading this tweet, they don't sound like they've recovered much. It reads more like the NYT wants to cast doubt unnecessarily.

quote:

---

Hegseth and Caine have been misleading Trump regarding our munitions stockpiles, so it makes sense that Iran’s missiles are still largely intact.

---

You’re right, it makes sense……nonsense.

quote:

---

I can't read the fricking article and I am not paying for the NYT. Let me state a fact "anonymous sources".

---

Fify