OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Leaked Photos Show Extensive Damage at US Bases From Iran Strikes

7 sources · updated 2026-09-18
Left 50% Center 50% Right 0%
1 left · 1 center · 0 right

What happened

CBS News obtained undated photographs from active-duty U.S. service members showing damage at U.S. military sites in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait attributed to Iranian strikes, including a Boeing E-3 Sentry radar aircraft torn in half at Prince Sultan Air Base, crumpled trailers at Camp Buehring, and a damaged four-storey building at Camp Arifjan; the BBC said it had not independently verified the images. They appeared a day after a Pentagon watchdog report found that Iranian strikes had damaged or destroyed hundreds of buildings and structures at U.S. bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, and Jordan, with equipment losses totaling $3.7 billion, overall U.S. spending of $33.4 billion through June 29, and dozens of aircraft destroyed or damaged, including five refueling aircraft hit on the ground in Saudi Arabia. The conflict began on February 28 when the United States and Israel launched joint attacks on Iran, after which Iran repeatedly struck U.S. bases and allied Gulf states. The U.S. House of Representatives later voted for a third time to force President Donald Trump to end U.S. military action without congressional approval, with several Republicans joining the measure.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 7 articles

3 of 5 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 3 of 5
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Jonathan Schanzer, Matthew Kroenig, Pentagon's watchdog and US official
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 5 of 5
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: Pentagon watchdog report, photographs, images, photos
Credits another outlet 0 of 5
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 4 of 5
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this. Here: e.g. “service members”
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 16, 10:48 UTC by NewsNation, naming its source. First document in the first report, from NewsNation (photographs).
Not counted 2
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage is more complete on the official record around the leaked photos: it reports a Pentagon watchdog cost tally and a House vote to force an end to the war. Right-leaning coverage never reports those facts. It recasts the same wreckage as a question of how Iranian missiles and drones reached U.S. bases despite American air defenses, then turns to an expert on whether Gulf bases should be moved. Left-leaning coverage, via the BBC, leads with the soldier's line that the damage "hasn't been communicated to the American public." Right-leaning coverage, via the Daily Wire, leads with how the missiles got through — base proximity and interceptor supply — and never quotes that charge. Had the Pentagon already warned Congress that those bases could not be defended with the interceptors on hand?
Bottom line

BBC set a $3.7 billion equipment-loss tally beside the leaked photos of wrecked U.S. bases; the Daily Wire never prints that number and never mentions the House vote to stop the fighting.

The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Equipment losses from Iranian strikes totalled $3.7 billion numberin BBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • The war began on 28 February when the US and Israel launched joint attacks on Iran contextin BBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Replenishing some missile-defense systems could take two to three years numberin Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The U.S. spent munitions costing millions of dollars on targets that cost $100,000 numberin Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning coverage treated the leaked photographs as evidence of harm that had been kept from public view, quoting an unnamed service member who said this was "major damage to our bases that hasn't been communicated to the American public" and that forces were "standing there with our eyes closed getting punched in the face." BBC reporting tied the visuals to the Pentagon watchdog findings already established and to "public and political pressure" on the White House to end the conflict, highlighting the House vote—passed with several Republicans—as a push to halt military action without congressional approval.
The Right View
Right-leaning coverage framed the images as raising questions about how Iranian missiles and drones reached U.S. positions despite extensive air defenses. Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies told The Daily Wire that Gulf bases leave "only a few minutes to respond," that the problem is also "an inability to defend the volume of incoming," and that the United States had burned through interceptors and "exquisite munitions that cost millions of dollars on targets that cost $100,000," with replenishment taking two to three years. He said weaker states can still "hurt American interests, even when they've been defeated on the battlefield," but insisted "Iran is not winning this war" and is "getting hammered," casting the photos as a warning about cheap massed weapons and defense-industrial-base shortfalls rather than Iranian victory.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that the photographs, aligned with the watchdog’s tally of hundreds of damaged structures and billions in losses, show a gap between what happened on the bases and what the public was told, a claim given its sharpest form by the service member’s statement that the damage "hasn't been communicated to the American public." The right’s strongest argument is that the same images illustrate structural limits—proximity, volume of fire, and a lopsided munitions exchange—while still describing Iran as militarily and economically "hammered," so the story is one of asymmetric cost-imposition, not Iranian success. The central unresolved tension is whether the leak primarily exposes withheld wartime damage and a conflict Congress is trying to stop, or primarily exposes defensive and industrial-base weaknesses that a weaker adversary can still exploit.

7 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.