Iran

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Iran’s Fordo Nuclear Site Said to Look Severely Damaged, Not Destroyed

      by

      Initial military assessments of the buried nuclear site contrast with the statement on the strike there made by President Trump.After overnight strikes on Iran, President Trump on Sunday declared the operation a “success,” and said that Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities were “completely and totally obliterated.” But his early public pronouncements contrast with more cautious assessments by the U.S. and Israeli militaries.The Israeli military, in an initial analysis, believes the heavily fortified nuclear site at Fordo has sustained serious damage from the American strike on Sunday, but has not been completely destroyed, according to two Israeli officials with knowledge of the matter. The officials also said it appeared Iran had moved equipment, including uranium, from the site.A senior U.S. official similarly acknowledged that the American strike on the Fordo site did not destroy the heavily fortified facility but said the strike had severely damaged it, taking it “off the table.” The person noted that even 12 bunker-busting bombs could not destroy the site.The damage assessments by Israel and the United States are ongoing, and they have not made any final conclusions. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.In its overnight strikes, the United States took aim at three nuclear site, including dropping 30,000 pound, bunker-busting bombs on Fordo, Iran’s most critical site.In a briefing Sunday morning, top Pentagon officials echoed President Trump’s claims of success, while also saying the final assessment would take time. Gen. Dan Caine, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the initial assessment indicated that all three sites sustained “severe damage and destruction,” but added that it was too soon to say whether Iran retained some nuclear capability.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Pentagon Details Multipronged Attack on Iranian Nuclear Sites

      by

      B-2 stealth bombers, fighter aircraft and submarine-launched cruise missiles struck Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan during “Operation Midnight Hammer.”Senior Pentagon officials on Sunday described an extraordinary coordinated military operation targeting Iran that took place under utmost secrecy and showcased what the American military was capable of when it put in place its doctrine of using air and naval forces to strike an adversary.But neither Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth nor Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, could immediately say whether Iran still retained the ability to make a nuclear weapon. Mr. Hegseth repeated President Trump’s assertion from the previous night that the nuclear sites had been “obliterated.” General Caine did not.The final battle damage assessment for the military operation against Iran, General Caine said, was still to come. He said the initial assessment showed that all three of the Iranian nuclear sites that were struck “sustained severe damage and destruction.”Mr. Hegseth and General Caine, appearing before reporters in the Pentagon’s briefing room for the first time since they took office, described an intricate operation that began at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, home to the B-2 stealth bombers used in the strikes, and hit three nuclear sites in a span of less than a half-hour — 6:40 p.m. to 7:05 p.m. Eastern time on Saturday.The bombers took off in secrecy on Friday night from Missouri for the more than 7,000-mile trip, which involved multiple refuelings. They crossed the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea to reach the skies above Iran, where they struck the heavily fortified nuclear site at Fordo, as well as facilities at Natanz.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats say they were left in dark about plans for US strikes on Iran

      by

      Senior Democrats have claimed they were left in the dark about operation Midnight Hammer, the US’s highly coordinated strike on Saturday on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program.Neither Mark Warner, a US senator of Virginia, nor Jim Himes, a representative of Connecticut, both top Democrats on the Senate and House intelligence panels, were briefed before the attack, according to reports.But that came amid claims that Republican counterparts were given advance notice of the operation, which involved 125 aircraft – including seven B-2 bombers carrying 14 bunker busters weighing three tons – and 75 Tomahawk missiles launched from US submarines. Axios reported that the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, had been informed shortly before the attacks began at 6.40pm eastern time.Himes’s committee staff received notification about the strike from the Pentagon only after Donald Trump made the announcement on social media soon before 8pm, according to the outlet.The president’s defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, told a press conference early on Sunday that the strikes “took months and weeks of positioning and preparation so that we could be ready when the president called”.“It took misdirection and the highest of operational security,” Hegseth said, in part alluding to the US’s deployment of B-2 bombers to the Pacific island of Guam earlier on Saturday.The US attack of Iran came as most Democrats had left Washington for the Juneteenth holiday – but the apparent lack of forewarning to lawmakers on intelligence committees is striking. Top lawmakers are typically informed of military operations in advance.“Cost, duration, risk to our troops, strategy – the basics before we make a decision of this consequence,” said Chris Coons, a senior Democratic member of the Senate foreign relations committee, last week.Arizona senator Mark Kelly told NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday that the White House should have been “right up front” in coming to Congress “and asking for authorization to do this”.“That’s the constitutional approach to this,” Kelly said. “He could have talked to us about what the goal is and what the plan is ahead of time.”Tim Kaine, a Virginia senator who sits on the armed services as well as the foreign relations committees, said Congress needed to be informed ahead of time.“Congress needs to authorize a war against Iran,” he said. “This Trump war against Iran – we have not.” Senators are expected to receive a briefing on the strikes next week. But the signs that an attack was imminent were there to see: additional US military assets had been moved into the region, and the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, had postponed a briefing with the Senate intelligence committee last week.Moderate and progressive Democrats have been in conflict over the engagement of US forces in support of Israel. Trump’s use of force could now deepen the ideological schism.Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, told CNN on Sunday that “the destruction of these facilities is a positive in the sense that it will set back Iran’s program”. But he warned that Iran could now “sprint for a bomb”.He added that the strikes were “not constitutional” and Congress should be brought in “on an action this substantial that could lead to a major outbreak of war”. But Schiff refused to be drawn in on whether the world was safer following the strike. “We simply don’t know,” he said.Schiff maintained that in absence of a briefing “this is an order that should not have been given”.Prominent Democrats with 2028 presidential aspirations have been notably silent on the 10-day war between Israel and Iran. “They are sort of hedging their bets,” said Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of state during the Obama administration.“The beasts of the Democratic party’s constituencies right now are so hostile to Israel’s war in Gaza that it’s really difficult to come out looking like one would corroborate an unauthorized war that supports Israel without blowback.”But some had spoken out. Ro Khanna, a California congressman, called the White House threats of an attack on Iran “a defining moment for our party”. That came as progressive and isolationist lawmakers on the right found themselves uncomfortably aligned.Khanna had introduced legislation with the Kentucky Republican US House member Thomas Massie that called on Trump to “terminate” the use of US armed forces against Iran unless “explicitly authorized” by a declaration of war from Congress.Following the strike, Khanna posted on X: “Trump struck Iran without any authorization of Congress.”Khanna said Congress needed to “immediately return” to Washington to vote on the measure he and Massie co-authored. Kaine said he would bring a similar resolution to the Senate in the coming days.Massie said in response to the strikes: “This is not Constitutional.”The independent US senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats, said supporting the Israeli prime minister Benjamin “Netanyahu’s war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake”. He introduced legislation prohibiting the use of federal money for force against Iran.The New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said on X that the decision to attack Iran’s nuclear sites was “disastrous”.“The President’s disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote.Halie Soifer, the chief executive officer of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, said in a statement: “This is an incredibly difficult moment for the vast majority of American Jews, who are supportive of Israel, concerned about the security and safety of the Israeli people and Jews in the United States and around the world, and fearful that president Trump lacks a clear strategy about what happens next with Iran.”On NBC’s Meet the Press JD Vance, the US vice-president, maintained that it was untrue to say that Saturday’s strikes in Iran exceeded Trump’s presidential authority.Schiff, meanwhile, declined to support calls for impeachment proceedings against Trump, saying the failure to brief Democrats ahead of the strike was “another partisan exercise”. More

    • 38 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      America Strikes Iran

      by

      We explain what we know about the attacks. Last night, the U.S. entered the war with Iran.President Trump upended decades of diplomacy when he sent American warplanes and submarines to strike three of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including Fordo, its top-secret site buried deep inside a mountain. The bombs fell at about 2:30 a.m. local time.In an address from the White House, Trump said the goal of the strikes was to keep Iran from building a nuclear weapon. He claimed the facilities had been “completely and totally obliterated,” but the extent of the damage is not yet clear.Trump also called for the war to end. “Iran, the bully of the Mideast, must now make peace,” he said. He threatened “far greater” attacks if it did not.Still, the war continues: Iran said today that it wasn’t open to diplomacy right now. It launched missiles into Israel early this morning, wounding at least 16. Israel responded with its own strikes on Iran. More than 40,000 American troops are stationed in the region, and the U.S. is expecting retaliation. (See American bases that Iran could strike.)The U.S. attack was an “extraordinary turn for a military that was supposed to be moving on from two decades of forever wars in the Middle East,” our colleagues Helene Cooper, Eric Schmitt and Julian Barnes wrote.Below, we explain the strikes and what could happen next.What were the targets?The New York TimesStatus of U.S.A.I.D. programs More

    • 100 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Strike on Iran Cements Netanyahu’s Political Comeback

      by

      The United States’ overnight attack could cause further escalation. To Israelis, it is already seen as a victory for Israel, and for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.Twenty months ago, in the aftermath of Hamas’s attack on Israel in October 2023, Benjamin Netanyahu’s political career teetered on a precipice. As Israel’s prime minister, he had overseen the deadliest military lapse in the country’s history, wrecking his security credentials and collapsing support for his government.The United States’ overnight attack on Iran on Sunday, coupled with Israel’s own recent strikes, has taken Mr. Netanyahu to the brink of political redemption. For decades, he dreamed of thwarting Iran’s nuclear program, defining it as the greatest threat to Israel’s future, and its destruction as his highest military priority.Now, he is as close to reaching that goal as he may ever get. To many Israelis, it is a success that helps to revive his reputation as a guardian of their security, raises his chances of re-election and, depending on how the next weeks develop, could cement his historical legacy.“This night marks Netanyahu’s greatest achievement since he first came to power in 1996,” said Mazal Mualem, a biographer of Mr. Netanyahu. “From the perspective of the public, he has achieved a victory against what is considered the greatest threat to Israel since its founding.”In Iran, the short-term consequences of the U.S. strikes have yet to play out. It is not yet clear if they completely destroyed their targets. Even if they did, Israel could continue to attack Iran, seeking to further destabilize the Iranian government.Iran fired another barrage of missiles at Israel on Sunday, and many fear it will retaliate against U.S. military bases, embassies and interests. That could prompt more American and Israeli strikes on Iran, lengthening the war.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Will Iran Decide to Retaliate Against the U.S.?

      by

      The Supreme Leader may choose to back down after a first round of retaliation, or prefer martyrdom and building a nuclear weapon.In July 1988, faced with bleak prospects in its war with an American-backed Iraq, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, decided reluctantly to accept a cease-fire and end the conflict.“It’s like drinking from a chalice of poison,” he told Iranians. But the survival of the young Islamic Republic depended on swallowing.His successor as supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, now faces a similar decision. But having led the country since 1989 and rebuilt it as a regional and nuclear power, it is by no means clear that he will make the same choice.At 86, with much of his life’s work in ruins around him, he may prefer martyrdom to the surrender that President Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel are demanding of him.Iran’s first response was defiant. “The Islamic Republic of Iran is resolved to defend Iran’s territory, sovereignty, security and people by all force and means against the United States’ criminal aggression,” the foreign ministry said in a statement.Iran has already launched a serious barrage of missiles on Israel. It may, as it has warned, attack some of the 40,000 American soldiers in the region.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 288 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      No matter what Trump says, the US has gone to war – and there will be profound and lasting consequences | Simon Tisdall

      by

      Bombing will not make Iran go away. US bombs will not destroy the knowhow needed to build a nuclear weapon or the will do so, if that is what Tehran wants. The huge attack ordered by Donald Trump will not halt ongoing open warfare between Israel and Iran. It will not bring lasting peace to the Middle East, end the slaughter in Gaza, deliver justice to the Palestinians, or end more than half a century of bitter enmity between Tehran and Washington.More likely, Trump’s rash, reckless gamble will inflame and exacerbate all these problems. Depending on how Iran and its allies and supporters react, the region could plunge into an uncontrolled conflagration. US bases in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere in the region, home to about 40,000 American troops, must now be considered potential targets for retaliation – and possibly British and allied forces, too.Trump says he has not declared war on Iran. He claims the attack is not an opening salvo in a campaign aimed at triggering regime change in Tehran. But that’s not how Iran’s politicians and people will see it. Trump’s premature bragging about “spectacular” success, and threats of more and bigger bombs, sound like the words of a ruthless conqueror intent on total, crushing victory.Trump, the isolationist president who vowed to avoid foreign wars, has walked slap bang into a trap prepared by Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu – a trap his smarter predecessors avoided. Netanyahu has constantly exaggerated the immediacy of the Iranian nuclear threat. His alarmist speeches on this subject go back 30 years. Always, he claimed to know what UN nuclear inspectors, US and European intelligence agencies and even some of his own spy chiefs did not – namely, that Iran was on the verge of deploying a ready-to-use nuclear weapon aimed at Israel’s heart.This contention has never been proven. Iran has always denied seeking a nuclear bomb. Its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa banning any such programme. Netanyahu’s most recent claim that Iran was weaponising, made as he tried to justify last week’s unilateral, illegal Israeli attacks, was not supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or US intelligence experts. But weak-minded Trump chose to believe it. Reading from Netanyahu’s script, he said on Saturday night that eliminating this incontrovertible nuclear threat was vital – and the sole aim of the US air assault.So, once again, the US has gone to war in the Middle East on the back of a lie, on disputed, probably faulty intelligence purposefully distorted for political reasons. Once again, as in Iraq in 2003, the overall objectives of the war are unclear, uncertain and open to interpretation by friend and foe alike. Once again, there appears to be no “exit strategy”, no guardrails against escalation and no plan for what happens next. Demanding that Iran capitulate or face “national tragedy” is not a policy. It’s a deadly dead-end.Iran will not go away, whatever Trump and Netanyahu may imagine in their fevered dreams. It will remain a force in the region. It will remain a country to be reckoned with, a country of 90 million people, and one with powerful allies in China, Russia and the global south. It is already insisting it will continue with its civil nuclear programme.These events are a reminder of how profound is official US ignorance of Iran. Unlike the UK, Washington has had no diplomatic presence there since the revolution. It has had few direct political contacts, and its swingeing economic sanctions have created even greater distance, further diminishing mutual understanding. Trump’s decision to renege on the 2015 nuclear accord (negotiated by Barack Obama, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the EU) was a product of this ignorance. Ten years later, he is trying to do with bombs what was largely, peacefully achieved through diplomacy by his wiser, less impulsive, less easily led predecessors.View image in fullscreenPeace seems more elusive than ever – and Netanyahu is celebrating. The US cannot walk away now. It’s committed. And, as Netanyahu sees it, he and Israel cannot lose. Except, except … Iran cannot somehow be imagined away. It still has to be dealt with. And the reckoning that now looms, short- and long-term, may be more terrible than any of Netanyahu’s scare stories.Iran previously warned that if the US attacked, it would hit back at US bases. There are many to choose from, in Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan and elsewhere. The Houthis in Yemen say they will resume attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. The strait of Hormuz, so important a transit point for global energy supplies, may be mined, as happened in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war. The result could be a global oil shock and markets meltdown. And Iran is still reportedly firing missiles into Israel, despite claims in Jerusalem that most of its ballistic missiles bases have been destroyed.Reacting to Trump’s attack, Iranian officials say no options are off the table in terms of retaliation. And they say they will not negotiate under fire, despite a call to do so from the British prime minister, Keir Starmer. Rejecting Trump’s unverified claims about the total destruction of all nuclear facilities, they also insist Iran will reconstitute and continue its nuclear programme. The big question now is whether that programme really will be weaponised.Two radical longer-term consequences may flow from this watershed moment. One is that Khamenei’s unpopular regime, notorious for corruption, military incompetence and economic mismanagement, and deprived of support from Lebanese Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza, may crack under the strain of this disaster. So far there has been little sign of an uprising or a change in government. That’s not surprising, given that Tehran and other cities are under bombardment. But regime collapse cannot be ruled out.The other is that, rather than surrender the cherished right to uranium enrichment and submit to the Trump-Netanyahu ultimatum, Iran’s rulers, whoever they are, will decide to follow North Korea and try to acquire a bomb as quickly as possible, to fend off future humiliations. That could entail withdrawal from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and rejection of the UN inspections regime. After years of trying to play by western rules, Iran could really finally go rogue.The supposed need to acquire nukes for self-defence is a grim lesson other countries around the world may draw from these events. The proliferation of nuclear weapons is the biggest immediate danger to the future of the planet. What Trump just did in recklessly and violently trying to eliminate an unproven threat may ensure the proven danger of a nuclear-armed world grows ever-more real.

      Simon Tisdall is a Guardian foreign affairs commentator More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      What a difference a week makes: Trump falls into the Netanyahu trap

      by

      When he was elected, Donald Trump suggested he could hammer out a new relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister who was used to getting his way with the White House. But after just over 150 days in office, it appears Trump has fallen into the same trap as his predecessors – and launched the most consequential strike on Iran in generations.From early suggestions that the Trump administration would rein in Netanyahu’s military ambitions, it now appears that the Israeli PM has manoeuvred the US into striking Iranian uranium enrichment sites directly after a series of military attacks that Washington was unable to deter the Israeli PM from. And the US is now bracing for a retaliation that could easily bring it into a full-scale war.Days before Trump’s inauguration, his envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, barrelled into Israel with a demand to meet Netanyahu on Shabbat in order to strongarm him into negotiating a ceasefire deal with Hamas in Gaza.Senior officials at the time chalked that up to the “Trump factor” – a reference to the unpredictability and dealmaking prowess of the US president – which could provide a decisive edge in dealing with the forceful Israeli PM.While Netanyahu had been able to manoeuvre previous administrations into supporting his military adventures in the region, some critics of Israel began to laud Trump for his ability to resist Netanyahu’s pull.But after the events of Saturday – when US B-2 bombers pounded targets in Iran for the first time since Israel began to launch strikes last week – it was clear that Trump’s intuition had changed. Members of his inner entourage also shifted from a Maga isolationist approach to foreign policy to a more hawkish stance.Trump’s public aversion to war and his promises as a candidate not to embroil the US in further conflicts abroad was evaporating less than 200 days after he re-entered office.When he appeared in public, Trump sought to put rumours of a troubled relationship with Netanyahu to rest. And he tried to show that US policy was in lockstep with Israel, rejecting suggestions that Israel had blindsided the US by pursuing an aggressive bombing campaign against Iran.“I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu,” Trump said. “We worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we’ve gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel.”It was a far cry from the initial US reaction to Israeli bombing raids on targets in Iran, when the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, called the strikes “unilateral” and said the US was “not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region”.What a difference a week makes. The US now appears to have fully endorsed the Israeli strikes and joined the attack, potentially setting the stage for a series of escalations that could lead to a new war in the Middle East.What does this mean for the future? Trump has claimed in public and private that the US strikes on the Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan enrichment sites were one-off missions and could be contained. US forces in the Middle East have been warned of the potential for Iranian retaliation attacks, and Trump has told Tehran that the US is ready to carry out further strikes if it is targeted directly.Yet Trump’s own administration officials, including the vice-president, JD Vance, have warned of the potential for a limited strike to creep into a longer-term mission in Iran if Tehran retaliates.For now, Trump continues to try to tread a middle ground, launching strikes but suggesting that he can prevent an escalation leading to a protracted war.Yet the key US ally in the Middle East appears only emboldened by Trump’s raid.“Congratulations, President Trump, your bold decision to target Iran’s nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history,” Netanyahu said in a video statement. More