Live updates: One pilot rescued, one still missing after U.S. fighter (F-15) jet shot down over Iran, officials say

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, John Stone said:

............. how strange the 'other' nations weren't informed beforehand of this largesse. 

ah, recovering the fuel isn't the priority ........ this text is right out of the horse'.............. er, donkey's mouth.......deranged! 

 

 

We don't know that for sure, and any moderately informed person could see what was coming.   What happend to all that great European or Canadian "Intelligence gathering"?   Remember, they don't need the USA !

2 minutes ago, John Stone said:

u do realize that in Trump's defense, u abase urself. 

 

 

Trump needs no defense...he is acting as president and C-in-C...like all those before him.

Do you think my "defense" or not would matter in any way ?

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, John Stone said:

It was a war of choice............. now it is a war of necessity?

There really is no negotiating with Iran, it's on par with having a pleasant conversation with Robo. 

There is simply no peaceful domestic requirement for 60% enrichment, AND:  you would have to believe that they were kidding about their stated intentions toward Israel, you would have to believe that Israel would not have acted unilaterally, and you would have to believe that unilateral action on the part of Israel wouldn't have been even more destabilizing than that which exists now.

I don't believe any of it.

The necessity of it would have come sooner or later (I believe sooner) and waiting was potentially fraught with greater consequences. The "choice" here was the when and when was a narrow window of opportunity to act.

80% gets you a bomb and 90% puts that bomb on the head of a missile. 

Far from being a knee jerk reaction, the ground work (from a US perspective) was laid last year when domestic energy production reached record levels. Supporting (or even inciting) the organic unrest in Iran was the perfect excuse for moving the required assets into the region and any consultation with allies would have spilled the beans in a manner akin to going fishing with bagpipes.

There was no value added, only lots of noise.

I think It would be hard to make a credible argument that direct intervention with Iran would never be required... and that's the sole argument which can logically prevail against this action. And I haven't heard it made yet. 

Had Biden done this I would have said exactly the same thing for exactly the same reasons. Had that been the case,  opposition for it would have come from republican supporters and most of the opinions here would somersault. 

Edited April 6 by Venandi

[John Stone]

43 minutes ago, Venandi said:

There really is no negotiating with Iran, it's on par with having a pleasant conversation with Robo. 

There is simply no peaceful domestic requirement for 60% enrichment, AND:  you would have to believe that they were kidding about their stated intentions toward Israel, you would have to believe that Israel would not have acted unilaterally, and you would have to believe that unilateral action on the part of Israel wouldn't have been even more destabilizing than that which exists now.

I don't believe any of it.

The necessity of it would have come sooner or later (I believe sooner) and waiting was potentially fraught with greater consequences. The "choice" here was the when and when was a narrow window of opportunity to act.

80% gets you a bomb and 90% puts that bomb on the head of a missile. 

Far from being a knee jerk reaction, the ground work (from a US perspective) was laid last year when domestic energy production reached record levels. Supporting (or even inciting) the organic unrest in Iran was the perfect excuse for moving the required assets into the region and any consultation with allies would have spilled the beans in a manner akin to going fishing with bagpipes.

There was no value added, only lots of noise.

I think It would be hard to make a credible argument that direct intervention with Iran would never be required... and that's the sole argument which can logically prevail against this action. And I haven't heard it made yet. 

Had Biden done this I would have said exactly the same thing for exactly the same reasons. Had that been the case,  opposition for it would have come from republican supporters and most of the opinions here would somersault. 

I could agree with a lot of what u say. 

However, Israel could have acted alone, the strait would have remained open? 

What has been accomplished - Iran was always geared for asymmetrical warfare............ not 'set piece' battle! OMG! 

The JCPOA  was victory - international cooperation? 

The truth is that Trump was desperate to deny Obama a victory .......... and he considered Iran a soft target. 

I'll be the first to congratulate Trump if the nuke fuel is recovered, a negotiated ceasefire is signed and of course, the strait is reopened. 

Right  now, he and his head shop are  making a fools of themselves...... can't imagine anyone worse making decisions  - totally inept. 

But, we'll see. 

 

Edited April 6 by John Stone

[User]

4 hours ago, John Stone said:

............. how strange the 'other' nations weren't informed beforehand of this largesse. 

ah, recovering the fuel isn't the priority ........ this text is right out of the horse'.............. er, donkey's mouth.......deranged! 

Nothing strange about it. Why would they have all been informed? So it can be leaked, and they no longer have the initiative?

Why don't you show us the quote from Trump you are arguing against instead of the opinion of a forum member. Bush Cheney isn't the one in charge, he is offering his own commentary on why he supports this. 

 

 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, John Stone said:

meh! 

 

[John Stone]

44 minutes ago, User said:

Nothing strange about it. Why would they have all been informed? So it can be leaked, and they no longer have the initiative?

Why don't you show us the quote from Trump you are arguing against instead of the opinion of a forum member. Bush Cheney isn't the one in charge, he is offering his own commentary on why he supports this. 

 

 

?????????????????????? 

[User]

18 minutes ago, John Stone said:

?????????????????????? 

Yes, that is the general feeling after all of your posts on here. 

[robosmith]

On 4/5/2026 at 12:07 PM, West said:

The rescue team were able to penetrate into Iran deeply fairly easily. If that doesnt signal air superiority and a depleted air defense of Iran what does?

The A 10 was shot down while trying to rescue F 15 Pilot 2, which demonstrates air vulnerability.

Quote

A 10 shot down in Iran trying to rescue pilot

 

Yes, a U.S. Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog) was shot down or crashed on Friday, April 3, 2026, while providing close air support during a high-stakes mission to rescue a downed F-15E Strike Eagle pilot in Iran. [1, 2]

Status of the A-10 and Pilot

• The Incident: The A-10 was providing covering fire for rescue teams when it was struck by Iranian fire near the Strait of Hormuz.
• The Rescue: The pilot managed to navigate the damaged aircraft toward Kuwaiti airspace before ejecting. The pilot was safely recovered by U.S. forces and is reported to be in good condition.
• Conflicting Reports: While Iranian state media claims their air defenses directly shot down the aircraft and released video as proof, some U.S. officials have described it as a crash following damage from incoming fire.

 

[gatomontes99]

11 hours ago, John Stone said:

From who, Iran??

On the Continental U.S.?

It was a war of choice............. now it is a war of necessity?

Yes

Yes

And it never was a war of choice. It was a necessity. When Iran got nukes it would have been a minutes before they little the candle under one of them. And, yes, they could hit the US and all they had to do was hide one on a tanker and shoot it at us from 1500 miles off shore. They could have hit NY and DC fairly easily. 

And, before you say we would have stopped them, do we really want to chance that? 

[User]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

The A 10 was shot down while trying to rescue F 15 Pilot 2, which demonstrates air vulnerability.

Why are you cheering against your own country and for Iran?

 

[John Johnston]

On 4/5/2026 at 1:14 PM, Goober National said:

Great story. Another feather in the cap of Donald Trump.

I can't wait for the movie to come out.

Idiocracy 3, America's down fall. Coming to a Theatre Near you. 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, John Johnston said:

Idiocracy 3, America's down fall. Coming to a Theatre Near you. 

Is Biden running again!?!?

[John Stone]

12 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Yes

Yes

And it never was a war of choice. It was a necessity. When Iran got nukes it would have been a minutes before they little the candle under one of them. And, yes, they could hit the US and all they had to do was hide one on a tanker and shoot it at us from 1500 miles off shore. They could have hit NY and DC fairly easily. 

And, before you say we would have stopped them, do we really want to chance that? 

Building a functional intercontinental ballistic missile capable of striking the US would require overcoming substantial technical hurdles, such as producing a nuclear warhead and successfully miniaturizing it. Iran has enriched their yellow cake enough now to develop crude nukes – 1kt. It would be crude and very bulky – but enough to demonstrate their capability with a underground  burst – game over, everyone pull in ur horns.

Iran is focused on short- and medium-range missiles, with a top range of 2,000 kilometers – its what they know.

Iran does have the ability to hit Europe and is working towards capabilities that could target the United States, but those capabilities are still many years away. The U.S. intelligence community has made a similar assessment, ie, that Iran might have ICBM technology in a decade. It is huge technological achievement.

I’m trying to decide whether NK is more whack-a-doodle than Iran – I think I’d give the nod to NK.

Iran’s desire to possess nukes is the same as any other authoritative regime – deterrent from attack. Do u believe the U.S. / Israel would have initiated, ‘Epic Fury’ if Iran was nuke capable??

The JCPOA was victory – the ‘WHY’ looms large

Victory is declared when the ‘loser’ says it’s over – and, Israel is the wild card – greatly admire the Jews -but they want to see Iran as a failed state,  Gaza-like.

 

[John Stone]

The A-10  (aka Warthog) is designed for close air (ground) support. 

The A-10 was shot down during the GIB recovery  with a  Misad-2 Manpad - based on a Chinese design. 

Always equate the A10 to the C47 - 'Spooky'. ........ the mounted chain  gun is totally awesome. 

[BeaverFever]

On 4/5/2026 at 5:39 PM, User said:

Why would he have? The decision to go to war was not made during the campaign. Duh. 

The point I asserted was that Trump has made his position clear before; this did not come out of left field. 

What a stupid argument you are making like usual. Just make up some convoluted thing to argue against. 

 

Round and round you go again. The bloodthirsty warmongers are saying the reason for the war is all the things Iran has done historically since 1979. So if that is true then why was  the decision to go to war only made after the election and so rushed there was no time to go to congress?  

[BeaverFever]

And now with his latest tweet Rump is openly threatening genocide which is the only possible meaning of his “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”

 

Of course it’s just bullshit and bluster as MAGAs always do because he’s helplessly flailing in this war with no clear way out but just the fact tht he’s threatening genocide for his unnecessary war of choice failed vanity project is significant  and a total disgrace to America. 

Edited April 7 by BeaverFever

[User]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Round and round you go again. The bloodthirsty warmongers are saying the reason for the war is all the things Iran has done historically since 1979. So if that is true then why was  the decision to go to war only made after the election and so rushed there was no time to go to congress?  

How am I going round and round?

Who is this "bloodthirsty warmongers" you speak of? It is so easy to argue against a nameless, faceless "they" which was exactly my point in asking for the quote from the source being argued against. 

Random internet people and others can have a million different opinions and motivations. They are not the ones in charge. 

It is a bit disgusting how many of you are taking Iran's side in all of this, though. It is like there is something mentally wrong with you, leftists, that no matter how evil or bad the "little guy" is, you have to support them. 

It's why you cheer on letting the crazy people go back on the streets and don't care when they stab people to death, but then turn around and want to get the good guy for murder when he is trying to stop one of those crazy people threatening others' lives. 

 

 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

And now with his latest tweet Rump is openly threatening genocide which is the only possible meaning of his “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”

Except that is not the only possible meaning. 

 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, John Stone said:

Building a functional intercontinental ballistic missile capable of striking the US would require overcoming substantial technical hurdles, such as producing a nuclear warhead and successfully miniaturizing it. Iran has enriched their yellow cake enough now to develop crude nukes – 1kt. It would be crude and very bulky – but enough to demonstrate their capability with a underground  burst – game over, everyone pull in ur horns.

Iran is focused on short- and medium-range missiles, with a top range of 2,000 kilometers – its what they know.

Iran does have the ability to hit Europe and is working towards capabilities that could target the United States, but those capabilities are still many years away. The U.S. intelligence community has made a similar assessment, ie, that Iran might have ICBM technology in a decade. It is huge technological achievement.

I’m trying to decide whether NK is more whack-a-doodle than Iran – I think I’d give the nod to NK.

Iran’s desire to possess nukes is the same as any other authoritative regime – deterrent from attack. Do u believe the U.S. / Israel would have initiated, ‘Epic Fury’ if Iran was nuke capable??

The JCPOA was victory – the ‘WHY’ looms large

Victory is declared when the ‘loser’ says it’s over – and, Israel is the wild card – greatly admire the Jews -but they want to see Iran as a failed state,  Gaza-like.

 

Hitting Europe would be bad enough.

And I think you forget that the united states operates military forces including sizable fleets well within the Iranian strike range.

So even if their missiles cannot make it all the way to America they can still attack American interests and kill lots of Americans. A US carrier has about 5,000 people on it by itself, the carrier battle group with a couple of carriers in attending ships would be a massive loss for America both in terms of military power, financial assets and human life

And while you're thinking it may take a decade for them to get icbms, 10 years is not very far away. And once they have the nukes unless you're prepared to Nuke them first it's pretty hard to get close enough to attack them without risking a horrific price

[BeaverFever]

10 hours ago, User said:

Except that is not the only possible meaning. 

What other possible meaning could there be?  Of course in the end TACO was just making empty threats as usual and has now given a 2-week extension 

[BeaverFever]

10 hours ago, User said:

How am I going round and round?

Who is this "bloodthirsty warmongers" you speak of? It is so easy to argue against a nameless, faceless "they" which was exactly my point in asking for the quote from the source being argued against. 

Random internet people and others can have a million different opinions and motivations. They are not the ones in charge. 

It is a bit disgusting how many of you are taking Iran's side in all of this, though. It is like there is something mentally wrong with you, leftists, that no matter how evil or bad the "little guy" is, you have to support them. 

It's why you cheer on letting the crazy people go back on the streets and don't care when they stab people to death, but then turn around and want to get the good guy for murder when he is trying to stop one of those crazy people threatening others' lives. 

Was the reason for the sudden attack on iran simply because you’re sick and tired of everything it’s been doing since 1979 or not. If yea then there’s no reason it wasn’t part of his election campaign and no reason not to go to congress. 
 

Whats hilarious is that people votes foe trump because he promised no more foreign wars, no more inflation, no more runaway spending and you guys all were all foaming at the mouth over those things. Now he’s doing the exact opposite BY CHOICE and you people couldn’t care less. 
 

Yes how evil or bad Iran is irrelevant. The world will always have evil and bad regimes in it, that not an excuse to start unnecessary wars of choice.  This is not like 9/11 or pearl harbour or Desert Storm or even Libya where a sudden event required a response. This, Venezuela and his nee sanctions Cuba is Trump trying to start conflicts as a vanity project. 

[bush_cheney2004]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

...And while you're thinking it may take a decade for them to get icbms, 10 years is not very far away. And once they have the nukes unless you're prepared to Nuke them first it's pretty hard to get close enough to attack them without risking a horrific price

 

Yep...and Trump experienced this reality in the aftermath of failed non-proliferation by the DPRK for Bush/Obama/Trump presidencies.   Trump was determined not to let Iran do the same thing as North Korea, and there was no China standing in the way.  Even though they may hate Trump with a passion, a non-nuclear Iran is still welcomed by many in the region and around the world.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yep...and Trump experienced this reality in the aftermath of failed non-proliferation by the DPRK for Bush/Obama/Trump presidencies.   Trump was determined not to let Iran do the same thing as North Korea, and there was no China standing in the way.  Even though they may hate Trump with a passion, a non-nuclear Iran is still welcomed by many in the region and around the world.

Truth. Given the previous history of declaring war over wmds that turned out not to be there I could even understand if somebody came forward and said I don't believe with certainty that Iran was close to a nuclear weapon

I think they would have a tough time defending that but given the circumstances you might make that argument

But at the end of the day we do know with certainty that Iran had a nuclear program, they were pursuing that program we're going to get a nuclear weapon. Whether it was next week or 10 years from now maybe a questionable thing but they definitely are moving towards that

So it's pretty difficult to suggest that trump wasn't legitimately concerned about the state of their nuclear program

Yet somehow democrats and anti-trump zealots insist there was no possible other reason whatsoever that was even conceivable other than he wanted to distract from the Epstein files. They don't even try to claim that Iran wasn't close to nukes, they just claim that there's no possible way trump would be concerned about a nuclear Iran, it must be in order to distract from his performance at home.

I just don't understand how somebody gets there.

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yep...and Trump experienced this reality in the aftermath of failed non-proliferation by the DPRK for Bush/Obama/Trump presidencies.   Trump was determined not to let Iran do the same thing as North Korea, and there was no China standing in the way.  Even though they may hate Trump with a passion, a non-nuclear Iran is still welcomed by many in the region and around the world.

Iran has NOT had a nuclear weapon development program since 2003

Quote

According to U.S. intelligence assessments, Iran halted its organized nuclear weapons program in 2003, known as the AMAD Project, and has not formally resumed a comprehensive weapons development program since. However, Iran has continued uranium enrichment activities and has significantly increased its stockpile of enriched uranium, reaching 60% purity by 2025. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Key points regarding the timeline and status of Iran’s program:

• 2003 Halt: US intelligence assesses that Iran ceased the coordinated effort to build a nuclear weapon (the AMAD project) around 2003, though it retained technical expertise.
• Post-2018 Activities: After the U.S. withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, Iran began increasing its enrichment capabilities, resulting in high levels of enrichment.
• 2025/2026 Status: While Iran has not formally resumed a weapons program, 2025 intelligence reports noted high levels of enriched uranium, creating potential "breakout" capacity—the ability to create weapons-grade uranium quickly, should they choose to.
• 2026 Conflict: Following a U.S./Israel military campaign, Iran's nuclear program faced significant challenges in 2026.

 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Iran has NOT had a nuclear weapon development program since 2003

 

Hahah  well @bush_cheney2004 there you go  LOLOL  turns out that old myth is true, if you say something  'stupid' three times, robo appears    

Edited April 8 by CdnFox

[bush_cheney2004]

39 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

...Yet somehow democrats and anti-trump zealots insist there was no possible other reason whatsoever that was even conceivable other than he wanted to distract from the Epstein files. They don't even try to claim that Iran wasn't close to nukes, they just claim that there's no possible way trump would be concerned about a nuclear Iran, it must be in order to distract from his performance at home.

I just don't understand how somebody gets there.

 

It is baffling...I can only conclude that they are blinded by TDS rage no matter what the issue is.  For them, any Trump domestic or foreign policy success is a setback for their vehement opposition, resistance, etc.   They don't care about the bigger picture.

Iranian nukes have been a concern for a very long time...way before Trump.  Ironically, Iran's nuclear aspirations started with Eisenhower and the Atoms for Peace program...then things changed.   Pakistan sped things up with shared designs and centrifuge technology from scientist A.Q. Khan (father of their bomb in 1998).  This very credible threat spans many years and presidents.