Iran's assault on the Al Asad airbase in Iraq on January 8, 2020 remains the largest ballistic missile attack on American forces in US history.
Now, leaked military memos suggest that US service members may also have been exposed to toxic and radioactive materials by that strike.
Yet, to date, neither President Joe Biden's administration nor his predecessor's have publicly acknowledged that US soldiers in Iraq may have been imperilled by hazardous fallout.
Iran's attack on Al Asad was launched in retaliation for the US strike, ordered by former President Donald Trump on January 3, 2020, that killed top Islamic Revolutionary Guard General Qassem Soleimani.
Eleven warheads, each weighing about 1,600 lbs, struck the air base.
Alan Johnson, a retired flight surgeon, who was stationed at Al Asad at the time of the strike, told me, 'None of us really should have survived and we weren't expected to survive.'
'The amount of percussive force that travels through your body, you can't really put words to that,' Johnson said, describing how one missile detonated just 60 feet from his bunker.
'If you fell off [a] fourth-story roof onto your back and survived, that's probably what it felt like... I was knocked unconscious twice from two different impacts,' he added.
I first reported on the Al Asad attack in 2021 while working at CBS News. Then, our investigation revealed that dozens of service members with traumatic brain injuries from the strike were not immediately recognized with the 'Purple Heart' - a military decoration awarded to those wounded or killed while serving.
After our report, the Army quickly moved to retroactively approve the awards.
Three years later, I have confirmed that some of the same injured service members, now in their 20s and early 30s, are sick - and that they attribute their illnesses to exposure to fallout from Iran's strike.
Moreover, there is evidence, including soil samples and official Army reports, that may support their suspicions.
I can reveal that an official US Army memorandum dated April 28, 2021 was distributed to service members who were at Al Asad airbase at the time of the Iranian attack.
Similar 'toxic exposure' memos were also circulated to other units who served at Al Asad after the attack.
The subject line of the memo is: 'Exposure to Hazardous and Toxic Materials.'
The two-page document reads, in part, 'Purpose: To identify and record exposure to hazardous and toxic material for all assigned or attached to [U.S. Army Special Operations Aviation Command] while forward deployed to Al Asad Air Base, Iraq (AAAB) from 15 JAN 2020 to 13 FEB 2020.'
All military personnel who received the memo were instructed to retain the document in the event that they got sick in the future.
These official Army memos provide service members with proof of exposure to toxic materials and can facilitate what's known as a 'service connection.' Verification of 'service connection' enables a soldier to receive financial and medical benefits for illness or injury.
On the second page of the memo is a chart labeled 'Soil Sample results from '15 JAN 2020.'
The January 15 date confirms that the soil sample was taken by US Army investigators seven days after Iran's attack.
The chart shows 19 materials, including radioactive elements and heavy metals, were detected in the sample.
Other US military records show the soil sample was collected at or near the impact site of a missile labeled 'missile 6' by Army investigators.
Based on unclassified drone video of the attack released by United States Central Command, which oversees US defense forces in the Middle East, 'missile 6' had one of the largest heat signatures of all the artillery involved in the strike.
At my request, four independent environmental specialists reviewed the records, most have experience analyzing military records and conducting toxic exposure evaluations of military sites.
Two of the specialists, who spoke on background citing the sensitivity of the subject, raised concerns about radioactive elements, including Actinium-228, Bismuth-214 and Cesium-137, saying they seemed 'out of place' at the site of a conventional explosion.
Olli Heinonen, who served for 27 years at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the mix of toxic agents is potentially concerning and the presence of radioactive elements stood out to him.
However, he warned that he cannot yet conclusively say if radioactive elements were introduced by the Iranian strike or were present at the Al Asad base before the attack.
'Uranium, which in nature contains Bismuth-214 [a radioactive isotype], was used in the Middle East during the Gulf War in warheads,' Heinonen explained.
'To understand whether it is actually the case [that Bismuth-214 was in Iranian warheads] would require [knowing] the actual concentration of uranium and its chemical composition in the samples.'
'Cesium-137 [another radioactive isotype] is also in nature as a result of nuclear weapons tests, and as a result of the Chernobyl accident,' he said.
'[Knowing] the actual concentration of [Cesium-137] in the samples would be beneficial. If there is a high actual concentration, it could be a [possible indication] of use in a [...] dirty warhead.'
A 'dirty warhead' is an explosive weapon that combines conventional explosives with radioactive material.
'Before such a conclusion can be reached, more information is needed,' Heinonen stressed.
Additionally, the experts that I spoke to were not unanimous in their assessments of the health risks of the material reportedly detected at Al Asad .
A fourth specialist, Robert Brounstein, who specializes in occupational safety and health, said the relative concentration of Cesium-137 in the soil samples 'does not appear' to present 'a health concern'.
Brounstein said the test results also indicate the presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are toxic substances linked to smoke and fire.
He said PAHs can be associated with cancer targeting lungs, skin and bladder 'due to long-term continuous exposures as opposed to acute, one-time or short duration exposure.'
According to Brounstein, service members at Al Asad would not have had 'long-term continuous exposure' to these toxic materials.
In response to nearly a dozen questions, an Army spokesman told me the concentration of hazardous materials at Al Asad were not high enough to present a health risk to soldiers.
'No hazards or chemicals were found to exceed Military Exposure Guidelines... [and] no elevated risk was identified. Therefore, no active personnel monitoring was deemed necessary,' the spokesman said in a statement.
The military's assurance, however, is not enough for soldiers who served as Al Asad and their family members.
Retired Army Judge Advocate General, Lieutenant Colonel Robert Broadbent is now representing 183 plaintiffs - who include the former soldiers and their families - in a sweeping court.
Broadbent recently retired after 23 years of military service representing the legal interests of the Army and its soldiers. He told me, 'We're going to have another Agent Orange situation.'
Agent Orange was used by the US military during the Vietnam War to clear brush and vegetation that sheltered the Viet Cong.g. Exposure to Agent Orange is now associated with serious health conditions, including cancers, heart disease and Parkinson's.
'Ten years down the road, these service members are going to be out [of the military] and they're going to be dying and they're not going to be cared for,' Broadbent said, explaining that he wants exposure to the Al Asad base attack to be officially recognized as a health hazard.
Additionally, Broadbent hopes to see Iran held responsible for the attack - though that, too, has been a struggle.
Earlier this year, a federal court broke with long standing precedent and dismissed his lawsuit, Hansen V. Islamic Republic of Iran.
Broadbent believes that these soldiers are still due their day in court - and is calling on Congress to amend the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and allow their lawsuit to go forward.
Broadbent said Congress can add one word to the legislation to make clear that nation-states are still liable for attacks, such as the strike on Al Asad. Iran's intent was to kill service members, but miraculously all the soldiers survived.
Service members linked to the Al Asad base attack told me that they have already reached out to Senators John Cornyn, Amy Klobuchar and Thom Tillis on this issue.
Asked if a change in administration would make a difference, Broadbent said, 'If the administration wants to take a different tact with Iran, it absolutely could.'
Comments