Trump can bar AP from some media events for now: court
The divided ruling on Friday by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit temporarily blocks an order by US District Judge Trevor McFadden, who ruled on April 8 that the Trump administration must allow AP journalists access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and White House events while the news agency's lawsuit moves forward.
The 2-1 ruling was written by US Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, joined by fellow Trump appointee US Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas.
In a dissent, Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said her two colleagues' ruling cannot be squared with "any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy."
The AP's lawyers argued the new policy violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which protects free speech rights.
McFadden, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, said in his ruling that if the White House opens its doors to some journalists it cannot exclude others based on their viewpoints.
Trump administration lawyers said the president has absolute discretion over media access to the White House and that McFadden's ruling infringed on his ability to decide whom to admit to sensitive spaces.
On April 16, the AP accused the Trump administration of defying the court order by continuing to exclude its journalists from some events and then limiting access to Trump for all news wires, including Reuters and Bloomberg.
Reuters and the AP both issued statements denouncing the new policy, which puts wire services in a larger rotation with about 30 other newspaper and print outlets.
Other media customers, including local news organisations that have no presence in Washington, rely on the wire services' real-time reports of presidential statements as do global financial markets.
The AP says in its stylebook that the Gulf of Mexico has carried that name for more than 400 years and, as a global news agency, the AP will refer to it by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen.
The divided ruling on Friday by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit temporarily blocks an order by US District Judge Trevor McFadden, who ruled on April 8 that the Trump administration must allow AP journalists access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and White House events while the news agency's lawsuit moves forward.
The 2-1 ruling was written by US Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, joined by fellow Trump appointee US Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas.
In a dissent, Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said her two colleagues' ruling cannot be squared with "any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy."
The AP's lawyers argued the new policy violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which protects free speech rights.
McFadden, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, said in his ruling that if the White House opens its doors to some journalists it cannot exclude others based on their viewpoints.
Trump administration lawyers said the president has absolute discretion over media access to the White House and that McFadden's ruling infringed on his ability to decide whom to admit to sensitive spaces.
On April 16, the AP accused the Trump administration of defying the court order by continuing to exclude its journalists from some events and then limiting access to Trump for all news wires, including Reuters and Bloomberg.
Reuters and the AP both issued statements denouncing the new policy, which puts wire services in a larger rotation with about 30 other newspaper and print outlets.
Other media customers, including local news organisations that have no presence in Washington, rely on the wire services' real-time reports of presidential statements as do global financial markets.
The AP says in its stylebook that the Gulf of Mexico has carried that name for more than 400 years and, as a global news agency, the AP will refer to it by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen.
The divided ruling on Friday by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit temporarily blocks an order by US District Judge Trevor McFadden, who ruled on April 8 that the Trump administration must allow AP journalists access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and White House events while the news agency's lawsuit moves forward.
The 2-1 ruling was written by US Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, joined by fellow Trump appointee US Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas.
In a dissent, Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said her two colleagues' ruling cannot be squared with "any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy."
The AP's lawyers argued the new policy violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which protects free speech rights.
McFadden, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, said in his ruling that if the White House opens its doors to some journalists it cannot exclude others based on their viewpoints.
Trump administration lawyers said the president has absolute discretion over media access to the White House and that McFadden's ruling infringed on his ability to decide whom to admit to sensitive spaces.
On April 16, the AP accused the Trump administration of defying the court order by continuing to exclude its journalists from some events and then limiting access to Trump for all news wires, including Reuters and Bloomberg.
Reuters and the AP both issued statements denouncing the new policy, which puts wire services in a larger rotation with about 30 other newspaper and print outlets.
Other media customers, including local news organisations that have no presence in Washington, rely on the wire services' real-time reports of presidential statements as do global financial markets.
The AP says in its stylebook that the Gulf of Mexico has carried that name for more than 400 years and, as a global news agency, the AP will refer to it by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen.
The divided ruling on Friday by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit temporarily blocks an order by US District Judge Trevor McFadden, who ruled on April 8 that the Trump administration must allow AP journalists access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and White House events while the news agency's lawsuit moves forward.
The 2-1 ruling was written by US Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, joined by fellow Trump appointee US Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas.
In a dissent, Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said her two colleagues' ruling cannot be squared with "any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy."
The AP's lawyers argued the new policy violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which protects free speech rights.
McFadden, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, said in his ruling that if the White House opens its doors to some journalists it cannot exclude others based on their viewpoints.
Trump administration lawyers said the president has absolute discretion over media access to the White House and that McFadden's ruling infringed on his ability to decide whom to admit to sensitive spaces.
On April 16, the AP accused the Trump administration of defying the court order by continuing to exclude its journalists from some events and then limiting access to Trump for all news wires, including Reuters and Bloomberg.
Reuters and the AP both issued statements denouncing the new policy, which puts wire services in a larger rotation with about 30 other newspaper and print outlets.
Other media customers, including local news organisations that have no presence in Washington, rely on the wire services' real-time reports of presidential statements as do global financial markets.
The AP says in its stylebook that the Gulf of Mexico has carried that name for more than 400 years and, as a global news agency, the AP will refer to it by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
37 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Major doubts raised about impact of US strikes on Iran's nuclear program as intelligence shows enriched uranium moved
Experts have raised major doubts about the impact of US strikes on Iran's nuclear program, with intelligence indicating large amounts of enriched uranium were moved ahead of time. President Trump has claimed the strikes caused "monumental" damage to the nuclear sites, while Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said Israel is "very close" to eliminating the nuclear program. The US was the only country with weapons capable of destroying Iran's Fordow nuclear enrichment facility, which is built 80 to 90 metres under a mountain. Satellite imagery of the site shows six large holes where B2 stealth bombers dropped 14 massive bunker buster bombs - each weighing 13.6 tonnes and capable of penetrating 18 metres into concrete and 61 metres into earth. But satellite imagery expert Decker Eveleth, an associate researcher with the CNA Corporation, said the hall containing hundreds of centrifuges is "too deeply buried for us to evaluate the level of damage based on satellite imagery". Several experts have also cautioned that Iran likely moved a stockpile of near weapons-grade highly enriched uranium out of Fordow before the strike early Sunday morning and could be hiding it and other nuclear components in locations unknown to Israel, the U.S. and U.N. nuclear inspectors. They noted satellite imagery from Maxar Technologies showed "unusual activity" at Fordow on Thursday and Friday, with a line of 13 cargo trucks waiting outside an entrance of the facility. A senior Iranian source told Reuters on Sunday most of the near weapons-grade 60 per cent highly enriched uranium had been moved to an undisclosed location before the U.S. attack. The New York Times has also reported that Israeli officials with knowledge of the intelligence believe Iran had moved equipment and uranium from the site in recent days, including 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 per cent purity. This was confirmed by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who told the Times Iran had "made no secret" of the fact they had moved the materials. US Vice President JD Vance has also admitted the White House does not know the fate of the enriched uranium. The uranium would need to be enriched to around 90 per cent purity to be used in a weapon, but it is reportedly enough to make nine or 10 atomic bombs. Jeffrey Lewis of the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey said there were "almost certainly facilities that we don't know about" and the strikes have likely only set back Iran's nuclear program "by maybe a few years". US Senator Mark Kelly, a Democrat from Arizona and a member of the Senate intelligence committee who said he had been reviewing intelligence every day, expressed the same concern. "My big fear right now is that they take this entire program underground, not physically underground, but under the radar," he told NBC News. "Where we tried to stop it, there is a possibility that this could accelerate it." Iran lashed out at the US after the attacks, accusing it of crossing a "very big red line" by striking the nation's "peaceful" nuclear facilities. The nation's foreign minister also hinted that Iran may withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - which Iran's parliament began preperations after Israel launched its first strikes "It cannot be emphasised enough how much of a devastating blow that the US, a permanent member of the Security Council, dealt to the global Non-Proliferation regime," Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said at a press conference in Turkey. According to Arms Control Association head Daryl Kimball, "the world is going to be in the dark about what Iran may be doing". Mick Mulroy, a former CIA officer who served in the Pentagon during Trump's first term, told the New York Times the US strike would "likely set back the Iranian nuclear weapon program two to five years'. -With Reuters
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
What is a 'bunker buster'? An expert explains what the US dropped on Iran
Late on Saturday night, local time, the United States carried out strikes against Iranian nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, marking its open participation in the conflict between Iran and Israel. The US says it fired 30 submarine-launched missiles at the sites in Natanz and Isfahan, as well as dropping more than a dozen "bunker buster" bombs at Fordow and Natanz. The kind of bomb in question is the extremely destructive GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, which weighs around 13.5 tonnes. The attacks raise a lot of questions. What are these enormous bombs? Why did the US feel it had to get involved in the conflict? And, going forward, what does it mean for Iran's nuclear ambitions? Bunker busters are weapons designed to destroy heavily protected facilities such as bunkers deep underground, beyond the reach of normal bombs. Bunker busters are designed to bury themselves into the ground before detonating. This allows more of the explosive force to penetrate into the ground, rather than travelling through the air or across the surface. Iran's nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan are built deep underground. Estimates suggest that Fordow for example could be 80m beneath the surface, and capped with layers of reinforced concrete and soil. The bunker buster used in this particular operation is the largest in the US arsenal. Leaving aside nuclear weapons, the MOP is the largest known bunker buster in the world. Weighing some 13.5 tonnes, the MOP is believed to be able to penetrate up to 60 metres below ground in the right conditions. It is not known how many the US possesses, but the numbers are thought to be small (perhaps 20 or so in total). We also don't know exactly how many were used in Iran, though some reports say it was 14. However, it is likely to be a significant portion of the US MOP arsenal. The US is not the only state with bunker-busting weaponry. However, the size of MOP means it requires very specialised bombers to carry and drop it. Only the B2 stealth bomber is currently able to deploy the MOP. Each B2 can carry at most two MOPs at a time. Around seven of America's 19 operational B2s were used in the Iran operation. There has been some consideration whether large transport aircraft such as the C-130 Hercules could be modified to carry and drop the MOP from its rear cargo doors. While this would allow other countries (including Israel) to deploy the MOP, it is for now purely hypothetical. The Trump administration claims Iran may be only a few weeks from possessing a nuclear weapon, and that it needed to act now to destroy Iranian nuclear enrichment sites. This claim is notably at odds with published assessments from the US intelligence community. However, Israel lacks bunker-busting weaponry sufficient to damage the deeply buried and fortified enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Only the MOP could do the job (short of using nuclear weapons). Even then, multiple MOPs would have been required to ensure sufficient damage to the underground facilities. The US has claimed that these sites have been utterly destroyed. We cannot conclusively say whether this is true. Iran may also have other, undeclared nuclear sites elsewhere in the country. The US has reportedly reached out to Iran via diplomatic channels to emphasise that this attack was a one-off, not part of a larger project of regime change. It is hard to say what will happen in the next few weeks. Iran may retaliate with large strikes against Israel or against US forces in the region. It could also interrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, which would affect a large portion of global oil shipments, with profound economic implications. Alternatively, Iran could capitulate and take steps to demonstrate it is ending its nuclear program. However, capitulation would not necessarily mean the end of Iran's nuclear ambitions. Perhaps a greater concern is that the attack will reinforce Iran's desire to go nuclear. Without nuclear weapons, Iran was unable to threaten the US enough to deter today's attack. Iran may take lessons from the fate of other states. Ukraine (in)famously surrendered its stockpile of former Soviet nuclear weapons in the early 1990s. Russia has since felt emboldened to annex Crimea in 2014 and launch an ongoing invasion in 2022. Other potential nuclear states, such as Iraq and Gadaffi's regime in Libya, also suffered from military intervention. By contrast, North Korea successfully tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006. Since then there has been no serious consideration of military intervention in North Korea. Iran may yet have the ability to produce useful amounts of weapons-grade uranium. It may now aim to buy itself time to assemble a relatively small nuclear device, similar in scale to the bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Depending on what facilities and resources have survived the US strikes, the attack has likely reinforced that the only way the Iranian regime can guarantee its survival is to possess nuclear weapons. Late on Saturday night, local time, the United States carried out strikes against Iranian nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, marking its open participation in the conflict between Iran and Israel. The US says it fired 30 submarine-launched missiles at the sites in Natanz and Isfahan, as well as dropping more than a dozen "bunker buster" bombs at Fordow and Natanz. The kind of bomb in question is the extremely destructive GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, which weighs around 13.5 tonnes. The attacks raise a lot of questions. What are these enormous bombs? Why did the US feel it had to get involved in the conflict? And, going forward, what does it mean for Iran's nuclear ambitions? Bunker busters are weapons designed to destroy heavily protected facilities such as bunkers deep underground, beyond the reach of normal bombs. Bunker busters are designed to bury themselves into the ground before detonating. This allows more of the explosive force to penetrate into the ground, rather than travelling through the air or across the surface. Iran's nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan are built deep underground. Estimates suggest that Fordow for example could be 80m beneath the surface, and capped with layers of reinforced concrete and soil. The bunker buster used in this particular operation is the largest in the US arsenal. Leaving aside nuclear weapons, the MOP is the largest known bunker buster in the world. Weighing some 13.5 tonnes, the MOP is believed to be able to penetrate up to 60 metres below ground in the right conditions. It is not known how many the US possesses, but the numbers are thought to be small (perhaps 20 or so in total). We also don't know exactly how many were used in Iran, though some reports say it was 14. However, it is likely to be a significant portion of the US MOP arsenal. The US is not the only state with bunker-busting weaponry. However, the size of MOP means it requires very specialised bombers to carry and drop it. Only the B2 stealth bomber is currently able to deploy the MOP. Each B2 can carry at most two MOPs at a time. Around seven of America's 19 operational B2s were used in the Iran operation. There has been some consideration whether large transport aircraft such as the C-130 Hercules could be modified to carry and drop the MOP from its rear cargo doors. While this would allow other countries (including Israel) to deploy the MOP, it is for now purely hypothetical. The Trump administration claims Iran may be only a few weeks from possessing a nuclear weapon, and that it needed to act now to destroy Iranian nuclear enrichment sites. This claim is notably at odds with published assessments from the US intelligence community. However, Israel lacks bunker-busting weaponry sufficient to damage the deeply buried and fortified enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Only the MOP could do the job (short of using nuclear weapons). Even then, multiple MOPs would have been required to ensure sufficient damage to the underground facilities. The US has claimed that these sites have been utterly destroyed. We cannot conclusively say whether this is true. Iran may also have other, undeclared nuclear sites elsewhere in the country. The US has reportedly reached out to Iran via diplomatic channels to emphasise that this attack was a one-off, not part of a larger project of regime change. It is hard to say what will happen in the next few weeks. Iran may retaliate with large strikes against Israel or against US forces in the region. It could also interrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, which would affect a large portion of global oil shipments, with profound economic implications. Alternatively, Iran could capitulate and take steps to demonstrate it is ending its nuclear program. However, capitulation would not necessarily mean the end of Iran's nuclear ambitions. Perhaps a greater concern is that the attack will reinforce Iran's desire to go nuclear. Without nuclear weapons, Iran was unable to threaten the US enough to deter today's attack. Iran may take lessons from the fate of other states. Ukraine (in)famously surrendered its stockpile of former Soviet nuclear weapons in the early 1990s. Russia has since felt emboldened to annex Crimea in 2014 and launch an ongoing invasion in 2022. Other potential nuclear states, such as Iraq and Gadaffi's regime in Libya, also suffered from military intervention. By contrast, North Korea successfully tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006. Since then there has been no serious consideration of military intervention in North Korea. Iran may yet have the ability to produce useful amounts of weapons-grade uranium. It may now aim to buy itself time to assemble a relatively small nuclear device, similar in scale to the bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Depending on what facilities and resources have survived the US strikes, the attack has likely reinforced that the only way the Iranian regime can guarantee its survival is to possess nuclear weapons. Late on Saturday night, local time, the United States carried out strikes against Iranian nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, marking its open participation in the conflict between Iran and Israel. The US says it fired 30 submarine-launched missiles at the sites in Natanz and Isfahan, as well as dropping more than a dozen "bunker buster" bombs at Fordow and Natanz. The kind of bomb in question is the extremely destructive GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, which weighs around 13.5 tonnes. The attacks raise a lot of questions. What are these enormous bombs? Why did the US feel it had to get involved in the conflict? And, going forward, what does it mean for Iran's nuclear ambitions? Bunker busters are weapons designed to destroy heavily protected facilities such as bunkers deep underground, beyond the reach of normal bombs. Bunker busters are designed to bury themselves into the ground before detonating. This allows more of the explosive force to penetrate into the ground, rather than travelling through the air or across the surface. Iran's nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan are built deep underground. Estimates suggest that Fordow for example could be 80m beneath the surface, and capped with layers of reinforced concrete and soil. The bunker buster used in this particular operation is the largest in the US arsenal. Leaving aside nuclear weapons, the MOP is the largest known bunker buster in the world. Weighing some 13.5 tonnes, the MOP is believed to be able to penetrate up to 60 metres below ground in the right conditions. It is not known how many the US possesses, but the numbers are thought to be small (perhaps 20 or so in total). We also don't know exactly how many were used in Iran, though some reports say it was 14. However, it is likely to be a significant portion of the US MOP arsenal. The US is not the only state with bunker-busting weaponry. However, the size of MOP means it requires very specialised bombers to carry and drop it. Only the B2 stealth bomber is currently able to deploy the MOP. Each B2 can carry at most two MOPs at a time. Around seven of America's 19 operational B2s were used in the Iran operation. There has been some consideration whether large transport aircraft such as the C-130 Hercules could be modified to carry and drop the MOP from its rear cargo doors. While this would allow other countries (including Israel) to deploy the MOP, it is for now purely hypothetical. The Trump administration claims Iran may be only a few weeks from possessing a nuclear weapon, and that it needed to act now to destroy Iranian nuclear enrichment sites. This claim is notably at odds with published assessments from the US intelligence community. However, Israel lacks bunker-busting weaponry sufficient to damage the deeply buried and fortified enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Only the MOP could do the job (short of using nuclear weapons). Even then, multiple MOPs would have been required to ensure sufficient damage to the underground facilities. The US has claimed that these sites have been utterly destroyed. We cannot conclusively say whether this is true. Iran may also have other, undeclared nuclear sites elsewhere in the country. The US has reportedly reached out to Iran via diplomatic channels to emphasise that this attack was a one-off, not part of a larger project of regime change. It is hard to say what will happen in the next few weeks. Iran may retaliate with large strikes against Israel or against US forces in the region. It could also interrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, which would affect a large portion of global oil shipments, with profound economic implications. Alternatively, Iran could capitulate and take steps to demonstrate it is ending its nuclear program. However, capitulation would not necessarily mean the end of Iran's nuclear ambitions. Perhaps a greater concern is that the attack will reinforce Iran's desire to go nuclear. Without nuclear weapons, Iran was unable to threaten the US enough to deter today's attack. Iran may take lessons from the fate of other states. Ukraine (in)famously surrendered its stockpile of former Soviet nuclear weapons in the early 1990s. Russia has since felt emboldened to annex Crimea in 2014 and launch an ongoing invasion in 2022. Other potential nuclear states, such as Iraq and Gadaffi's regime in Libya, also suffered from military intervention. By contrast, North Korea successfully tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006. Since then there has been no serious consideration of military intervention in North Korea. Iran may yet have the ability to produce useful amounts of weapons-grade uranium. It may now aim to buy itself time to assemble a relatively small nuclear device, similar in scale to the bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Depending on what facilities and resources have survived the US strikes, the attack has likely reinforced that the only way the Iranian regime can guarantee its survival is to possess nuclear weapons. Late on Saturday night, local time, the United States carried out strikes against Iranian nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, marking its open participation in the conflict between Iran and Israel. The US says it fired 30 submarine-launched missiles at the sites in Natanz and Isfahan, as well as dropping more than a dozen "bunker buster" bombs at Fordow and Natanz. The kind of bomb in question is the extremely destructive GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, which weighs around 13.5 tonnes. The attacks raise a lot of questions. What are these enormous bombs? Why did the US feel it had to get involved in the conflict? And, going forward, what does it mean for Iran's nuclear ambitions? Bunker busters are weapons designed to destroy heavily protected facilities such as bunkers deep underground, beyond the reach of normal bombs. Bunker busters are designed to bury themselves into the ground before detonating. This allows more of the explosive force to penetrate into the ground, rather than travelling through the air or across the surface. Iran's nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan are built deep underground. Estimates suggest that Fordow for example could be 80m beneath the surface, and capped with layers of reinforced concrete and soil. The bunker buster used in this particular operation is the largest in the US arsenal. Leaving aside nuclear weapons, the MOP is the largest known bunker buster in the world. Weighing some 13.5 tonnes, the MOP is believed to be able to penetrate up to 60 metres below ground in the right conditions. It is not known how many the US possesses, but the numbers are thought to be small (perhaps 20 or so in total). We also don't know exactly how many were used in Iran, though some reports say it was 14. However, it is likely to be a significant portion of the US MOP arsenal. The US is not the only state with bunker-busting weaponry. However, the size of MOP means it requires very specialised bombers to carry and drop it. Only the B2 stealth bomber is currently able to deploy the MOP. Each B2 can carry at most two MOPs at a time. Around seven of America's 19 operational B2s were used in the Iran operation. There has been some consideration whether large transport aircraft such as the C-130 Hercules could be modified to carry and drop the MOP from its rear cargo doors. While this would allow other countries (including Israel) to deploy the MOP, it is for now purely hypothetical. The Trump administration claims Iran may be only a few weeks from possessing a nuclear weapon, and that it needed to act now to destroy Iranian nuclear enrichment sites. This claim is notably at odds with published assessments from the US intelligence community. However, Israel lacks bunker-busting weaponry sufficient to damage the deeply buried and fortified enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Only the MOP could do the job (short of using nuclear weapons). Even then, multiple MOPs would have been required to ensure sufficient damage to the underground facilities. The US has claimed that these sites have been utterly destroyed. We cannot conclusively say whether this is true. Iran may also have other, undeclared nuclear sites elsewhere in the country. The US has reportedly reached out to Iran via diplomatic channels to emphasise that this attack was a one-off, not part of a larger project of regime change. It is hard to say what will happen in the next few weeks. Iran may retaliate with large strikes against Israel or against US forces in the region. It could also interrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, which would affect a large portion of global oil shipments, with profound economic implications. Alternatively, Iran could capitulate and take steps to demonstrate it is ending its nuclear program. However, capitulation would not necessarily mean the end of Iran's nuclear ambitions. Perhaps a greater concern is that the attack will reinforce Iran's desire to go nuclear. Without nuclear weapons, Iran was unable to threaten the US enough to deter today's attack. Iran may take lessons from the fate of other states. Ukraine (in)famously surrendered its stockpile of former Soviet nuclear weapons in the early 1990s. Russia has since felt emboldened to annex Crimea in 2014 and launch an ongoing invasion in 2022. Other potential nuclear states, such as Iraq and Gadaffi's regime in Libya, also suffered from military intervention. By contrast, North Korea successfully tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006. Since then there has been no serious consideration of military intervention in North Korea. Iran may yet have the ability to produce useful amounts of weapons-grade uranium. It may now aim to buy itself time to assemble a relatively small nuclear device, similar in scale to the bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Depending on what facilities and resources have survived the US strikes, the attack has likely reinforced that the only way the Iranian regime can guarantee its survival is to possess nuclear weapons.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Karoline Leavitt unleashes on ‘fake news' CNN over US strikes on Iran
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has unleashed on CNN for their coverage of the US strikes on Iran. Codenamed Midnight Hammer, the operation saw three nuclear sites in Iran targeted by the US with more than 125 aircraft involved. The White House press secretary reacted to a recent post from CNN about the coverage, which discussed Democrats not being briefed on the US strike. The Article headlined 'Trump administration briefs top Republicans before Iran strikes, but not some Democrats' has received flak online. Leavitt reacted to the post, labelling it as 'fake news', calling for CNN to retract the article. CNN issued a correction on the story, saying 'this story has been updated to make clear Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was called before the strike, not after as initially reported".
