US strikes on Iran: what we know

The United States has carried out strikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, with US President Donald Trump saying it was a "very successful attack" and that all American planes were safely on the way home.
Mr Trump had spent weeks pursuing a diplomatic path to replace the nuclear deal with Tehran that he tore up in 2018.
But he has since backed Israel's military campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities and top military brass, which it launched a little over a week ago.
Here we examine what we know about the US strikes on Iran.
The targets
Mr Trump said the United States struck three main Iranian nuclear sites: Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan, with the former being hit with a "full payload of bombs".
Fordo - which was built in violation of UN resolutions under a mountain near the holy central city of Qom - was an enrichment plant capable of housing about 3,000 centrifuges.
Centrifuges are used to enrich uranium, both for civilian and military use, with the radioactive metal needing to be enriched to high levels for use in atomic weapons.
Fordo's location deep underground presented a challenge to Israeli forces, which do not have the deeply penetrating munitions needed to hit the facility.
Natanz was Iran's main uranium enrichment site, with nearly 70 cascades of centrifuges at its two enrichment plants, while a uranium conversion facility and a nuclear fuel fabrication facility were located at Isfahan.
The munitions
Mr Trump did not identify the type of munitions used in the strikes, but the GBU-57 - a powerful 30,000-pound (13,600-kilogram) American bunker-busting bomb - was likely used to hit Fordo.
The US military says the GBU-57 - also known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator - is designed to penetrate up to 200 feet (60 meters) underground before exploding.
This differs from most other missiles or bombs that typically detonate their payload near or upon impact.
Testing of the weapons began in 2004 and Boeing was in 2009 awarded a contract to complete the integration of GBU-57 with aircraft.
The aircraft
The only aircraft capable of deploying the GBU-57 is the American B-2 Spirit, a long-range stealth bomber that can carry two.
Prior to the Iran strikes, specialist flight tracking sites and US media reported that multiple B-2s had left a base in Missouri in the central United States.
The bombers - which can fly 6,000 nautical miles (9,600 kilometers) without refueling - are designed to "penetrate an enemy's most sophisticated defenses and threaten its most valued, and heavily defended, targets," according to the US military.
The B-2 was first publicly displayed in 1988 and flew for the first time the following year, with the first of the planes delivered in 1993.
The bomber took part in operations against Serbian forces in the 1990s, flying non-stop from Missouri to Kosovo and back. B-2s were subsequently employed by the United States in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars in the 2000s.
What comes next?
Mr Trump called on Iran to "agree to end this war," saying that "now is the time for peace".
But it remains to be seen whether the strikes will push Tehran to deescalate the conflict, or to widen it further.
If Iran chooses the latter option, it could do so by targeting American military personnel who are stationed around the Middle East, or seek to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which carries one-fifth of global oil output.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Irish Times

an hour ago

• Irish Times

How effective was the US attack on Iran's nuclear sites?

Donald Trump was quick to claim that US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities had 'completely and totally obliterated' them . Still, it remains unclear how much physical damage has been done or what the longer-term impact might be on Iran's nuclear programme. What was the target? Israel-Iran map The Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran (AEOI) confirmed that attacks took place on its Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz sites, but insisted that its nuclear programme would not be stopped. Both Iran and the United Nations nuclear watchdog said there were no immediate signs of radioactive contamination around the three locations after the strikes. The Iranian Red Crescent also reported no deaths in the US strikes on the nuclear sites, appearing to confirm Iranian claims they had been evacuated in advance. In the immediate aftermath, US military officials suggested the three sites had suffered 'severe damage' after an operation that had been weeks in planning, suggesting that it was fully co-ordinated in advance with Israel . The Pentagon said a battle damage assessment was still being conducted. READ MORE What do we know about the strike on Fordow? Iran's underground nuclear enrichment site at Fordow was one of three targeted by the US. Photograph: Planet Labs PBC/AP Long regarded as the most difficult military target among Iran's nuclear sites, the uranium enrichment facilities at Fordow – the primary target of the operation – are buried beneath the Zagros Mountains. Reports have suggested that the site was constructed beneath between 45m and 90m of bedrock, largely limestone and dolomite. Some experts have suggested that the layering of the sedimentary rocks, including faults, would also make it more difficult to strike the centrifuge array, providing a kind of geological cushioning against a blast wave. The attack – code-named Operation Midnight Hammer – was carried out by seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers flying from the US, after a deception flight by other B-2s into the Pacific. Tomahawk missiles were also fired from US ships in waters south of Iran. The site was hit by a dozen 13,600kg ordnance penetrators – known as bunker busters – at about 2.10am Iranian time. It was the massive weapon's first operational use. The number used suggests some lack of confidence that a smaller strike could penetrate to the target. The result would, to a large extent, depend on the kind of concrete inside the facility, with estimates of the bunker busters' penetration based largely on reinforced concrete resistant to 5,000 psi. Iran is believed to have used more resistant concrete. [ US attack on Iran 'not about regime change', says defence secretary after Trump hails 'spectacular military success' Opens in new window ] While video from the site showed evidence of a fire in the immediate aftermath, satellite images published on Sunday were inconclusive. The Open Source Centre in London highlighted what appeared to be at least two locations where the weapons appeared to have penetrated. While the main support building at the site looked to be undamaged, the topography of a prominent area of ridge lines and small wadis appeared to have altered and been flattened out, with some evidence of rock scarring exposing damaged bedrock near an area that could show fresh cratering. Analysts had previously suggested that a strike could hit the main entrance tunnel to the site. However, the main effort appears to have been in a different location. There was speculation that the chief aim of the strikes may have been to bury access to Fordow. What was the impact at Isfahan? Isfahan's nuclear technology centre was struck by cruise missiles as opposed to bunker busters. Video posted on social media showed a distant detonation from the site on Saturday night. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in addition to four hit by Israeli strikes, six other buildings now been attacked, including a fuel rod production facility. The IAEA said facilities targeted at Isfahan either contained no nuclear material or small quantities of natural or low-enriched uranium. What was hit at Natanz? Natanz had previously been damaged by the first Israeli strikes of the conflict, with assessments then suggesting they had hit the power plant supplying the main centrifuge hall. Uranium had been enriched to up to 60 per cent, short of weapons-grade material. It appears that Natanz's underground enrichment hall was targeted, but it is unclear how much damage was inflicted. In response to the US strikes, Iran launched ballistic missiles at Israel on Sunday, triggering countrywide air raid sirens and injuring 16 people. Was Iran's nuclear programme obliterated? Vehicles at the Fordow enrichment facility in Iran on June 20th. Photograph: Maxar Technologies/AP Iran has claimed that it evacuated the sites several days ago, and satellite imagery from several days ago suggests there was unusual truck traffic at Fordow. That appears to confirm the movement of some material from the site, possibly including the uranium stockpile – or parts of it – which remains unaccounted for. Hassan Abedini, the deputy political head of Iran's state broadcaster, said Iran had evacuated the three sites – Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow – some time ago. 'The enriched uranium reserves had been transferred from the nuclear centres and there are no materials left there that, if targeted, would cause radiation and be harmful to our compatriots,' he said. Three days before the US attacks, 16 cargo trucks were seen near the Fordow entrance tunnel. The head of the AEOI, Mohammad Eslami, claimed this month that Iran had another enrichment site 'in a secure and invulnerable location' where centrifuges could be. Analysts have long argued that while it is possible to disrupt the physical function of a nuclear facility and limit the scope of a programme through, for example, the Israeli assassination of scientists, the breadth of technical knowledge acquired during the decades-long programme is impossible to destroy. [ How Iran could hit back at the US and what that could mean Opens in new window ] Ultimately, the question is whether the US-Israeli attacks are seen as sufficient for Iran to capitulate, or whether they instead encourage the regime to accelerate its efforts to produce a viable nuclear weapon. – Guardian

RTÉ News​

an hour ago

• RTÉ News​

What is the nuclear world order and how did we get here?

In the corridor adjacent to the UN General Assembly Hall at UN headquarters in New York, a giant photograph of the mushroom cloud billowing up from the destroyed city of Nagasaki hangs on the wall. It is part of a permanent exhibition designed to remind passersby of the horrors of nuclear war. After all, the UN was set up in no small part to prevent it ever happening. "Nuclear weapons post a threat to our very existence," reads a nearby quote from the UN Secretary General António Guterres. "The total elimination of nuclear weapons remains the highest disarmament priority of the United Nations," it adds. One wonders, though, how many delegates have ever paused to ponder the terrifying images on display. Considering that since the US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan eighty years ago, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, several more countries have acquired their own nuclear arsenals. In fact, in that same UN exhibition, a flat screen television monitor shows the number of nuclear tests in the world since World War II. As the reel begins, isolated flashes in the US and the former Soviet Union first appear. The number of explosions steadily gathers pace through the Cold War until the grainy screen displays a mesmerising crescendo of detonations across the whole planet. It's hardly surprising that many historians believe we were miraculously lucky to escape nuclear annihilation in the 20th Century. So, what is the state of the world nuclear order today? The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, estimates that today 30 nations have nuclear capability. But only nine have nuclear weapons. They are, in order of the most nuclear warheads in their possession: Russia, the United States, China, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. There are an additional six nations that host nuclear weapons namely Italy, Türkiye, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands for the United States and Belarus for Russia. There could have been a lot more, according to John Erath, a former US State Department diplomat, now with the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington DC. "When the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed in the late 1960s," he told RTÉ News, "the general estimate was that in 10 years, we would have had 20 nuclear powers". The NPT was a cornerstone UN treaty aimed at curtailing the spread of nuclear weapons and committing member states to nuclear development for peaceful means only. The treaty recognised only five nuclear powers who were, and still are, the permanent members of the UN Security Council - China, France, Russia, UK and US. Today, 191 UN member states are signatories to the NPT. Five are not, namely Israel, North Korea, India, Pakistan and South Sudan. "There has been some success for non-proliferation, and I credit the NPT for getting us there," he said. Some countries such as South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Japan and South Korea had very advanced nuclear capabilities, Mr Erath told RTÉ News. Brazil had even mastered the entire fuel cycle. "[These countries] could build nuclear weapons in no time, but they decided their security needs do not require them to do so," Mr Erath said. Other nations, though, took a different view. The race for a nuclear deterrent Nations usually decide to pursue a nuclear deterrent in response to their own security concerns - whether real or perceived - despite the enormous price tag and the risk of international condemnation. "Nobody likes having nuclear weapons," John Erath said, adding "they're tremendously expensive, very dangerous and very difficult to build and maintain". He added: "So, the real question is: Why do these threats exist and lead countries to decide to develop and build nuclear weapons?" A report published earlier this year by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons found that the nine nuclear-armed states collectively spent $100 billion (€87 billion) on their arsenals in 2024. The report found that's the equivalent of $3,100 (€2,705) per second. In 2003, North Korea - one of the poorest countries in the world where 60% of people live below the poverty line - quit the NPT and three years later, carried out its first nuclear test. It followed a speech by then US President George Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks branding North Korea, along with Iran and Iraq, an "Axis of Evil". In the spring of 2003, the US illegally invaded Iraq on the false pretext that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling "weapons of mass destruction". "North Korea took [the Axis of Evil speech] to mean that they were next on the list," Mr Erath said. How much the toppling of Saddam Hussein in neighbouring Iraq fed into Tehran's decision-making over its nuclear programme is hard to assess. Iran remained in the NPT and claimed it was developing nuclear power for civilian use. But officials elsewhere, especially hawkish policymakers in the US and Israel, accused Iran of stringing negotiators along while secretly enriching uranium to weapons grade. It's fair to assume that the successful acquisition of a nuclear deterrent by North Korea - a fellow member of the so-called - won't have been lost on the Iranian leadership. And there were lessons to be drawn elsewhere too. At the end of the Cold War, Ukraine was in possession of the world's third largest nuclear arsenal, inherited from the collapsed Soviet Union. However, the control systems and launch codes remained in Moscow, which limited Ukraine's ability to use them independently. Nevertheless, under pressure from the Clinton administration in the US, which sought to denuclearise eastern Europe, and in exchange for assurances on territorial integrity from Russia, the UK and the US, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. It was a key foreign policy decision that former US President Bill Clinton came to regret following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and full scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. "I feel a personal stake because I got them [Ukraine] to agree to give up their nuclear weapons," Mr Clinton said in an interview with RTÉ's Prime Time, in April 2023. "And none of them believe that Russia would have pulled this stunt if Ukraine still had their weapons," he said. Russia's so-called "stunt" coupled with US President Donald Trump's ambivalence about defending Europe reignited the debate in Europe over its own nuclear deterrent. French President Emmanuel Macron - which is the EU's only nuclear power - floated the idea of extending the French "nuclear umbrella" to cover all of Europe. That would mean deploying French warheads across the continent like Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands while Türkiye currently hosts American nuclear weapons. Mr Macron's opening gambit was greeted warmly by leaders in Germany, Poland, Lithuania and Denmark. But Russia slammed the French president's move as "extremely confrontational". Mr Trump's 'America First' doctrine also prompted a re-think in South Korea, where opinion polls now show that more than three quarters of South Koreans support the idea of a national nuclear deterrent. And in south Asia, India, which tested its first bomb in 1974, cited the need for a deterrent against regional rivals China and Pakistan. In response, Pakistan - with the help of China as well as the clandestine nuclear technology-smuggling network run by Pakistani scientist AQ Khan - became a nuclear power in 1998. Neither country has signed the NPT and last year Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India said he was reconsidering India's "no first use," policy – a long-standing commitment to a retaliatory strike only. A sudden outbreak of conventional hostilities between the two regional enemies in April, once again raised the spectre of nuclear war. Israel and Iran One of the world's most secretive and controversial nuclear programmes belongs to Israel, centred around the Dimona nuclear reactor in the Negev desert. Israel is believed to possess 90 plutonium-based nuclear warheads but has never publicly admitted its nuclear capability. Israel's nuclear ambiguity and its non-membership of the NPT meant it never faced international sanctions over its nuclear programme, unlike North Korea, Iran and for a time, India and Pakistan. Last week, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Iran's nuclear programme posed an existential threat to Israel. Iranian leaders have frequently called for the eradication of Israel. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that Israel was doing "the dirty work" for other countries, by taking out Iran's nuclear potential. But while Iran's nuclear programme will likely be set back given recent strikes by Israel, and the US overnight, it's unlikely to be destroyed altogether, Mr Erath told RTÉ News. "The most important factor in producing a nuclear weapon is knowledge," he said, "and it's very difficult to kill knowledge". "It's tremendously expensive in terms of resources that both Israel and Iran would be putting into this and most importantly, the cost in human lives," he said. Before the US targeted three Iranian nuclear faciities, Natanz, Isfahan and Fordo, anti-nuclear campaigners had called Israel's initial airstrikes "illegal and unjust". "Israel is the only country in the region that has nuclear weapons," Susi Snyder of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons told RTÉ News, "Iran does not". "Iran was not posing an existential threat to Israel, and that is just a false narrative that Israel is portraying right now in order to justify what is honestly an illegal action," she said. Mad times The famous doctrine of MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction – was credited with keeping the peace during the Cold War. It held that a nuclear strike by the United States or the Soviet Union would trigger retaliation, thereby guaranteeing mutual annihilation. In the 1980s, scientists predicted that even if humans survived the first round of bombs, the explosions would emit so much smoke and ash into the atmosphere, it would block out the sun, triggering a "nuclear winter" that could kill all life on earth. That was surely something neither side would be willing to risk. But on a number of occasions during the 20th Century, the world came perilously close to such a disaster - notably the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 when the USSR positioned nukes in Cuba and NATO's Able Archer war game of 1983, which the Soviets mistook for a real attack and readied their nuclear arsenals to strike back. Is MAD still relevant today? Anti-nuclear campaigners argue that more nuclear-armed states make for a more dangerous world, while rising global tensions increase the risk of deliberate or accidental use. And there's little sign that the world's largest nuclear powers are interested in changing course. President Vladimir Putin formally announced a revision of the Russian nuclear doctrine last year, lowering the threshold for a nuclear strike. Under President Xi Jinping, China has rapidly expanded its nuclear arsenal, while the US continues to pour money into the modernisation of its nuclear programme. "The era of reductions in the number of nuclear weapons in the world, which had lasted since the end of the Cold War, is coming to an end," according to Hans Kristensen, Stockholm International Peace Research. "Instead, we see a clear trend of growing nuclear arsenals, sharpened nuclear rhetoric and the abandonment of arms control agreements." Technological advancements have also dramatically increased the potency of modern atomic bombs. The United States, for example, is building a new bomb designed to be 24 times more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima. At the centre of the UN exhibition stands a charred and mottled statue of St Agnes holding a lamb. It was found face down in the ruins of a Roman Catholic Cathedral in Nagasaki.

Irish Examiner

2 hours ago

• Irish Examiner

15 Irish citizens being evacuated from Israel, Tánaiste says

15 Irish citizens are being evacuated from Israel amid the escalating conflict with Iran, Tánaiste Simon Harris has confirmed. The Government is working to evacuate a number of citizens from Israel and Iran, with approximately 200 based in the former and 29 in the latter. 'Right now there is an evacuation underway of 15 Irish citizens and their dependents, so 15 in total,' Mr Harris said. 'We've been working closely with EU counterparts in relation to that, and I hope to be in a position to issue further details on that shortly.' When the evacuation is complete, Mr Harris said the Government will have dealt with all current evacuation requests for Israel. The Tánaiste confirmed there were a number of citizens in Iran who wished to be evacuated, with work underway to try and get them out of the country. 'It's not easy work as you can imagine, the airspace is closed and the only way of being evacuated is over land border with often long journeys that are not without difficulty and not without danger,' Mr Harris said. The Fine Gael leader said the actions of the US President overnight had 'added a new layer of complexity and volatility to an already very dangerous tinderbox'. He added there is a 'real risk of spillover' in the conflict that could see it escalate into a further regional war. 'There is a real risk, by either a miscalculation or by intent, that already a very dangerous conflict spreads between the two countries involved,' Mr Harris said. Mr Harris also raised concerns about the possibility of oil routes being shut down, which would be a 'further economic worry'. The Tánaiste also confirmed his call with the Iranian deputy foreign minister, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, saying he was 'full of anger' over the attacks by Israel and the US. Mr Harris said Mr Takht-Ravanchi outlined the Iranian position that the US and Israel would need to 'learn lessons and pay a price'. He said the Government would continue to push for negotiations to end the war, adding there was 'no alternative' to diplomacy. It comes ahead of a meeting of EU foreign ministers on Monday, with discussions set to be dominated by the escalating war between Israel and Iran. Urgent need to 'de-escalate' tensions There is an urgent need to 'de-escalate' tensions in the Middle East after the US carried out strikes against Iran, Taoiseach Micheál Martin has said. Mr Martin called on 'all actors' in the Middle East to de-escalate the situation. "Diplomacy and dialogue is ultimately the only way to resolve these issues. Iran should commit not to develop nuclear weapons and disavow its nuclear and uranium enrichment programme,' Mr Martin said. "Nuclear safety is an issue here. Modern warfare is very destructive. It is civilians who ultimately suffer and that is why we need an end to these wars and an end to conflict.' Speaking to RTÉ, Mr Martin said the world should not forget about 'the catastrophe that is still unfolding in Gaza' while the war between Israel and Iran is ongoing. This satellite image provided by Maxar Technologies shows damage at the Fordo enrichment facility in Iran after U.S. strikes, Sunday, June 22, 2025. Picture: Maxar Technologies via AP Tánaiste Simon Harris said he was "closely monitoring" the situation in Iran after the overnight strikes by the US. It is understood that Mr Harris has spoken with the Iranian deputy foreign minister, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, after the overnight attacks. The call took place due to a request from Iran's government, with similar calls also taking place between Iranian officials and counterparts in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt in recent days. Mr Harris was said to have expressed 'grave concern' at the overnight escalation, while adding it was important Iran engaged in formal talks to de-escalate the conflict. "The risk of an extremely dangerous spiral of escalation in relation to Iran and Israel is now more real and more likely than ever before," Mr Harris said. "There is an urgent need for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy." Mr Harris said: "Europe, including Ireland, is fully united in the clear view that Iran should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. "The way to address this was always through a negotiated solution. Any alternative to that is simply too dangerous for civilians, for the Middle East region and for global security." He added that discussions would be taking place among EU foreign ministers in the hours ahead to consider "the next steps Europe can usefully play to support de-escalation". Mr Harris added he is aware of the large contingent of Irish peacekeepers in Southern Lebanon, saying he is receiving regular updates from the chief of staff of the Defence Forces. Mr Harris said the US President's actions have resulted in an 'extraordinarily dangerous escalation of a conflict that could already be described as a tinderbox'. 'I need to be very clear and very blunt. We're now entering a moment of particular danger, because I think the chances now of a spiral of escalation are more likely than ever before,' Mr Harris said, speaking on RTÉ Radio's This Week. 'There is a real chance of the international community losing all control of this very, very volatile conflict.' Asked if international law norms have gone out the window, Mr Harris said it was 'sadly true'. 'The only way this will be resolved and the only way really people can step back from the brink now is through de-escalation, diplomacy and dialogue,' Mr Harris said. On Irish citizens seeking to leave Iran, Mr Harris said it was an 'ongoing situation' but he would have a significant update later on Sunday.