The Billionaire Pretended to Be a Homeless Man at His Daughter's Luxury Hotel. She Said He Didn't Belong There.

🚨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.