Trump says Iran's key nuclear sites 'obliterated' by airstrikes, World News

WASHINGTON — US forces struck three Iranian nuclear sites in a "very successful attack," President Donald Trump said on Saturday (June 21), adding that Tehran's nuclear programme had been obliterated.
After days of deliberation and long before his self-imposed two-week deadline, Trump's decision to join Israel's military campaign against its major rival Iran represents a major escalation of the conflict.
"The strikes were a spectacular military success," Trump said in a televised Oval Office address. "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated."
In a speech that lasted just over three minutes, Trump said Iran's future held "either peace or tragedy," and that there were many other targets that could be hit by the US military.
"If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill."
The US reached out to Iran diplomatically on Saturday to say the strikes are all the US plans and it does not aim for regime change, CBS News reported.
Trump said US forces struck Iran's three principal nuclear sites: Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow. He told Fox News six bunker-buster bombs were dropped on Fordow, while 30 Tomahawk missiles were fired against other nuclear sites.
US B-2 bombers were involved in the strikes, a US official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow," Trump posted. "Fordow is gone."
"IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR," he added.
[[nid:719350]]
Reuters had reported earlier on Saturday the movement of the B-2 bombers, which can be equipped to carry massive bombs that experts say would be needed to strike Fordow, which is buried under a mountain south of Tehran.
An Iranian official, cited by Tasnim news agency, confirmed that part of the Fordow site was attacked by "enemy airstrikes".
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Trump on his "bold decision" which he said will change history.
"History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world's most dangerous regime, the world's most dangerous weapons," Netanyahu said. Diplomacy unsuccessful
The strikes came as Israel and Iran have been engaged in more than a week of aerial combat that has resulted in deaths and injuries in both countries.
Israel launched the attacks on Iran saying that it wanted to remove any chance of Tehran developing nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only.
Diplomatic efforts by Western nations to stop the hostilities have been unsuccessful.
In recent days, Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans have argued that Trump must receive permission from the US Congress before committing the US military to any combat against Iran.
Republican Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker of Mississippi applauded the operation but cautioned that the US now faced "very serious choices ahead".
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim Risch, a Republican, said that despite the heavy US bombings over Iran, "This war is Israel's war, not our war."
He added, "There will not be American boots on the ground in Iran."
One Republican lawmaker, Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, simply said, "This is not constitutional."
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia said the US public "is overwhelmingly opposed to the US waging war on Iran" and accused Trump of displaying "horrible judgement".
Israel launched attacks on June 13, saying Iran was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. Israel is widely assumed to possess nuclear weapons, which it neither confirms nor denies.
At least 430 people have been killed and 3,500 injured in Iran since Israel began its attacks, Iranian state-run Nour News said, citing the health ministry.
In Israel, 24 civilians have been killed by Iranian missile attacks, according to local authorities, in the worst conflict between the longtime enemies. More than 450 Iranian missiles have been fired towards Israel, according to the Israeli prime minister's office.
Israeli officials said 1,272 people have been injured since the beginning of the hostilities, with 14 in serious condition.
ALSO READ: Trump says US forces bombed Iran nuclear sites; says 'Fordow is gone'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Straits Times

37 minutes ago

• Straits Times

Strikes on Iran mark Trump's biggest, and riskiest, foreign policy gamble

U.S. President Donald Trump walks after delivering an address to the nation at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025, following U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/Pool WASHINGTON - With his unprecedented decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites, directly joining Israel's air attack on its regional arch-foe, U.S. President Donald Trump has done something he had long vowed to avoid - intervene militarily in a major foreign war. The dramatic U.S. strike, including the targeting of Iran's most heavily fortified nuclear installation deep underground, marks the biggest foreign policy gamble of Trump's two presidencies and one fraught with risks and unknowns. Trump, who insisted on Saturday that Iran must now make peace or face further attacks, could provoke Tehran into retaliating by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil artery, attacking U.S. military bases and allies in the Middle East, stepping up its missile barrage on Israel and activating proxy groups against American and Israeli interests worldwide, analysts said. Such moves could escalate into a broader, more protracted conflict than Trump had envisioned, evoking echoes of the 'forever wars' that America fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he had derided as 'stupid' and promised never to be dragged into. 'The Iranians are seriously weakened and degraded in their military capabilities,' said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator for Democratic and Republican administrations. 'But they have all sorts of asymmetric ways that they can respond... This is not going to end quick.' In the lead-up to the bombing that he announced late on Saturday, Trump had vacillated between threats of military action and appeals for renewed negotiation to persuade Iran to reach a deal to dismantle its nuclear program. A senior White House official said that once Trump was convinced that Tehran had no interest in reaching a nuclear agreement, he decided the strikes were 'the right thing to do.' Trump gave the go-ahead once he was assured of a 'high probability of success,' the official said – a determination reached after more than a week of Israeli air attacks on Iran's nuclear and military facilities paved the way for the U.S. to deliver the potentially crowning blow. NUCLEAR THREAT REMAINS Trump touted the "great success" of the strikes, which he said included the use of massive "bunker-buster bombs" on the main site at Fordow. But some experts suggested that while Iran's nuclear program may have been set back for many years, the threat may be far from over. Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, saying its program is for purely peaceful purposes. 'In the long term, military action is likely to push Iran to determine nuclear weapons are necessary for deterrence and that Washington is not interested in diplomacy,' the Arms Control Association, a non-partisan U.S.-based organization that advocates for arms control legislation, said in a statement. 'Military strikes alone cannot destroy Iran's extensive nuclear knowledge. The strikes will set Iran's program back, but at the cost of strengthening Tehran's resolve to reconstitute its sensitive nuclear activities,' the group said. Eric Lob, assistant professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Florida International University, said Iran's next move remains an open question and suggested that among its forms of retaliation could be to hit 'soft targets' of the U.S. and Israel inside and outside the region. But he also said there was a possibility that Iran could return to the negotiating table – 'though they would be doing so in an even weaker position' – or seek a diplomatic off-ramp. In the immediate aftermath of the U.S. strikes, however, Iran showed little appetite for concessions. Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said it would not allow development of its 'national industry' to be stopped, and an Iranian state television commentator said every U.S. citizen or military member in the region would not be legitimate targets. Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, posted on X: 'Trump indicated this is now the time for peace. It's unclear and unlikely the Iranians will see it the same way. This is more likely to open a new chapter of the 46-year-old US-Iran war than conclude it.' 'REGIME CHANGE' Some analysts suggested that Trump, whose administration has previously disavowed any aim of dislodging the Iranian leadership, could be drawn into seeking 'regime change' if Tehran carries out major reprisals or moves to build a nuclear weapon. That, in turn, would bring additional risks. 'Beware mission creep, aiming for regime change and democratization campaigns,' said Laura Blumenfeld, a Middle East analyst at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies in Washington. 'You'll find the bones of many failed U.S. moral missions buried in Middle East sands.' Jonathan Panikoff, a former U.S. deputy intelligence officer for the Middle East, said Iran's leadership would quickly engage in 'disproportionate attacks' if it felt its survival was imperiled. But Tehran will also have to be mindful of the consequences, he said. While actions such as closing the Strait of Hormuz would pose problems for Trump with the resulting higher oil prices and potential U.S. inflationary impact, it would also hurt China, one of Iran's few powerful allies. At the same time, Trump is already facing strong push-back from congressional Democrats against the Iran attack and will also have to contend with opposition from the anti-interventionist wing of his Republican MAGA base. Trump, who faced no major international crisis in his first term, is now embroiled in one just six months into his second. Even if he hopes U.S. military involvement can be limited in time and scope, the history of such conflicts often carries unintended consequences for American presidents. Trump's slogan of 'peace through strength' will certainly be tested as never before, especially with his opening of a new military front after failing to meet his campaign promises to quickly end wars in Ukraine and Gaza. 'Trump is back in the war business,' said Richard Gowan, U.N. director at the International Crisis Group. 'I am not sure anyone in Moscow, Tehran or Beijing ever believed his spiel that he is a peacemaker. It always looked more like a campaign phrase than a strategy." REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

Business Times

44 minutes ago

• Business Times

Trump makes dramatic about-face with plunge into Middle East war

US President Donald Trump has long advocated for keeping the US out of Middle Eastern wars. By joining Israel's offensive against Iran, he is making a dramatic geopolitical u-turn. After days of deliberation and mixed messages, Trump launched a strike against three Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday (Jun 21), bolstering Israel's efforts to destroy Iran's nuclear programme and drawing the US into a heated regional conflict. The bombings, which struck sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, came just days after he suggested he would wait for as much as two weeks to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran. Speaking from the White House late on Saturday, Trump argued that Iran must be prevented from having an atomic bomb and said the US fulfilled its objective of destroying their nuclear sites. Trump also pressured Iran to return to the negotiating table, threatening more attacks if they don't work toward an agreement – or retaliate against the US. 'This cannot continue. There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,' the president said in an address to the nation. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Consequential choice While Trump has approved military action in the past, this moment marks a consequential choice for a leader who rose to power with an anti-war stance and was welcomed by voters weary of US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. He hardened that posture in his 2024 campaign with attacks on then-President Joe Biden's chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. He also has eschewed military action at times – calling off a strike on Iran in 2019 that was designed as retaliation for shooting down a US drone, saying he did not see it as proportionate. In his second inaugural address in January, Trump pledged to measure success 'not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end – and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.' And since taking office five months ago, Trump's focus on the Middle East has largely been on deals that bring US investment rather than military expansion. During a glitzy trip through the region in May, he proclaimed he wants its future to be 'defined by commerce, not chaos'. The strikes injected further anxiety into the global economy following the scattershot rollout of Trump's global tariffs. Around a fifth of the world's daily oil supply goes through the Strait of Hormuz, which lies between Iran and its Gulf Arab neighbours. Global crude oil traders have been on edge. In an extreme scenario in which the Strait of Hormuz were shut, oil could surge beyond US$130 a barrel, weighing on global growth and driving consumer prices higher, according to a Bloomberg Economics analysis. In the days leading up to the strike, Trump and his advisers had suggested that any action would be limited. Republicans emphasised that idea on Saturday – before the president threatened further attacks. 'This is not the start of a forever war,' Senator Jim Risch, the Idaho Republican and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a post on X. 'There will not be American boots on the ground in Iran. This was a precise, limited strike, which was necessary and by all accounts was very successful.' For Trump and many of his supporters, the hope is that this military action will echo the assassination of a top Iranian general in 2020. After the US strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, Trump stressed that he did not want a wider war. An Iranian response resulted in no casualties, and the situation did not escalate. Signs that Trump was becoming more open to the possibility of military action emerged last week when he abruptly departed the Group of Seven leaders summit in Canada to deal with the Middle East conflict. After months of trying to talk Tehran into making a nuclear deal, negotiations with special envoy Steve Witkoff had made little progress and Israel launched its initial attack. Trump held open the possibility of reopening discussions with his two-week ultimatum. But by Friday, Trump dismissed talks between three European nations and Iran that failed to deliver a breakthrough. And he said his patience with Tehran had just about run out. The question going forward is what the Iranian response will be and whether the US could be drawn into a longer conflict. Members of Congress have indicated they could challenge Trump's authority to unilaterally wage war on Iran without their approval. Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat who co-sponsored legislation that would force a vote on any US war with Iran, raised that prospect on Saturday, saying lawmakers should vote on the bill 'to prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war'. A handful of Republicans also questioned the constitutionality of the move. 'This is not Constitutional,' said Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who co-sponsored the war powers measure. The US Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war but the War Powers Resolution allows the president to insert US forces into a conflict without a vote, as long as lawmakers are notified within 48 hours and the engagement must end within 60 days unless lawmakers allow otherwise. The potential for US engagement opened up a rift recently among Trump's supporters inside and outside the White House. Foreign policy hawks embraced an attack as an opportunity to show strength and deny Iran a nuclear weapon, while isolationists argued US should stay out of the fight and focus on issues like immigration. 'This was the right call. The regime deserves it,' said Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and longtime proponent of attacking Iran. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia, has been on the other side, saying in a post on X: 'This is not our fight. Peace is the answer.' Trump was drawn into the fray, clashing with conservative media personality Tucker Carlson, who has called on the US to stay out of the conflict. On Jun 18, he downplayed any issues, saying 'my supporters are for me' and adding that Carlson 'called and apologised the other day because he thought he said things that were a little bit too strong'. Longtime time Trump ally Steve Bannon said on his podcast on Saturday that Trump will need to explain himself, but that he thinks his base will ultimately remain loyal. 'There are a lot of MAGA (Make America Great Again) that's not happy about this,' he said. 'I believe he will get MAGA on board, all of it, but he's got to explain exactly and go through this.' BLOOMBERG

Straits Times

an hour ago

• Straits Times

Iran says US attacks on three nuclear sites were ‘savage'

The agency did not confirm whether the sites of Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan had been 'completely and totally obliterated'. PHOTO: AFP Iran says US attacks on three nuclear sites were 'savage' Follow our live coverage here. TEHRAN – Iran's atomic energy agency described US strikes on three key nuclear facilities as a 'savage assault' but pledged not to abandon its nuclear industry after the assault. The 'lawless actions' will not cause 'the development of this national industry to be halted', the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran said in a statement, according to the state-run IRNA news agency. The agency did not confirm whether the sites of Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan had been 'completely and totally obliterated', as US President Donald Trump said they were in an address from Washington. Iran's nuclear safety authority said it detected no signs of radioactive contamination at the three nuclear sites following the strikes, IRNA said in a separate report. The authority also assessed that there was no threat to residents living near the facilities. Iranian lawmaker Mannan Raisi, who represents Qom – the closest population centre to Fordow – said the facility did not suffer 'serious damage', with most of the impact limited to above-ground structures, the semi-official Tasnim News Agency reported. He added that any material at Fordow that could pose a potential risk to the public 'had already been removed in advance'. BLOOMBERG Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.