w all those who in the world. a lip all those who might seek to do us harm know this. if you harm an american we will respond. these sharks are in retaliation for veteran attack that killed three us soldiers and injured dozens. iranian to lying involvement calling accusations bracelets. reuters reporting that an iraqi spokesman has called the strikes a violation of iraqi sovereignty saying they pose a threat that could lead iraq and the region into dire consequences. live now to orla guerin, our senior international correspondent who's in northern iraq. good to see you again and we have been hearing some reaction from our correspondent there in baghdad as well. a tell us what you have been hearing in the region, the latest you are hearing and seeing. there has been a _ you are hearing and seeing. there has been a great _ you are hearing and seeing. there has been a great deal _ you are hearing and seeing. there has been a great deal of - you are hearing and seeing. there has been a great deal of tension l has been a great deal of tension over the last few days, increasing tension here in northern iraq

because people have known this response would be coming. it was very clear from the attack last sunday when three american service personnel were killed in effectively a countdown clock started in the region. the various american spokesman saying during the weekend, american officials that the response would come. and very clearly had to be different from the kind of responses that america has used before. it has previously retaliated against attacks by these iranian backed militia by striking locations like weapons storage facilities, training grounds and so on. i think what president biden was trying to do tonight very clearly was to signal that this was a different order of magnitude. 85 targets being hit in one series of strikes. us officials have been emphasising that this is just the officials have been emphasising that this isjust the beginning. this will be a multitiered response. over several days, at several locations. the difficulty, i think, for the

white house is that there are a limited number of things that you can try, while also attempting to make very sure that there are no civilian casualties. while we do not know at this stage any casualty figures or damage estimates for the targets that have been hit tonight, we know that the white house has been very eager to avoid any loss of civilian life. there is also a strong possibility that a certain number in perhaps, many of these facilities, that were hit tonight will have been empty because it has been clear for days that the us is going to strike. so people will not have been sitting there waiting for the us attacks to happen. if have been sitting there waiting for the us attacks to happen. iii you the us attacks to happen. if you could 'ust the us attacks to happen. if you could just tell _ the us attacks to happen. if you could just tell us _ the us attacks to happen. if you could just tell us a _ the us attacks to happen. if you could just tell us a bit _ the us attacks to happen. if you could just tell us a bit more - the us attacks to happen. if you i could just tell us a bit more about the significance of these strikes occurring simultaneously both on syria and iraq, and iranian backed groups in syria and iraq. i syria and iraq, and iranian backed groups in syria and iraq.— groups in syria and iraq. i think the wa s groups in syria and iraq. i think the ways white _ groups in syria and iraq. i think the ways white house - groups in syria and iraq. i think the ways white house wanted i groups in syria and iraq. i think. the ways white house wanted to send a message of strength. it wanted to have a strong enough deterrent to

satisfy public opinion in the united states after the killing of these three american service people. and particularly in this election season. also i think president biden was under pressure from the republicans. he had to be seen to deliver a strong response. that response will not have been strong enough to satisfy many republicans who were calling for more and who specifically were saying that america should even attack iran on home soil. it was clear that the white house was not willing to do that. but i think the president has been trying to walk a fine line, having a strong enough response that perhaps would act as a deterrent to these iranian backed militias, and let's see whether or not it is a deterrent. but not strong enough that it would force them to take things up a level and that it would force iran to take things upper—level. the white house has been desperately trying to contain an already spreading conflicts and

we are in a situation now where the middle east is a tinderbox. it has been described by antony blinken as the most dangerous moment since at the most dangerous moment since at the arab—israeli wars of 1973. i think few people would argue with that. so president biden has been trying to walk a fine line, to deliver a message that was strong enough, but not too strong. now we have to see what more strikes come in the coming days and what responses we have from both the iranian backed militias and from the capital itself. the signals from the iranian capitals is that we do not want this to get any worse, we do not want to start a war. if there is any attempt to jubilee us, as the iranian president said, than there will be a strong response. fine iranian president said, than there will be a strong response. one more cuestion will be a strong response. one more question before _ will be a strong response. one more question before we _ will be a strong response. one more question before we let _ will be a strong response. one more question before we let you - will be a strong response. one more question before we let you go. - will be a strong response. one more question before we let you go. tell i question before we let you go. tell us again how this is all tied in, connected to the israeli war in gaza. , , . gaza. everything is connected in the moment at the _

gaza. everything is connected in the moment at the middle _ gaza. everything is connected in the moment at the middle east. - gaza. everything is connected in the moment at the middle east. even i moment at the middle east. even though the israeli government would like to say few things are not connected to gaza. but if we look at the events that have happened since the events that have happened since the 7th of october, we have had the hamas attacks on israel with the horrendous loss of life about 1200 is really civilians killed. we had the huge israeli assault on gaza which is ongoing. a death toll among palestinians which is reaching close to 30,000. since then we had the iranian backed houthi militia in yemen stepping in targeting international shipping going through the red sea. they have said explicitly, they are doing this because of the offence in gaza. they are showing solidarity with the palestinian people. you have also had hezbollah, a militia in lebanon treating fire with israelis across the lebanon israeli border. so tension is up everywhere. instability is up everywhere and there is a great sense that the

conflict in gaza is fuelling this broader instability and it is broader instability and it is broaderfire across the broader instability and it is broader fire across the middle east. indeed. those concerns that this could all spiral out of control. thank you so much. and for that analysis from the ground there. i want to come back to the studio. with me is our state department correspondent, tom bateman and barbara starr, usc annenberg center seniorfellow and veteran pentagon correspondent. barbara i want to get your take on that original statement we saw from central command. what stood out to you there. i’m central command. what stood out to ou there. �* ,., , central command. what stood out to outhere. �* , ., �*, ., you there. i'm sorry that's it for us. just turning _ you there. i'm sorry that's it for us. just turning off _ you there. i'm sorry that's it for us. just turning off that - you there. i'm sorry that's it for us. just turning off that line - us. just turning off that line there. barbara _ us. just turning off that line there. barbara your- us. just turning off that line there. barbara your take i us. just turning off that line there. barbara your take on us. just turning off that line - there. barbara your take on that statement from central command. and what exactly had been hit in what stood out. i what exactly had been hit in what stood out. ., ., , stood out. i thought it was interesting, _ stood out. i thought it was interesting, not _ stood out. i thought it was i interesting, not unexpectedly stood out. i thought it was - interesting, not unexpectedly they talked _ interesting, not unexpectedly they talked about the use of a wide range of us— talked about the use of a wide range of us platforms including long—range bombers_ of us platforms including long—range bombers flying from the united states — bombers flying from the united states. that could mean b—i bombers, b-52 states. that could mean b—i bombers, b—52 bombers, that is something, a

tool, _ b—52 bombers, that is something, a tool. that_ b—52 bombers, that is something, a tool. that is— b—52 bombers, that is something, a tool, that is what they like to call it, tool, that is what they like to call it. that _ tool, that is what they like to call it. that the — tool, that is what they like to call it, that the air force likes to use to show— it, that the air force likes to use to show the _ it, that the air force likes to use to show the us can project will power— to show the us can project will power across an intercontinental range _ power across an intercontinental range. that is a message to the whole _ range. that is a message to the whole world that, essentially, the us stitt— whole world that, essentially, the us still maintains that capability. so i think— us still maintains that capability. so i think that was important. also, i think. _ so i think that was important. also, i think. the — so i think that was important. also, i think, the fact that they talked about— i think, the fact that they talked about the — i think, the fact that they talked about the irgc in two different places— about the irgc in two different places in— about the irgc in two different places in this statement. and and irgc related militias. essentially ouds _ irgc related militias. essentially quds forces, the most lethal part of these _ quds forces, the most lethal part of these militia groups. quds forces, not known — these militia groups. quds forces, not known to take its orders directly _ not known to take its orders directly from the iranian capital in many— directly from the iranian capital in many cases. so that is a clue, i think— many cases. so that is a clue, i think at— many cases. so that is a clue, i think at least, that they know they are dealing with personnel, militias that are _ are dealing with personnel, militias that are not necessarily all the time _ that are not necessarily all the time taking direct orders from the iranian— time taking direct orders from the

iranian capital. the us intelligence community has had this threat running — community has had this threat running for a while that the central government and the iranian capital does not _ government and the iranian capital does not necessarily controlled the militias _ does not necessarily controlled the militias. so that is an issue they have _ militias. so that is an issue they have to — militias. so that is an issue they have to deal with. because they can keep a _ have to deal with. because they can keep a striking them and they cannot necessarily— keep a striking them and they cannot necessarily predict where they will respond _ necessarily predict where they will respond. if they are not getting the orders _ respond. if they are not getting the orders from the iranian capital. nonetheless they are getting their weapons from there. so this is all very much— weapons from there. so this is all very much intertwined. i think it is coming _ very much intertwined. i think it is coming back— very much intertwined. i think it is coming back to the fundamental question — coming back to the fundamental question. we are coming up possibly on first— question. we are coming up possibly on first iate — question. we are coming up possibly on first late in the region and flying — on first late in the region and flying satellites, flying aircraft overhead, they will be looking at what _ overhead, they will be looking at what damage they inflict it. how much _ what damage they inflict it. how much damage and what it means for the next _ much damage and what it means for the next round of strikes. what much damage and what it means for the next round of strikes.— the next round of strikes. what is our take the next round of strikes. what is your take on _ the next round of strikes. what is your take on where _ the next round of strikes. what is your take on where this _ the next round of strikes. what is your take on where this leaves i your take on where this leaves president by day and the secretary of state who we know is heading to the region again. i of state who we know is heading to the region again.— the region again. i think that is exactly right- _ the region again. i think that is exactly right. more _ the region again. i think that is exactly right. more daylight. the region again. i think that is exactly right. more daylight is| exactly right. more daylight is needed at the moment. because not just the us is going to be looking, it will be the militias themselves. the iranians. john kirby, the white

house's national security council spokesman has been on call with reporters for the last 30 minutes or so saying that they are in the early stages in battle damage assessment. he says, they believe the strike was successful, in his words. we do not know at this time, how many militants have been killed or wounded. also talking about referring to civilians in saying that, the targets were carefully selected to avoid civilian casualties. we know earlier in the week that there had been this claim that cloud cover had perhaps prevented the strike before today. because they did not want to have the possibility of uninvolved civilians being caught up in this. so, that will be crucial. i think that will determine what has happened on the ground, will determine, in many ways, what happens next. we know that the iranians, the rhetoric has been pretty straight. they would have

been saying that they would respond decisively to attacks against their interests. what we have had some exactly attacks their interest. albeit, that it has not taken place on iranian soil. and that is the absolute key point of differentiation. that is with the up initiation has been telegraphing and putting out there all week. its critics have been saying, you have given the opportunity to these iranian backed militant to run away, to not be present when the strike happened but there may be quite deliberate reason for that. is that they don't want a huge explosion, and escalation. so i think we are now in the week and see and meantime the administration is saying, there will be more. i the administration is saying, there will be more-— the administration is saying, there will be more. i know we have to let ou co. will be more. i know we have to let you go- our— will be more. i know we have to let you go. our state _ will be more. i know we have to let you go. our state department tom bateman there. thank you for your analysis. barbara, with the follow—up on what tom was saying there. with one question for you and barbara as well. was there any question of whether there would be strikes on iranian entities, on

iranian territory? i strikes on iranian entities, on iranian territory?— strikes on iranian entities, on iranian territory? i think there was a aeneral iranian territory? i think there was a general consensus _ iranian territory? i think there was a general consensus of _ iranian territory? i think there was a general consensus of the - iranian territory? i think there was| a general consensus of the highest levels of the ministration that that would be a step too far. one of the things the intelligence community will also tell you is they constantly calculated everything they do across the middle east. what would iran's reaction be. that is the calculation they always look at. even though iran has not responded at this point. they maintain a significant capability to do so. they have inventory of ballistic missiles and weapons that can range across the middle east, they could hit us targets, western targets. so that appears to be a step too far at this point. i thinkjohn was absolutely correct. this was all very carefully calculated. a lot of signalling, a lot of messaging over the last several days. how many of us were sitting there waiting for the first behind the fall. the first missile to fly through the air. this

was not exactly a secret. i think there were good reasons for that, as your backend correspondent has continued to say throughout this evening. the message to the iranian capital was clear. we are going to do this, but don't come back at us. we will come back to that point. let's look at something now that you have been mentioning. the us began this retaliatory response against iran's islamic revolutionary guards corp quds force and affiliated militia groups. let's take a closer look at what this force is and its role in regional conflicts. the quds force is the international arm of iran's islamic revolutionary guards corps — known as the irgc. the irgc was established a0 years ago to defend tehran's islamic system, and to provide a counterweight to the regular armed forces. since then, the irgc has become a major military, political, and economic force in iran. it's believed that tehran utilizes the force of nearly 190 thousand personnel to further its foreign policy goals through the quds force.

the us has accused the quds force of plotting or carrying out terrorist attacks — either directly or through its proxies — in five out of seven continents. the force's commander was killed in a us airstrike in baghdad, iraq injanuary 2020. for more on the situation, i'm joined by military and foreign policy expert michael desch. michael, good to have you with us. tell us more about the quds forces and how influential they have been. quds forces is iran's covert paramilitary action group outside its borders. i think it is deeply engaged with a lot of different groups throughout the region in iraq in syria and lebanon also connected with the houthis and hamas, to a certain extent. thinking about these

groups as being an arm of the irgc or tehran, groups as being an arm of the irgc ortehran, probably groups as being an arm of the irgc or tehran, probably ignores the fact that this is probably more coalition warfare that it is like a puppet where the springs are being pulled. what you mean by that?— where the springs are being pulled. what you mean by that? these groups have their own — what you mean by that? these groups have their own agendas. _ what you mean by that? these groups have their own agendas. there - what you mean by that? these groups have their own agendas. there is - what you mean by that? these groups have their own agendas. there is a - have their own agendas. there is a big overlap with the iranian agenda, but it is not a complete overlap. iran and quds forces has a lot of influence, but not complete control. i think it would be a mistake to think these things are all tightly wired together. they are close allies, there is no doubt about it. but allies are not puppets. what

but allies are not puppets. what does that mean _ but allies are not puppets. what does that mean for _ but allies are not puppets. what does that mean for the - but allies are not puppets. what does that mean for the us - but allies are not puppets. what does that mean for the us response here and trying to send a message directly to iran? i here and trying to send a message directly to iran?— directly to iran? i think it means two things _ directly to iran? i think it means two things. first _ directly to iran? i think it means two things. first of _ directly to iran? i think it means two things. first of all, - directly to iran? i think it means two things. first of all, we - directly to iran? i think it means two things. first of all, we are l two things. first of all, we are imposing, if we scare the bejesus out of the iranians that they will bring these people in, which may not necessarily be a good bet. secondly, a lot of these groups will act to advance their own agendas. often that probably is congenial for the iranians. but it is important to understand that there are linkages, but not strings that can be pulled or a switch that can turn them on and off. the danger, i think and we are seeing this but our efforts to

attack the houthis in yemen, is that there are just limits to what we can do militarily to groups that don't have a big military infrastructure, but also don't necessarily answer immediately to what the iranian government may or may not want them to do. ., ., ~' government may or may not want them to do. ., ., 4' . . government may or may not want them to do. ., ., ,, ., ., ., government may or may not want them to do. ., ., ., , to do. looking at that, we have been s-ueakin to do. looking at that, we have been speaking with — to do. looking at that, we have been speaking with barbara, _ to do. looking at that, we have been speaking with barbara, that - to do. looking at that, we have been speaking with barbara, that it - to do. looking at that, we have been speaking with barbara, that it is - speaking with barbara, that it is going to be difficult for the us to wipe these groups out entirely. what do you see as the challenge here for the us in taking on these coalition groups, as you put it. i the us in taking on these coalition groups, as you put it.— the us in taking on these coalition groups, as you put it. i think there are two big — groups, as you put it. i think there are two big challenges. _ groups, as you put it. i think there are two big challenges. one, - groups, as you put it. i think there are two big challenges. one, they| are two big challenges. one, they tend to have a low infrastructural footprint. it is very impressive to fly a b—1 b from the united states to reach out and try and touch people in syria, but the targets

that we are bombing are relative... primitive. that you are really trimming that group's ability. the second thing is that there is a lot of signalling going on about barbara starr talked about that in the previous piece, that is exactly what we are trying to do. but there is a lot of bad history with signalling, especially with chorus of air power. the more i was listening to her account of what central command and the pentagon were saying, the more i was thinking about our effort to use coercive airpower against north vietnam in the early stages of the vietnam in the early stages of the vietnam war. you can do a lot of

damage and you can hit things up that does not guarantee that you are going to be able to achieve your objectives. if you do not achieve your objectives or something goes wrong, you hit a target that the iranians really valued, escalation is a real danger. just iranians really valued, escalation is a real danger.— is a real danger. just want to follow-no — is a real danger. just want to follow-no on _ is a real danger. just want to follow-up on that _ is a real danger. just want to follow-up on that point. - is a real danger. just want to | follow-up on that point. what follow—up on that point. what do you, or do you see the danger that we could see a wider conflict here? i think the danger is that p go through a series of strikes, they are all successful in the sense that we put bombs on target, but that it does not achieve the objective of getting these groups to pull in their horns. and indeed, as we saw with the attack on tower 22 in jordan, there are a lot of american targets in iraq, in syria and in the

region that these groups can retaliate against. see you can get into a cycle of tit—for—tat that spins out of control pretty quickly. that is the danger. just spins out of control pretty quickly. that is the danger.— that is the danger. just one more cuestion that is the danger. just one more question on _ that is the danger. just one more question on this. _ that is the danger. just one more question on this. we _ that is the danger. just one more question on this. we have - that is the danger. just one more question on this. we have seen i that is the danger. just one more - question on this. we have seen some reaction from republicans here in the us who have said, look, this is a welcome strike, these are welcome strikes we are seeing from the us, but they come far too late and they are too little. what do you think of the criticism? i are too little. what do you think of the criticism?— the criticism? i think that is not reall a the criticism? i think that is not really a fair _ the criticism? i think that is not really a fair criticism. _ the criticism? i think that is not really a fair criticism. it - the criticism? i think that is not really a fair criticism. it is - the criticism? i think that is not really a fair criticism. it is like l really a fair criticism. it is like during the vietnam war, a lot of people criticise thejohnson administration for not taking the gloves off. but even if we did take the gloves off and go after targets in iran, eight, it is not clear that it would eliminate the ability of

these iranian allies to inflict more damage on us and, b, it puts us further out on a slippery slope of escalation. further out on a slippery slope of escalation-— further out on a slippery slope of escalation. ., , ., ., ., , ., escalation. really good to get your insi . hts escalation. really good to get your insights and _ escalation. really good to get your insights and thoughts _ escalation. really good to get your insights and thoughts on _ escalation. really good to get your insights and thoughts on the - escalation. really good to get your insights and thoughts on the story | insights and thoughts on the story tonight. thank you so much. joining me live from baghdad is bbc world service correspondent nafiseh kohnavard. tell us more about what you think this could mean from the relationship of tehran with baghdad which is already incredibly complex. these attacks came when the relationship between baghdad and tehran had not been in good shape as well, iran carried off a massive attack a few days ago against positions in iraq — courtesy and

claiming they are hitting locations that the israeli mossad is using. accusations that both strongly deny and send strong messages based on what i heard from the rocky officials to tehran that these attacks can jeopardise the relationship between two countries. also, i know i heard from other iraqi officials here in baghdad that the prime minister also had asked tehran to contain and put more pressure on groups following islamic revolutionary guards corps and carrying attacks on us bases. mentioning to iran that these attacks are jeopardising the iraqi government's efforts to reduce the number of american forces in this

country as part of the coalition forces. also, even finish the mandate. because of the war against isis has finished. and this is what rocky militia also emphasising. that they want the us leave, the us forces, or the combat us forces, leave iraq. despite that the us says that they don't have combat forces here, but it is still complicated. that is why these rocky leadership repeatedly attacked these bases not only before the war, but after the war in gaza. so from baghdad, these attacks both from militia related to iran or supportive of iran, against

americans, isjust putting baghdad in an awkward situation between two countries. squeeze between baghdad and between washington and tehran and between washington and tehran and unable to move forward to reduce the number of american forces here. just one more question. we have been hearing from our correspondent in irbil in iraq the mood had been intense in the past few days and the expectation of something about to happen, what has been your sense in baghdad? the happen, what has been your sense in baahdad? , ., ., , , ., baghdad? the situation is so similar to what happened _ baghdad? the situation is so similar to what happened in _ baghdad? the situation is so similar to what happened in 2020 _ baghdad? the situation is so similar to what happened in 2020 when - baghdad? the situation is so similar i to what happened in 2020 when the us assassinated iran quds forces's soleimani and everyone was thinking at that time that a big war is going

to happen between iran and the us. and until tehran started to insinuate that they will carry out some attacks, they will take some sort of revenge, but they don't want to go to war with the us. the same thing i think happens now because the us gave enough advance warning not only to tehran but to militia here to evacuate their bases and show that not attacking any positions inside iran. now i see that american officials are telling us channels that they don't have any intention to actually attack any locations inside iran. showing they want to reduce tension, but for iraqis, most of these does not make any sense because either way, their soil is being used by these two countries, by iran and the us, for

years and years has fighting each other in iraqi/ soil. leadership in iraq saying to washington to referring to attacked iraqi soldier as part of retaliation as part of the attack injordan against americans because the attack that happened in the us base injordan was carried out from syria, but prime minister adviser told me that response from washington was that, the easiest and the best position and choice between all of the worst choices they have on the table, is still carrying out some limited attack on iraqi soil. so it shows for the iraqis, that this country is a battlefield for iran and the muscles of this is what i hear from

even talk to down from iraq, from officials to people in the streets. ijust officials to people in the streets. i just want to come back officials to people in the streets. ijust want to come back into the studio. a reminder if you arejust joining us. we are talking with you think it has started the strikes against iran back groups in iraq and that 85 targets were hit including command—and—control operations, intelligent such and weaponry. the white house national security council spokesperson, john kirby, has been giving a briefing. i swim to ask you about it, barbara, i think you have been reading into it a bit. tell us about what he has been saying about the strikes. we have a some additional details right off of the top here. 85 additional details right off of the to here. j~ . , additional details right off of the tohere. . , , top here. 85 targets. it basically seven locations. _ top here. 85 targets. it basically seven locations. three - top here. 85 targets. it basically seven locations. three in - top here. 85 targets. it basically seven locations. three in iraq i top here. 85 targets. it basically l seven locations. three in iraq four in syria. but 85 targets across the seven locations. so they had a fair number of bombs on target, if you will. he also says there was

irrefutable evidence that these sites that they struck had been involved in recent militia attacks involved in recent militia attacks in the region. so they had been clearly keeping an eye on this and developing the intelligence gift given what he has now set. why they have been struck earlier, we don't know, or if they were struck. it also is unclear at this point, saying, we knew that long range bombers have flown from the united states. they are not being specific that it was b—1 bombers. that is pretty heavy duty weaponry. against some of these types of targets. so it is not, it is not clear that perhaps interesting, is whether these were so—called, hard targets. were any underground? with a reinforced concrete and steel? did they need to heavy duty type weapons

that the b—1 can typically drop on a target? that is not clear. it is just how reinforced, heavy—duty, significant to the militia battle space where these targets, and how easy or difficult it may be for the militias to simply rebuild and move on and have a new day themselves. these are the things that i think will be explored and come out over the next few days. just will be explored and come out over the next few days.— the next few days. just give us an idea of the _ the next few days. just give us an idea of the us _ the next few days. just give us an idea of the us been _ the next few days. just give us an idea of the us been running - idea of the us been running reconnaissance of the passage is to recognise this. reconnaissance of the passage is to recognise this-— recognise this. absolutely. the us works reconnaissance _ recognise this. absolutely. the us works reconnaissance over- recognise this. absolutely. the us l works reconnaissance over anything affiliated with iran almost all the time in that region. they knew what they were going after.— they were going after. absolutely. i think that is — they were going after. absolutely. i think that is an _ they were going after. absolutely. i think that is an important _ they were going after. absolutely. i think that is an important point - they were going after. absolutely. i think that is an important point to l think that is an important point to keepin think that is an important point to keep in mind as part of these five days that we have been waiting to see what the us response might actually be. what do you make of some of the response we have seen

here in the us from republican saying, why did this state five days and why did this demonstration allow these groups to strike in the first place? br; these groups to strike in the first lace? �* , ., these groups to strike in the first lace? j . , these groups to strike in the first lace? �*y ., , , ., place? by all accounts the question as to why it — place? by all accounts the question as to why it took _ place? by all accounts the question as to why it took so _ place? by all accounts the question as to why it took so long, _ place? by all accounts the question as to why it took so long, the - as to why it took so long, the weather in the region, even though the us can't strike in bad weather, they don't want to if they don't have to because they want to have a very clear if civilians move into the range of a target at the last minute. —— they can strike in bad weather. so they don't want to be looking through bad weather to determine what is going on. they wanted to conduct intelligence and reconnaissance to get to the most up—to—date data on the targets they were going to hit. but, also, i think what is so interesting and we have talked about a throughout the evening, why did it takes a long, because they were spending a good deal of time messaging. it was clear throughout the region, everybody was on, i think the your senior correspondent said, it was on a countdown clock. i don't think we

have a clear idea why, but they wanted to let the personnel that were there has the ability to get out of the way. and i think it was to limit the potential for escalation. everyone knew it was coming, give it a few days to build up, you send the messages, we have seen us in different areas of the world and then you can strike, but hopefully nothing gets out of control. it hopefully nothing gets out of control. , ., , ., control. it is, indeed as we have heard from _ control. it is, indeed as we have heard from the _ control. it is, indeed as we have heard from the us, _ control. it is, indeed as we have heard from the us, just - control. it is, indeed as we have heard from the us, just the - heard from the us, just the beginning. thank you so much. for our view who mayjust be joining beginning. thank you so much. for our view who mayjust bejoining us, let's recap what we know so far. in his first retaliatory strike since the sunday deadly dress tricks on us troops injordan, the use is targeted seven locations. for in syria and three in iraq was of the us struck 85 individual targets including groups the us believes are associated with and supported by iran's revolutionary guard corps. this targets include command and control centres as well as headquarters buildings and intelligent centres. rocket and

missile interim storage facilities