‘We weren't expecting it yet': US attack met with panic in Iran
Asal* had been expecting the US to bomb Iran, just not so soon. The 22-year-old Tehran University student had believed Donald Trump when his administration said on Thursday that it would wait up to two weeks before deciding whether to attack Iran, apparently to give diplomacy a chance.
And so at 4am when the newscaster announced the bombing on TV, Asal was in disbelief. She rushed to wake her father and the rest of the family, who huddled together in front of the set as the sounds of the news blended with those of bombings elsewhere in the city.
'We weren't expecting it yet. But we knew one way or another the US would take part in it,' Asal told the Guardian from Tehran. 'We are dead worried. You know, sleep doesn't come so easy these past few days.'
Iranians woke to the news on Sunday morning that the unthinkable had finally happened: the US had attacked Iran. In the early hours of the morning, American warplanes dropped so-called bunker busters weighing 13,500kg (30,000lb) on the nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.
The news was met with panic in Iran. It prompted a renewed wave of displacement in Tehran as people feared a more intensified assault on the city now that the US was involved.
The question of whether the US would join Israel in its military campaign in Iran had hung over the heads of Iranians since the first Israeli bomb fell nearly 10 days earlier. Iranians watched with worry as Trump played coy with reporters, telling them 'nobody knows what I'm going to do' about Iran.
On 13 June, Israel had launched hundreds of airstrikes on Iran, an operation it said was aimed at preventing the country from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Iran quickly responded with a barrage of missiles and drones, kicking off an escalating tit-for-tat war.
Israel asked the US to join its military campaign as it was the only country with the firepower necessary to penetrate the Fordow nuclear facility, buried up to 100 metres underground. On Sunday, the US granted its request.
The Iranian government, incensed by the attacks, said it would do whatever was necessary to retaliate. The president, Masoud Pezeshkian, appeared in front of hundreds of protesters in a square in central Tehran, who raised their fists and chanted 'Revenge, revenge!'.
Asal has little appetite for revenge, she just wants the war to be over. To her and her friends, the US attack felt like a betrayal. 'No one is rooting for either side to win. We just want peace. Not even those Iranians who wanted a regime change are happy. They expected Trump to take a different route or at least give us two weeks,' Asal said.
Trump's administration has said the strikes were in line with his 'peace through strength' doctrine and has urged Iran not to retaliate but instead to return to the negotiating table. Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, flatly rejected the request for talks, telling reporters in Istanbul on Sunday that now was not the time for diplomacy.
To Navid*, Trump's claims that the US bombing of Iran was a peace initiative rang hollow. The 28-year-old business owner in Tehran had been following international developments closely over the last 10 days, appointed the unofficial source of news for his family.
'Who, exactly, cares about civilians?' he said. 'The Israelis? Have they ever shown concern for civilian lives in Beirut or Gaza? The Americans? Did they show any in Libya, Afghanistan or Iraq?'
Instead, he suggested the attack was less about strategy, and more about Trump's ego. 'He always wants to swoop in like Superman and do the things he claims no one else can.'
US officials insisted that the strikes were a one-off and that they had achieved their goals in crippling Iran's nuclear capabilities. Nonetheless, some Iranians feared that the apparent success of the US operation would inspire either Israel or the US to extend its aims and seek to change the regime in Iran – a fight they did not want to be caught up in, whether they support the government or not.
Ava*, a 25-year-old accountant in Tehran, said: 'We are angry, scared and frankly disgusted by not only the regime but also each one of you outside Iran who is sitting in the comfort of your homes and calling for US war on us. Who are you to decide for us?'
*Names have been changed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
With the US strikes on Iran, the old international order is under threat
SIR – Will the American bombing of Iran lead to another Iraq-style conflict? It is certainly a major breach of the rules-based international order which has largely prevailed since 1945. No doubt Donald Trump and his apologists will continue to justify what has happened. However, it is clear that if there is to be any hope of a return to a better settlement of world affairs then work towards this must start now. At least three things need to happen: a major reconstitution and strengthening of the United Nations (especially in relation to the Security Council); the recommitment by its originators to the 1941 Atlantic Charter; and serious talks on universal nuclear disarmament. Things certainly cannot go on as they are. Andrew McLuskey Ashford, Middlesex SIR – A few days ago, Sir Keir Starmer was adamant that Donald Trump would not get involved in Iran. The US president, along with Israel, has now taken a vital step towards long-term peace in dealing a blow to the nuclear capabilities of the primary sponsor of global terrorism. Now that our Prime Minister has demonstrated his irrelevance on the world stage, let him concentrate on making our country secure. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps should be proscribed, hate marches in our capital should be prevented and the small boats should be turned back to France. Tim Coles Carlton, Bedfordshire SIR – In light of the bombing of Iran's key nuclear sites, Sir Keir Starmer shows himself to be naive at best when claiming that the Chagos treaty his Government negotiated guarantees the effectiveness of the US-UK military base on Diego Garcia for the next 100 years. As a reminder, Annex 1 section 2 of the treaty states '... the United Kingdom agrees to expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third state directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia'. Had the B-2s been deployed from Diego Garcia it stands to reason that Mauritius would have instantly warned Iran, one of their key regional allies, of the imminence of the military operation, thus gravely jeopardising its success. Jean Maigrot London SW6 SIR – The protesters who sprayed red paint on the engine of a RAF refuelling aircraft (report, June 22) deserve our sincere thanks. At a stroke, they have revealed the sheer inadequacy of the security of Brize Norton airbase. Having regard to current world events, including the destruction of so many aircraft across Russia, and the situation in the Middle East, the lack of effective security is truly mind-blowing. One can only hope that this warning leads to immediate and effective action across all our Armed Forces everywhere. Jonathan Fogg Loulé, Algarve, Portugal
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Did Trump's strike pay off? New images show Iran's nuclear ambitions in ruins
US strikes on Iran may have set the country's nuclear programme back by several years, according to preliminary expert analysis. Donald Trump's claims that Iran's nuclear sites had been 'completely and totally obliterated' were likely to be an overstatement, serving and former US military officials said – but it is probable that all three facilities targeted suffered extensive damage. Under best-case assessments, Iran's capacity to enrich uranium has been severely degraded, if not destroyed. However, the country's existing stockpiles of uranium enriched to near weapons grade – enough to fuel 10 nuclear bombs – is thought to have survived. Understanding the extent to which the US has damaged Iran's nuclear programme is a vital in determining whether the strikes were a one-off or merely the opening salvo of a wider conflict US B-2 stealth bombers and cruise missiles struck Iran's three most important nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. If the strikes succeeded in destroying centrifuge halls at the facilities, they would prevent Iran from further enriching its uranium stockpiles to a purity of 90 per cent – something it has not done so far, according to UN inspectors. Satellite images of convoys leaving all three sites in recent days support Iran's claims that it moved its 400-kg stockpile – much of it previously held at Isfahan – to a secret underground location shortly before the strikes. Even if that were the case, however, the damage inflicted elsewhere would still make it difficult to turn the uranium into a bomb. Even if Iran had retained its fissile material, it would be 'like having fuel without a car,' said Ronen Solomon, an Israeli intelligence analyst. 'They have the uranium – but they can't do a lot with it, unless they have built something we don't know about on a small scale.' That is not beyond the realm of possibility. Iran succeeded in keeping its Fordow facility a secret for seven years before it was dramatically exposed, by Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy – then the leaders of the US, UK and France – at a joint press conference in 2009, following a joint intelligence operation. Fordow Of the three sites attacked, Fordow was by far the most important. The last-known site developed by the Iranians was deliberately designed to withstand aerial attack. An 'engineering marvel', in the words of one Western official, its main centrifuge halls lie buried up to half a mile inside a mountain. Not only does a layer of solid rock act as a natural shield impervious to most bombs, but additional artificial layers of reinforcement are also believed to have been added. The GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bunker-busting bomb – 12 of which the US dropped on Fordow – is capable of penetrating 60 metres of standard concrete before exploding. But Iran is believed to have reinforced the centrifuge halls at Fordow with ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC), which can withstand six times the amount of pressure of normal concrete – up to 30,000-lb per square inch. If Iran used the best quality UHPC, Fordow would have been significantly harder to destroy. Given that the site is underground, it remains difficult to assess the scale of the damage yet, with both Iranian and US officials saying they are still conducting evaluations. Natanz Above-ground facilities at Natanz, Iran's largest enrichment site, had already been damaged by extensive Israeli strikes, as shown by satellite imagery. The destruction of the site's electric substation may have knocked out power, potentially damaging centrifuges by causing them to spin out of control, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog. Natanz also housed an underground centrifuge hall thought to have been the target of two US bunker-busters. The site was additionally struck by cruise missiles fired by a US submarine in the Arabian Sea. Isfahan Much of Iran's mostly highly enriched uranium is thought to have been stored at the nuclear research and production centre near the city of Isfahan, the ancient capital of Safavid Persia. International inspectors verified the fuel was there a fortnight ago, but satellite imagery suggests Iran may have moved it in recent days. Israel had previously struck laboratories and three other buildings at the facility. The US did not use bunker-busters on Isfahan – which is thought to be mostly above ground – and instead attacked with cruise missiles. The strikes are thought to have damaged six additional buildings, including a fuel rod production facility. Overall assessment A fuller picture of overall damage may emerge in the coming days, with experts urging caution about attaching too much credibility to the US president's more optimistic pronouncements or to Iran's defiant claims that its nuclear capacity remains largely intact. Clionadh Raleigh, head of the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), a conflict-monitoring group, warned that although the strikes might alter the timeline of Iran's nuclear programme, they would do little to alter its ultimate trajectory. 'The regime's broader power and intentions are likely to remain intact,' said Ms Raleigh. 'Iran's military and intelligence systems are designed and built to survive. The structure is deeply layered and resistant to collapse. Even if key infrastructure is destroyed, the system adapts – and in some cases, becomes more dangerous in the process. 'There's no evidence that the strikes will permanently end Iran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities. What they may do is shift the timeline.' Others were less cautious. Mick Mulroy, a former Pentagon official who served in the first Trump administration, told the New York Times that the US strikes will 'likely set back the Iranian nuclear programme two to five years' – an assessment shared by Jason Brodsky of United Against a Nuclear Iran, a US-based pressure group. The setback stems not only from the strikes themselves. Repairing the damage will be far harder following the assassination of more than a dozen nuclear scientists in the past 10 days, Israeli officials said. 'Several of the eliminated scientists had spent decades advancing nuclear weapons, constituting a significant part of the Iranian regime's plans to annihilate the State of Israel,' one official said. 'These scientists had diverse professional expertise and extensive experience.'
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
An Iranian attack on US military bases could draw the UK into the conflict
When I got to Chequers on Sunday morning the prime minister had clearly been up for most of the night and hitting the phones all morning with calls to fellow leaders in Europe and the Middle East as he and others scrambled to try to contain a very dangerous situation. His primary message on Sunday was to try to reassure the public that the UK government was working to stabilise the region as best it could and press for a return to diplomacy. But what struck me in our short interview was not what he did say but what he didn't - what he couldn't - say about the US strikes. It was clear from his swerve on the question of whether the UK supported the strikes that the prime minister neither wanted to endorse US strikes nor overtly criticise President Trump. Instead, his was a form of words - repeated later in a joint statement of the E3 (the UK, Germany and France) to acknowledge the US strikes and reiterate where they can agree: the need to prevent Iran having a nuclear weapon. He also didn't want to engage in the very obvious observation that President Trump simply isn't listening to Sir Keir Starmer or other allies, who had been very publicly pressing for de-escalation all week, from the G7 summit in Canada to this weekend as European countries convened talks in Geneva with Iran. 4:00 It was only five days ago that the prime minister told me he didn't think a US attack was imminent when I asked him what was going on following President Trump's abrupt decision to quit the G7 early and convene his security council at the White House. When I asked him if he felt foolish or frustrated that Trump had done that and didn't seem to be listening, he told me it was a "fast moving situation" with a "huge amount of discussions in the days since the G7" and said he was intensely pressing his consistent position of de-escalation. What else really could he say? He has calculated that criticising Trump goes against UK interests and has no other option but to press for a diplomatic solution and work with other leaders to achieve that aim. 1:15 Before these strikes, Tehran was clear it would not enter negotiations until Israel stopped firing missiles into Iran - something Israel is still saying on Sunday evening it is not prepared to do. The US has been briefing that one of the reasons it took action was because it did not think the Iranians were taking the talks convened by the Europeans in Geneva seriously enough. It is hard now to see how these strikes will not serve but to deepen the conflict in the Middle East and the mood in government is bleak. Iran will probably conclude that continuing to strike only Israel in light of the US attacks - the first airstrikes ever by the US on Iran - is a response that will make the regime seem weak. 2:38 But escalation could draw the UK into a wider conflict it does not want. If Iran struck US assets, it could trigger article five of NATO (an attack on one is an attack on all) and draw the UK into military action. If Iran chose to attack the US via proxies, then UK bases and assets could be under threat. The prime minister was at pains to stress on Sunday that the UK had not been involved in these strikes. Meanwhile, the UK-controlled airbase on Diego Garcia was not used to launch the US attacks, with B-2 bombers deployed from Guam instead. There was no request to use the Diego Garcia base, the president moving unilaterally, underlining his disinterest in what the UK has to say. The world is waiting nervously to see how Iran might respond, as the PM moves more military assets to the region while simultaneously hitting the phones.
