The US attack on Iran and the collapse of negotiations

President Donald Trump's decision to launch attacks on three of Iran's major nuclear enrichment sites took place after negotiations in Geneva collapsed.
Iran's foreign minister met with the foreign ministers of Germany, Britain and France, known as the E3, plus the EU. The E-3 and EU group pressed the Iranians to engage in negotiations with the United States. Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi said Iran would only consider talks of some kind (not with the United States) after Israel halted its attacks on Iran and was punished.
The E-3 tried to sell Araghchi and the Iranians on a formula, not supported by Washington, that would impose strict nuclear inspections and other similar measures as a 'solution' to the impasse, disregarding Trump's policy of no enrichment of uranium by Iran. Araghchi wasn't buying the European suggestions.
Behind the scenes there were a number of attempts to broker deals, the Geneva meeting the last in a line of contacts. All the various initiatives were blocked by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. This image grabbed from a United Nations video shows Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi addressing the 59th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on June 20, 2025. Top European diplomats are meeting with Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Geneva on June 20 to discuss Iran's nuclear program.
The US attack on Iran's nuclear facilities featured some 75 precision weapons including 14 GBU-57 bunker busters, 30,000-pound dual warhead weapons dropped by B-2 stealth bombers. Twelve GBUs were used against Fordow, two on the nuclear site at Isfahan.
The B-2's flew directly from the United States and were refueled several times enroute to their targets. The US also deployed fourth and fifth generation fighter jets, likely from Prince Sultan Airbase in Saudi Arabia, although that is unconfirmed.
A US submarine, probably Ohio class, located some 400 miles from Iran, launched 30 TLAM (Tomahawk Land Attack) cruise missiles aimed at Natanz and Isfahan. Other targets may also have been involved, but that information has not been disclosed. A B-2 bomber releasing a GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb.
The US aircraft were not attacked by any Iranian air defenses, suggesting that most of these had previously been neutralized by Israel's Air Force. An IDF infographic indicating the layout of Iran's Natanz nuclear facility, June 13, 2025.
China deployed two surveillance ships, numbers 855 and 815A, apparently to provide early warning to Iran and to try and jam Israeli air attacks. These same ships, it appears, were unsuccessful in detecting the US attack, either because they were jammed or because they never saw the B-2 bombers and other stealth aircraft such as the F-22 or F-35.
Even if the Chinese were able to pass warnings to Iran, Israel had already destroyed most of Iran's air force and other air defenses. Reportedly, China also was shipping supplies into Iran and evacuating Chinese citizens. One of the Chinese surveillance and radar ships.
The US operation, called Midnight Hammer, was coordinated with Israel and managed by CENTCOM. President Trump, speaking a few minutes after 10pm from the White House said that Iran should now make peace, but if it did not, there were plenty of targets in Iran that were far easier than Fordow, Isfahan or Natanz.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, speaking at an early Sunday morning news conference at the Pentagon, said, 'I can only confirm that there are both public and private messages being directly delivered to the Iranians in multiple channels, giving them every opportunity to come to the table. They understand precisely what the American position is, precisely what steps they can take to allow for peace, and we hope they do so.'
Reportedly Iran's foreign minister is traveling to Moscow to coordinate with Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Putin had sought a mediation role between Iran and the United States.
For Putin the main focus is on Ukraine, where Russia is making significant breakthroughs, especially in areas that apparently are outside of the stated territorial goals of Russia's 'special military operation.'
Russian support for Iran, if Russia actively challenged the United States, could force a turnaround in how the US views Russia in strategic terms. Putin likely will not want to see any change that would induce the United States to commit airpower to defend Ukraine and, by extension, risk a wider European conflict. Therefore, it is unlikely that Russia will take any action that would undermine the 'warming trend' with the United States.
Russia's ability to influence Khamenei and the Mullahs, or for that matter Iran's Revolutionary Guards, to make a deal with the United States, is highly limited.
At present any chance for Iran to change course and to consider a diplomatic solution that would definitively end Iran's nuclear program seems unlikely, considering Iran's current power structure. The US insists it is not promoting regime change in Iran, but that policy could very well change if there continues to be no progress in resolving the nuclear issue.
Reportedly President Trump's envoy, Richard Grenell has asked Elon Musk to provide Starlink terminals to 'our friends' in Iran, a strong hint that the US is getting ready to support efforts to overthrow the Khamenei regime.
Meanwhile hardliners in Iran are calling for Iran's navy to block the Straits of Hormuz, effectively ending oil exports through the Persian Gulf. Iran has a small navy and some submarines, including fairly quiet but older Kilo-class submarines.
The idea that Iran could stop commercial traffic under current circumstances may be wishful thinking, considering the naval and air power put in place by the United States. Similarly, there is a Houthi threat to stop commercial traffic in the Red Sea, but Houthi capabilities have already been reduced and Iran is no longer in a position to resupply the Houthis with missiles and drones. A Russian-built, Kilo-class diesel submarine recently purchased by Iran, is towed by a support vessel in this photograph taken in the central Mediterranean Sea during the week of December 23. The submarine and the support ship arrived at Port Said, Egypt, on Tuesday and were expected to begin transiting the Suez Canal today, Jan. 2, 1996. Ships and aircraft from the US Navy's Sixth Fleet are tracking the submarine, which has been making the transit on the surface. This is the third Kilo-class submarine the Iranians have purchased from Moscow.
Meanwhile the Iranian government has lost face at home. Suppressing the Internet and other steps won't stop the flow of information outside of regime control. The possibility of an internal upheaval cannot be discounted. Whether it will materialize remains to be seen.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

RTHK

19 minutes ago

• RTHK

Per capita emissions in HK 'lower than in EU and US'

Per capita emissions in HK 'lower than in EU and US' Chief Executive John Lee said on Monday that Hong Kong is doing better in terms of lowering carbon emissions compared with the European Union and the United States. He made the comment at Greenway 2025, an event hosted by the EU's office in the SAR and the European Chamber of Commerce. Lee said Hong Kong has cut around a quarter of carbon emissions from its peak recorded in 2014. "In 2023, our per capita carbon emissions were about 4.58 tonnes," he said in a speech. "To put that in perspective, it is 60 percent of the EU's emissions, so we aren't doing too badly, and only one quarter of that of the United States." Lee said the SAR is well on its way to cutting its emissions in half by 2035 as it tried to reach its goal of achieving carbon neutrality before 2050. Hong Kong, he added, has made great strides in its efforts to be environmentally friendly, from green financing to turning to greener modes of transport. For example, he noted, some 110,000 electric vehicles were on the streets of Hong Kong by the end of last year, around seven times more than the figure five years ago. Subsidy programmes, Lee said, have also helped bus, taxi and ferry companies to go electric. The government is also working with the Airport Authority to set a target for using sustainable aviation fuel, which he said is much more environmentally friendly compared to conventional jet fuel. Lee went on to say that Hong Kong's country parks and biodiversity are very much part of the SAR's uniqueness, which is seen in few places globally. "This is Hong Kong's defining paradox, where business and ecology co-exist in symphony," he said. "For us, economic dynamism and environmental stewardship aren't just compatible. "They are dual engines propelling our future. We balance development with sustainability." Lee stressed that Hong Kong arranged 45 percent of the Asian market's green and sustainable bonds last year, marking the seventh consecutive year that the SAR was the biggest market in the region.

South China Morning Post

21 minutes ago

• South China Morning Post

Hong Kong's Northern Metropolis can benefit from EU firms' expertise: John Lee

Hong Kong's leader has called for more cooperation with European businesses on the Northern Metropolis, a key initiative aimed at driving future growth and sustainability for the city, a day after a top Beijing official urged expediting the megaproject. Advertisement Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu said on Monday during his opening remarks at the sustainability event Greenway 2025 that Hong Kong and the European Union could work together to find new solutions to climate change. 'I look forward to the expertise and support of EU companies in the Northern Metropolis, our new engine for growth, dedicated to green living and the area's long-term green development,' Lee said. On Sunday, Lee revealed that Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office director Xia Baolong had called on the city's authorities to speed up work on the megaproject by removing barriers. The Northern Metropolis scheme, which includes an innovation hub called the San Tin Technopole, aims to turn 30,000 hectares (74,132 acres) of land into a new engine for economic growth, with a population of about 2.5 million and providing around 650,000 jobs. Advertisement Monday's event was organised by the EU Office in Hong Kong and the city's European Chamber of Commerce under the theme of 'accelerating changes'. Both Hong Kong and the EU have set ambitious sustainability goals as they each seek to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.

Asia Times

an hour ago

• Asia Times

US strikes on Iran set a troubling illegal precedent

After the United States bombed Iran's three nuclear facilities on Sunday, US President Donald Trump said its objective was a 'stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror.' US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed this justification, saying: The president authorised a precision operation to neutralize the threats to our national interest posed by the Iranian nuclear program and the collective self-defence of our troops and our ally Israel. Is this a legitimate justification for a state to launch an attack on another? I believe, looking at the evidence, it is not. Under the UN Charter, there are two ways in which a state can lawfully use force against another state: the UN Security Council authorizes force in exceptional circumstances to restore or maintain international peace and security under Chapter 7 the right of self-defense when a state is attacked by another, as outlined in Article 51. On the first point, there was no UN Security Council authorisation for either Israel or the US to launch an attack on Iran to maintain international peace and security. The Security Council has long been concerned about Iran's nuclear program and adopted a series of resolutions related to it. However, none of those resolutions authorised the use of military force. With regard to self-defense, this right is activated if there is an armed attack against a nation. And there's no evidence of any recent Iranian attacks on the US. There have been incidents involving attacks on US assets by Iranian-backed proxy groups in the region, such as the Houthi rebels in Yemen and Hezbollah. In his address to the nation on Saturday night, Trump made reference to historical incidents the US believes the Iranians were responsible for over the years. However, none of these actions is directly related to the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. Another possible ground the US can use to mount a case for its bombardments is anticipatory or preemptive self-defense. Both of these aspects of self-defense are controversial. They have never been clearly endorsed by the UN Security Council or the International Court of Justice. The US has sought to assert a fairly wide-ranging, robust interpretation of the right of self-defense over many years, including both anticipatory self-defense and preemptive self-defense (which is particularly relevant in the Iran strikes). The major point of distinction between the two is whether a potential attack is imminent. Anticipatory self-defense is in response to an attack on the brink of happening, such as when armed forces are massing on a border. Preemptive self-defense is a step further removed, before a genuine threat materializes. Famously, in 2002, the administration of President George W Bush adopted what is known as the 'Bush doctrine' following the September 11 terrorist attacks. This doctrine was framed around the notion of preemptive self-defense justifying a strike on another nation. This was one of the grounds the US used to justify its military intervention of Iraq in 2003 – that Iraq's alleged program of weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to the US. However, this justification was widely discredited when no evidence of these weapons was found. With regard to Iran's nuclear program, an imminent threat would require two things: Iran having nuclear weapons capability, and an intent to use them. On capability, there have been debates about Iran's transparency with respect to its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But, importantly, the IAEA is the body that has the authorization and capability to make judgments about a nation's nuclear program. And it said, at this point in time, Iran did not yet have nuclear weapons capability. As Rafael Grossi, the head of the IAEA told the BBC: […]whereas until the early 2000s there used to be […] a structured and systematic effort in the direction of a nuclear device, that is not the case now. Trump's statement in which he referred to the US military operation against Iran's 'nuclear enrichment facilities' was particularly striking. There was no reference to weapons. So, even the language coming out of the White House does not make reference to Iran possessing weapons at this point in time. Trump's address to the nation after the Iran strikes. Further, many states have nuclear weapons capability, but they're not necessarily showing intent to use them. Iran has a long track record of aggressive rhetoric against Israel and the US. But the critical question here is whether this equates to an intent to strike. Israel began its military campaign against Iran on June 13, also arguing for the need for anticipatory or preemptive self-defense to counter the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program. If Israel is exercising its right to self-defense consistently with the UN Charter, as it claims, it can legitimately call on the assistance of its allies to mount what is known as 'collective self-defense' against an attack. On all the available evidence, there's no doubt the Israelis and Americans coordinated with respect to the US strikes on June 22. At face value, this is a case of collective self-defense. But, importantly, this right is only valid under international law if the original Israeli right to self-defense is legitimate. And here, we encounter the same legal difficulties as we do with the US claim of self-defense. Israel's claim of an imminent attack from Iran is very dubious and contentious on the facts. The overarching concern is these strikes can set a precedent. Other states can use this interpretation of the right of self-defense to launch anticipatory or preemptive strikes against other nations any time they want. If this practice is allowed to go unchecked and is not subject to widespread condemnation, it can seen by the international community as an endorsement – that this type of conduct is legitimate. There are many states acquiring conventional weapons that could be seen to pose a potential threat to their neighbors or other states. And there are several states considering the acquisition of nuclear weapons. One example is Japan, where there has been some debate about nuclear weapons as a deterrence to future possible threats from China. So, how might Japan's actions be seen by its neighbors – namely China and North Korea? And how might these countries respond in light of the precedent that's been set by the US and Israel? Australia's Foreign Minister Penny Wong has come out in support for the US action, saying 'we cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.' She hasn't, however, addressed the legality of the US strikes. The Albanese government should be discussing this. There's an expectation, in particular, on the part of Labor governments, given former leader Doc Evatt's role in the creation of the UN Charter, that they show strong support for the rules-based international order. Labor governments were very critical of the way in which the Howard government engaged in the US-led invasion of Iraq, asserting there was no basis for it under international law. Accordingly, there is an expectation that Labor governments should hold all states accountable for egregious breaches of international law. And, when viewed through the lens of international law, there's no other way you can characterize the US strikes on Iran. Donald Rothwell is professor of international law, Australian National University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.