so it'd be, has the right to self defense, which was consistent with what had come out of the white house and many western governments in the aftermath of a ron's initial attack. and that the, as long that grew up public was the address. so let's be straight. given the scale of this attack, ron's intent was clearly to cause significant destruction and casualties. v us called the ron's actions unprecedented. even though they had been preceded by israel's bombing of an iranian consumer building in the syrian capital, damascus on april. first, the killed to iranian generals, among others, it was a position the u. k. also to that, when challenged proved to be a hard sell what, what britain to the hostile nation slot, one of our comes to us we would take, we would take the very strong action under, on woodside, that that's all that as well. even those well aware iran has influence beyond its borders and uses it's embassies and consulates. as cover when arming is regional allies have said this really strikes in damascus was dangerously provoked. here i must be very, very critically about this,