The Brookings Institution further argues that deterring Iran’s ability to encroach on Saudi oil fields is one of the main reasons for a continued American military presence in the region. To that end, the US even provides Saudi terminals with sophisticated US-made Hawk surface-to-air missiles. With so much support, even if the US and Saudi Arabia were unable to deter or defend from such an attack, surely they would have at least have evidence of how it was perpetrated. And if that evidence does indeed exist, why was it not quickly presented in lieu of crying “Iran” (which is starting to sound a lot like crying “wolf”). A handful of photos and anonymous statements are not going to cut it this time around.

Notably, this attack appears to coincide with the inevitable departure of ruthless Iran-hawk John Bolton, and just three days before Israel’s election. If there was ever a time to ensure that the US foreign policy establishment never takes off the table the threat of force against Iran, it would be now. In the meantime, despite the presence of US troops and intelligence on the ground, the media is again insisting that we must rely on anonymous statements from military officials to justify our militaristic conclusions. Recent history tells us that this is probably not a good idea.