🚨Iran LAUNCHES BIGGEST STRIKES YET…
IRAN’S MISSILE BARRAGE DAMAGES U.S. WARPLANES IN JORDAN AFTER AMERICA DESTROYS FIVE OIL TANKERS
Tehran answered U.S. strikes in the Strait of Hormuz with ballistic missiles aimed at a key American air hub. Jordan says most incoming missiles were intercepted — but reports indicate an A-10 and multiple F-15s were still hit, turning a maritime clash into a direct test of U.S. air defenses.
WASHINGTON / AMMAN — Updated September 10, 2026
The U.S.–Iran war has just produced one of its most dangerous escalations in weeks — and this time, American aircraft were caught in the blast zone.
After U.S. forces destroyed five Iranian crude-oil tankers on September 8, Iran fired ballistic missiles toward Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan, a major hub used by American forces. Jordan says its air defenses engaged 20 incoming ballistic missiles and destroyed 18. The other two fell in unpopulated areas, and Jordan reported no casualties.
Yet the barrage was not entirely stopped. People familiar with the damage told CBS News, and Air & Space Forces Magazine later confirmed, that one A-10 Thunderbolt II suffered severe damage to a wing while roughly eight F-15E Strike Eagles sustained lighter damage. The F-15s were considered serviceable or returned to service. No U.S. fatalities were reported.
That combination is what makes the episode so consequential: the defenses worked against most of the incoming threat, but enough got through to damage high-value American aircraft. In a war increasingly defined by missiles, tankers, chokepoints and shrinking margins for error, even a limited penetration can carry strategic weight far beyond the runway it hits.
The Strike That Punched Through
Muwaffaq Salti is not an obscure outpost. The base, near Al-Azraq in eastern Jordan, has become a key node for U.S. air operations in the region. Jordan is one of Washington’s closest Arab security partners, and thousands of U.S. service members are stationed across multiple facilities in the kingdom.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said the attack was retaliation for the U.S. tanker strikes and claimed it had hit aircraft shelters, maintenance areas and locations associated with F-15, F-16 and F-35 operations. Those sweeping claims went far beyond what independent reporting has established. There was no confirmed evidence that F-35s were destroyed, nor that Iran wiped out large numbers of American aircraft.
But the confirmed damage is serious enough on its own. An A-10 — the famously rugged close-air-support jet known as the Warthog — was reported to have suffered major wing damage. Around eight F-15s were reported to have sustained lighter damage and were returned to service or judged serviceable. For a base protected by layered air defenses, even that limited damage is a reminder that no shield is absolute.
Thirty-Plus Patriots — And a Growing Question About the Defensive Cost
CBS reporter Jennifer Jacobs, citing sources familiar with the response, reported that American forces in Jordan launched more than 30 Patriot missiles during the defense of the base. That number has not been detailed in a public CENTCOM after-action statement, but it immediately raised a question that military planners have wrestled with throughout the conflict: how much does it cost to stop repeated waves of relatively cheaper offensive missiles?
Videos circulating online appeared to show multiple interceptors in the sky, followed by later impacts. The original transcript accompanying those videos claimed U.S. defenses had effectively run out of interceptors by later waves. Publicly available evidence does not establish that conclusion. Jordan’s official account says 18 of 20 ballistic missiles were intercepted, while U.S. reporting confirms that some incoming weapons or their effects were nevertheless sufficient to damage aircraft.
That is a more complicated picture than either side’s propaganda suggests. Tehran can point to visible damage. Washington and Amman can point to a high interception rate and the absence of fatalities. Both facts can be true at the same time — and together they show why another round could become more dangerous.
Five Iranian Tankers Became the Immediate Trigger
The barrage followed a blunt American move at sea. U.S. Central Command said its forces destroyed five Iranian crude-oil carriers on September 8 after the IRGC twice targeted a U.S. Navy warship with ballistic missiles over the preceding two days. CENTCOM said the American vessel evaded the attacks and no U.S. personnel were harmed.
The five tankers identified by CENTCOM were the Kaviz, Charminar, Horizon 1, Riesco and Derya. Four were struck in the Gulf of Oman and the Derya near Kharg Island. CENTCOM said crews were directed to abandon the vessels before they were hit and rendered inoperable.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio made the U.S. message explicit. ‘For every time they do that or try to do that, they’re going to lose tankers,’ he told reporters while traveling in Colombia. The statement amounted to a warning that Washington was prepared to impose a direct economic cost every time Iran tried to hit American naval forces.
“For every time they do that or try to do that, they’re going to lose tankers.”
— Secretary of State Marco Rubio
The Strait of Hormuz Is Becoming the War’s Pressure Valve
What began as another exchange of military fire is now colliding with the world economy. Iran said it attacked 10 ships near the Strait of Hormuz after the U.S. tanker strikes, including two American vessels — claims the United States has disputed where its own warships are concerned. Separate maritime incidents left at least one seafarer dead and another missing, according to reporting from the region.
The renewed fighting shattered a period of relative calm and pushed Brent crude above $100 a barrel. That number matters well beyond trading screens. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, and every missile launch, tanker strike or threat of a new exclusion zone adds a risk premium that can move from the Gulf to American gasoline prices with startling speed.
For U.S. voters, that turns a distant military confrontation into a kitchen-table issue. A prolonged cycle of tanker strikes and missile retaliation could raise transportation and energy costs at the same moment Washington is entering the final stretch before the midterm elections.
Jordan Is No Longer Just Watching the War
Jordan’s role is becoming increasingly uncomfortable. The kingdom has long relied on its security partnership with the United States, but that partnership also makes Jordanian territory a target when Tehran chooses to strike American forces without attacking the continental United States.
The Jordan Armed Forces said the latest missiles came directly from Iranian territory and that its air-defense systems destroyed 18 of 20. Specialized teams were sent to secure debris sites, and the military urged citizens not to approach unidentified fragments. No casualties were reported by Jordan.
That official account sharply contrasts with some of the most dramatic videos and claims spreading online. It also underscores the political dilemma facing Amman: Jordan must defend its airspace and its American partnership while trying to prevent the country from becoming a permanent front line in a U.S.–Iran war.
The Most Alarming Part May Be What Comes Next
Neither side is describing the latest exchange as the end of the confrontation. Iran has portrayed its missile attacks as punishment for U.S. strikes and has threatened further action. Washington has signaled that attacks or attempted attacks on American naval forces will continue to bring retaliation against Iranian economic and military-linked assets.
That creates a dangerous feedback loop. Iran fires at U.S. ships. The U.S. destroys tankers. Iran answers with ballistic missiles at a base hosting U.S. aircraft. Air defenses shoot down most of the barrage, but several American jets are still damaged. Each side then uses the previous strike to justify the next one.
The result is a conflict in which a single missile that gets through, a misidentified target at sea, or a strike that causes mass casualties could change the political calculation overnight. So far, the latest Jordan attack produced damaged aircraft but no reported American deaths. The next exchange may not be as contained.
Bottom Line
Iran’s missile barrage did not produce the mass destruction claimed in some online accounts. It did something strategically significant anyway: it penetrated enough of a heavily defended environment to damage American combat aircraft at a key regional base.
At the same time, the United States has shown it is willing to hit Iran where the pressure is economic as well as military, destroying five tankers after attempted attacks on a Navy warship. The two sides are now striking at each other’s ability to operate — in the air, at sea and through the energy lifelines that finance and sustain the fight.
That is the real shock of this episode. The war is no longer escalating along a single front. It is connecting air bases in Jordan, warships in regional waters, Iranian tankers near the Gulf of Oman and oil prices felt by consumers thousands of miles away. And every new retaliation is making the next one harder to contain.
CANADA TAKES THE GLOVES OFF: 50% TARIFFS HIT U.S. GOODS AS TRUMP TARGETS BOMBARDIER — THEN KANSAS PUSHES BACK
Ottawa has slapped retaliatory tariffs on roughly $20 billion worth of U.S. goods. But within days, the fight spilled far beyond tariff schedules: a 92-year-old former prime minister called Trump a “bully,” Lake Ontario became a symbol of the feud, and a threat against Bombardier began colliding with American jobs and Republican politics at home.
OTTAWA — Updated September 10, 2026
This is no longer just a social-media shouting match. At 12:01 a.m. on September 8, Canada activated retaliatory tariffs of 15% to 50% on U.S.-origin goods covering C$27.6 billion — roughly US$20 billion — in imports. Steel, aluminum, dairy products, appliances, farm machinery, paper, plastics, electronics, furniture and consumer goods were all swept into the dispute.
Ottawa has cast the response as dollar-for-dollar: if Washington raises the cost of Canadian exports, Canada will answer in kind. In steel and aluminum, existing Canadian counter-tariffs were raised from 25% to 50% to match U.S. rates. And on the same day Canada moved, the White House rolled out another set of measures, pushing a dispute between two of the world’s most tightly integrated economies into a more dangerous phase.
But the most explosive part of the story is no longer hiding in a tariff spreadsheet. It is showing up in symbols and supply chains — a lake, a jet maker and thousands of jobs in Kansas — all suddenly caught in the crossfire.
The Tariff Blow Landed at Midnight
According to Canada’s Department of Finance, the new measures took effect September 8 and concentrate on sectors carrying both economic and political weight: steel and aluminum, dairy, household appliances, agricultural equipment, pulp and paper, plastics, electronics, furniture and other consumer products.
Ottawa’s message is straightforward: if Washington uses tariffs as leverage, Canada will not simply absorb the hit. But retaliation comes with a price. Import tariffs do not only pressure American exporters; they can also raise input costs and retail prices for Canadian businesses and consumers.
Former prime minister Jean Chrétien — who led Canada from 1993 to 2003 — acknowledged that reality in an interview aired this week. Yet at 92, his message was anything but cautious: Canada, he said, has to stand up when there is a “bully” in front of it.
“We have to stand up when there is a bully in front of you.”
— Jean Chrétien, former prime minister of Canada
Jean Chrétien Returns — and Mocks a Fight Over a Lake
Chrétien did not deny the deep economic dependence between the two countries. The United States is larger; Canada needs the U.S. market; and the United States depends heavily on Canadian energy, raw materials and trade. That is exactly why, in his view, a prolonged tariff war will hurt both sides.
What made the interview ricochet across Canadian media was the way Chrétien mocked President Donald Trump’s August 27 executive order directing the U.S. federal government to rename Lake Ontario as “Lake America.” For Chrétien, changing a name does not weaken Canada — and the lake itself, as he put it, is not “suffering.” It is just a lake.
“Lake Ontario is not suffering. It’s a lake.”
— Jean Chrétien, on Trump’s federal renaming of Lake Ontario
Chrétien called the move a “very weak gesture” and described the tactic as “cheap and nasty,” arguing that when renaming a lake becomes a major talking point, it may signal that the administration is running out of arguments. It was not the calibrated language of a sitting prime minister. That bluntness is precisely why the clip traveled so quickly.
When a Name on the Map Becomes Part of the Fight
On August 27, Trump signed an executive order directing U.S. federal agencies to use the name “Lake America” for the body of water long known as Lake Ontario. The order can change federal maps, databases and official references inside the United States, but it cannot compel Canada, international organizations or other countries to abandon the name Lake Ontario.
Economically, the order does not move a single container across the border. Politically, it has become combustible. A lake shared by the two countries is now a visual symbol of a larger question hanging over the relationship: is Washington applying trade pressure, or testing how far Canada can be pushed on sovereignty and national identity?
Former Quebec premier Jean Charest told CNN in August that when the Trump administration repeatedly invokes the idea of Canada as a “51st state,” many Canadians do not hear a joke. They hear the suggestion that their country “doesn’t have a right to exist.” That perception is helping turn a tariff dispute into a much broader argument about sovereignty.
Bombardier: The Punch at Canada That Landed in Kansas
If Lake Ontario is the symbolic front, Bombardier is where the trade war runs straight into real American jobs. Trump threatened to bar the Canadian aircraft maker from selling planes in the United States unless it moved manufacturing to U.S. soil, while accusing Canada of unfair treatment of Gulfstream Aerospace.
But the threat immediately exposed a contradiction: Bombardier already has a major U.S. footprint. The company says it works with roughly 2,800 American suppliers across 47 states, while key aircraft components are built in the United States. Bombardier also employs thousands of American workers.
The political pressure landed hardest in Kansas. Bombardier’s Wichita operation employs more than 1,200 people, prompting Republican Sens. Jerry Moran and Roger Marshall to raise concerns about local jobs and engage the White House. A threat designed to squeeze Canada suddenly became a domestic problem for lawmakers in Trump’s own party.
That is the twist Washington cannot easily ignore. North American aerospace supply chains are so intertwined that a punishment aimed at a Canadian company can rebound through U.S. factories, suppliers and payrolls. The threat is politically real, but the consequences would not stop at the border.
A Rare Moment: Canada’s Political Rivals Close Ranks
The confrontation with Washington is producing an unusual image in Canadian politics: government and opposition figures may still fight over economics and tactics, but they increasingly sound alike when the subject turns to national sovereignty.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has said Canadians must stand united against unresolved U.S. tariffs and pressure from Washington, while still pressing Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government over the domestic cost of retaliation. The opposition is not giving Carney a blank check — but neither is it treating the dispute as ordinary partisan theater.
That combination matters. Trump has become a powerful enough external pressure to pull Canadian political rivals toward the same side on sovereignty, even as they continue arguing over who will ultimately pay for a dollar-for-dollar trade fight.
Washington Fires Back the Same Day
On September 8, the White House signed five proclamations under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The measures include import bans on certain Canadian alcoholic beverages, dairy products and motor-vehicle-related goods, along with changes to the scope of previously announced tariffs. Some import bans are scheduled to take effect September 29.
That creates a retaliation cycle with almost no breathing room: Washington imposes tariffs, Ottawa hits back, and Washington answers again. Each round is sold as a way to force the other side to yield. Each round also drags more businesses, industries and communities into the fight.
Chrétien’s warning cuts through the theater: tariffs punish both sides. The question is no longer simply which country has the larger economy. It is which government can absorb the economic pain longer — and which one begins facing serious political blowback at home first.
Canada Opens More Doors Abroad — But This Is Not a Realignment
As relations with Washington deteriorate, Ottawa is also reopening diplomatic channels elsewhere. In early September, Canadian and Chinese military officials held their first Defence Coordination Dialogue since April 2018. The talks focused on regional and international issues and on maintaining practical exchanges.
That detail is easy to sensationalize, but the timing is more important than the label. A defense dialogue does not mean Canada is changing alliances, and Beijing is not replacing Washington as Canada’s security partner. Still, after years of frozen Canada-China relations, reopening the channel while Ottawa is under heavy U.S. pressure shows Canada is trying to widen its strategic room for maneuver.
The same logic runs through Carney’s effort to deepen ties with Europe and other middle powers: if Canada’s trade and security are too dependent on one partner, a crisis with that partner can shake the entire system.
The Biggest Hit May Still Land in Consumers’ Wallets
Behind all the hard-edged rhetoric is the hardest question of all: prices. Canadian counter-tariffs can make U.S. goods more expensive north of the border. U.S. import bans and higher duties can shrink choices, disrupt supply chains and raise costs for businesses on both sides.
That is why Ottawa cannot win this fight with slogans alone. If the government wants to hold public support, it has to show that retaliation creates meaningful pressure on Washington without leaving Canadian households and businesses carrying the largest bill.
The Bombardier episode reveals the same risk for the United States. North American supply chains are now so deeply integrated that a strike at a Canadian manufacturer can echo through Kansas, Texas, California and thousands of U.S. suppliers. In a trade war this interconnected, there may be no clean punch.
Conclusion: The Gloves Are Off — and This May Be Only Round One
Canada has chosen retaliation over retreat. Tariffs of up to 50% are the most visible part of that response, but the events around them show the conflict spreading well beyond a conventional trade dispute — from a lake’s name to Bombardier, from Ottawa’s political divide to Republican concerns in Kansas, and from Washington to diplomatic channels Canada is reopening elsewhere.
Chrétien says Canada has to stand up to a “bully.” Trump has portrayed Canada as one of America’s toughest trading partners. Those descriptions come from opposite sides of the border, but they point to the same reality: neither government is signaling that it wants to blink first.
And that may be the most dangerous part. When both sides believe compromise will be read as weakness, every retaliatory measure becomes an argument for the next one. Today’s tariffs may be only the opening round. The final bill could be measured not just in billions of dollars of trade, but in consumer prices, jobs and the erosion of one of the world’s most deeply integrated economic relationships.
