Latest news with #B2Bombers
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Donald Trump weighing up many risks before possible US strike on Iran
This is the most significant statement from the US president in days, though it still keeps everyone guessing. In a message conveyed through his press secretary, he is giving diplomacy up to two weeks to work. "Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks," Karoline Leavitt quoted him as saying. It is not clear what "whether or not to go" entails. Israel-Iran conflict: Latest updates We know that he has been given a spectrum of different military options by his generals and we know that the Israelis are pressuring him to use American B2 bombers with their to destroy Iran's nuclear facility at Fodow. The Israelis are encouraging no delay. But against that, he is weighing up many risks, both military and political. Militarily, it is not clear how successful a bunker-busting strike on Fordow would be. Experts have suggested it would require several of the massive bombs, which have never been used in combat before, to be dropped on the site. It is not as simple as one clean strike and job done. Politically, the is under significant pressure domestically not to get involved in Iran. Within his own MAGA coalition - influencers, politicians and media personalities are lining up in criticism of involvement in the conflict. One of those leading the criticism, his former chief strategist , who maintains huge influence, was seen entering the White House on Thursday. His press secretary reiterated to us that the president always wants to give diplomacy a chance and she confirmed that his Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff has spoken to the Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi. European leaders, including the UK foreign secretary David Lammy, who is in Washington, are meeting Mr Araghchi in Geneva on Friday. The two-week window - assuming it lasts that long - also gives space to better prepare for any strike and mitigate against some of the other risks of US involvement. Read more from Sky News: There are 40,000 troops in bases across the Middle East. It takes time to increase security at these bases or to move non-essential personnel out. It also takes time to move strategic military assets into the region. The USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and its support vessels were redeployed from the Indo-Pacific on Monday. Their last known position was the Strait of Malacca two days ago. The Nimitz Carrier Group will overlap with the USS Carl Vinson group which was deployed to the Middle East in March. The potential two-week window also allows for more time for a 'day after' plan, given that the Israeli strategy appears to be regime change from within. Since the Israeli action in Iran began last week, the worst-case scenario of mass casualties in Israel from Iranian attacks has not materialised. The president is said to be surprised and encouraged by this. "Israel has exceeded a lot of people's expectations in their abilities," press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. The Israeli success, the absence of a mass casualty event in Israel, and the lack of any sustained counterattack by Iranian proxies in the region remove reservations that previous presidents have had about taking on Iran.
Telegraph
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Bad luck, Lord Hermer. We are inextricably involved in any US strike on Iran
The US might be about to assist Israel in the striking of Iran's underground uranium enrichment plants. The media is awash with attempts to predict what will happen, but given the number of moving parts, and the person in charge, this is not proving easy. However American colleagues of mine are sure it's a matter of 'when' America will strike, not 'if '. Meanwhile it is not at all clear what the UK Government's stance is. The Attorney General, Lord Hermer, is warning that the UK joining the war on Iran may be illegal. My view is that he is a little late to the party here. We've had ships, aircraft and troops in the region since before 2003 – all facing Iran and contributing to operations against it and its proxies. We have conducted intelligence gathering throughout and shared that with allies. More recently, we have conducted strikes against Iranian proxies and have refuelled aircraft in direct support of Israel's defensive operations against them. Right now we are housing American B-2 bombers – the likely centrepiece of any US strike – on British territory, Diego Garcia (highlighting with impeccable timing the strategic incontinence of the pending loss of sovereignty there). What is Lord Hermer suggesting – we should withdraw our support? That would be unbelievably short-sighted. Or is he, like many, failing to distinguish between a handful of precision strikes from 40,000 feet and a third Gulf War? There is a long and nuanced spectrum between 'do nothing' and 'war'. Binary interjections such as Hermer's don't reflect this reality and simply add uncertainty to a government which already seems pretty uncertain. When the No.10 comms machine gags UK generals and admirals at a RUSI land warfare conference, but allows foreign officers to be quoted – as happened yesterday – you know you are dealing with a system that's deeply uncomfortable with political-military leadership. This is probably why the ships of Operation Highmast, including HMS Prince of Wales, have gone straight past Iran and are much of the way to the Pacific. I'd like to think that it was a high level decision between us and the US about where our different carriers could best be used and that the decision was that she should fill the hole left by the USS Nimitz as she steams towards the Gulf of Oman. In fact, this would be entirely reasonable. But I fear that the Government simply failed to make a decision. I hope I'm wrong but when you see senior officers gagged you have to suspect that they and the Government disagree. Meanwhile out in the big world, the US now has nearly everything in place to make a move. Everyone has been surprised by the speed with which the IDF suppressed Iranian air defences: there has never been a better time to defang Iran and remove their ability to produce a nuclear weapon once and for all. There is some doubt that even the US with its powerful Massive Ordnance Penetrators can actually do the job, however. Iran's nuclear facilities, Fordow in particular, are buried deep inside the mountains. Then there is the fact that Iran is not entirely toothless. This is why we are seeing aircraft leave the air base in Al Udeid and ships departing from Bahrain. Sensible precautions: and in the case of the aircraft, this permits them to operate from countries who would permit strikes from their territory. Does Israel have a backup plan if the MOP isn't used or doesn't work? Storming a fortress bunker of this size and at this sort of range – one whose defences have had decades to prepare – is the sort of mission that makes me glad I joined the Navy. The IDF and the Israeli secret services have pulled off some astonishing special operations in their time but this might be too hard even for them. Meanwhile the USS Nimitz is closing and could be just three days from her probable battle station in the Gulf of Oman. I don't want to overplay her role in all this but another 75 jets, Hawkeye radar/command planes, a ballistic intercept umbrella – under the flight path from Iran to Diego Garcia, too – and hundreds of cruise missiles will come in handy. It's unlikely the US will make a move until Nimitz is on hand. The question of regime change is also much discussed. Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, made some remarks in Strasbourg yesterday. She said this is a vital juncture in 'the struggle of the people of Iran and the Iranian Resistance against the ruling religious fascism'. 'The only viable solution remains the overthrow of this regime by the people of Iran and the Iranian Resistance … this regime that has executed 1,350 prisoners in the last year alone [must] be replaced by a democracy'. With the myths of strength and competence of the current regime now lying in tatters, now may be the time. Meanwhile the only people saying much in Britain are the lawyers. We wring our hands, silence our senior military and seemingly hope for the best. The Attorney General 'has concerns about the UK playing any role in this except for defending our allies'. It's very hard to see how stopping Iran from having a nuclear weapon is anything other than that – and indeed self-defence on our own part. This is not the same as opening another war in the Middle East, in fact it's the opposite. It's preventative self-defence against a barbaric regime and we should back our allies to achieve it. What we now need is strong and clear leadership, with associated open and confident communications, that reflects this.
Bloomberg
21 hours ago
- Politics
- Bloomberg
How Bombing Iran Can Set Back Non-Proliferation
Donald Trump seems on the cusp of ordering B2 bombers to join Israel's assault on Iran's nuclear program. It could all be a bluff, of course, but I suspect Benjamin Netanyahu knew his man. The appeal of being the US president who finally ended the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran – as opposed to the one who Taco'd out of helping Israel to get there – will be strong. Should that happen, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei will have multiple options: He could attack US bases, set Saudi oil refineries ablaze or close the Strait of Hormuz. Or, he could do nothing, hoping to avoid an all-out war he could never win. He might cut a new deal, abandon nuclear enrichment or build new enrichment cascades even deeper underground and dash for a bomb. Such are the unknowns that can produce the forever wars that nobody ever intends. The one thing that does seem clear, however, is that the Israeli and now potentially US decision to bomb a threshold nuclear power to its knees will have significant implications for arms proliferation. The optimistic case is that those B2s fly the roughly 7,000 miles from their base in Missouri to drop 30,000 pound (13,600 kilogram) Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs on Iran's deeply buried uranium-enrichment facility, at Fordow, near the holy city of Qom, and obliterate it. With Israeli jets already taking care of less hard-to-reach targets, and assuming no secret factory gets missed, the Islamic Republic would have to restart its uranium-enrichment program from scratch. That should dissipate or at least postpone the risk of a regional arms race. For if Iran doesn't have a nuclear arsenal, there'd be no imperative for Saudi Arabia or Turkey to get one, too. At least, that's among the key justifications for taking military action that proponents in Washington and Israel have long made. Israel has its own reasons for preventing Iran from getting the ultimate weapon, which would pose an existential threat in implacably hostile hands. That doesn't apply for the US. Its interests are more focused on these regional proliferation calculations — a difference that may help explain the reluctance of successive American presidents to back Israeli plans for airstrikes. But a more positive regional outcome is hardly guaranteed. It isn't just that the MOPs could fail to blast through a mountain to the cascade chambers at Fordow, leaving Iran's neighbors to assume the worst — that the regime would dash for a bomb to ward off future attacks. That's especially true if Iran should, as some officials have threatened, kick out international inspectors and withdraw from the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or NPT. A less cheering interpretation is that no matter how successful the attack, it will reinforce for governments around the world the lesson that a working nuclear arsenal protects you from getting bombed or invaded. That was illustrated by Libya in 2011, Ukraine in 2022, and now Iran in 2025. Iran's fellow pariah state North Korea, meanwhile, remains free to taunt the US and its allies, because it already has the bomb. There's a bigger trend and context to this scenario, because the NPT looks increasingly like a document from an earlier era. It's going to lose potency as we move from a rules-based order to one in which stronger countries assert their perceived national interests, regardless of international laws and treaties. This is the world in which China, in 2016, simply dismissed international arbitration that rejected its claims to own the South China Sea and all islands within it, up to an imaginary 'nine-dash line.' It's the world in which Russia claims a right to invade Ukraine in breach of multiple treaties and agreements, and is willing to threaten a nuclear strike in pursuit of this territorial conquest. Meanwhile, the main architect of the rules-based order, the US, is now declaring intentions to take over Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal. Arms control, too, looks out of fashion. China's adding 100 warheads to its arsenal each year, while most of the established nuclear powers have announced programs to update or expand theirs. New Start, the only remaining nuclear arms-control treaty is due to expire next year and there's no sign of any negotiations to renew it. In this environment, it becomes increasingly appealing to have your own nuclear weapons. What else could protect against apex predators such as China, Russia and the US? Or from the regional hegemon that Israel is fast becoming? 'Some will bandwagon with stronger states while others may decide to balance with the only truly powerful asset, nuclear weapons,' Nikolai Sokov, a nuclear negotiator (for Moscow) during the Cold War and now senior fellow with the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, told me. 'We are talking years, of course, so neither Trump, nor Netanyahu will be answerable or will have to deal with consequences.' Should Trump decide to join Israel in bombing Iran's fuel-enrichment facilities (another first), it may well have no discernible short term effect on proliferation. Added together, the world's nuclear arsenals already store 14,000 times the power of the one dropped on Hiroshima, and that figure is rising all the time. But while setting back one nuclear program, the attack on Iran will very likely add to a gathering momentum for more.
Wall Street Journal
2 days ago
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
What Forces Could the U.S. Use to Strike Iran?
President Trump is considering a range of options on Iran, including strikes, administration officials have said, and the U.S. has been building up military assets in the region. These are some of the forces Trump has at his disposal should he opt for military action. The USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group is already in the Middle East. A second aircraft carrier battlegroup, the USS Nimitz, is headed to the region. A third that includes the USS Ford is expected to leave later this month for Europe and could be redirected to the region. B-2 bombers are based on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The stealthy planes are the only ones able to carry the 30,000-pound GBU-57 'bunker buster' bomb, which analysts say would have the best chance of hitting Iran's underground nuclear facilities.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Could US attack Iran's Fordow nuclear site? Military movements offer a clue
The US has stepped up its military presence in the Middle East since the weekend but has left certain details vague to preserve operational ambiguity for Donald Trump as he considers whether the US will intervene in the Israel-Iran war. Critically, there has been no new information about the deployment of B-2 bombers that would be used to attack Iran's deep-lying nuclear enrichment site at Fordow with 13.6-tonne (30,000lb) bunker-buster bombs, designed to penetrate 60 metres of rock. On Monday night, the US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, said he had 'directed the deployment of additional capabilities' to US Central Command in the Middle East, an exercise he said was 'to enhance our defensive posture in the region'. Donald Trump, meanwhile, told reporters he was looking for 'a real end' to the conflict as the US president returned to Washington having cut short his trip to the G7 summit in Canada. 'I'm not looking for a ceasefire, we're looking at better than a ceasefire,' he said, without being more specific. However, clues that the Pentagon is considering a long-range air raid came from the movement of more than 31 US Air Force refuelling aircraft. The planes, mostly KC-135 Stratotankers and KC-46 Pegasuses, were tracked by AirNav Systems, a flight-tracking website, as they headed east towards Europe on Sunday. There were further reports of some planes flying further east on Tuesday. US Air Force B-2 bombers have a long range, of about 6,000 miles without refuelling, but they usually operate from a limited number of bases: Whiteman in Missouri, Fairford in Gloucestershire and most notably the isolated base of Diego Garcia in the south Indian Ocean, now leased from Mauritius by the UK for the US. B-2 bombers attacked five underground Houthi weapon facilities from Whiteman, 8,000 miles away, last October. Diego Garcia is far closer to Fordow, a 3,200-mile trip each way, which would require refuelling on the return leg once a bombing run on Iran's nuclear sites had been completed. Only the US is considered to have a bomb large enough – the GBU 57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator – to possibly destroy Fordow, one of Iran's two main uranium enrichment sites, estimated to be 80-90 metres below a mountain. The only plane certified to carry the 6-metre weapon is the B-2. At one point in the middle of the last decade, the US was thought to have only 20 of the bombs, its largest non-nuclear weapon, but more recent estimates are higher. Though Israel appears to have achieved dominance over Iran's skies since it launched its attack on the country on Friday, it attacked Fordow on only the first day of the operation. The IAEA nuclear watchdog said on Monday that no damage to the enrichment plant had been seen. Justin Bronk, an aviation expert with the Royal United Services Institute thinktank, said 'multiple impacts' would almost certainly be required to destroy Fordow, 'with the second bomb impacting inside the hole made by the first'. Though a B-2 can carry two bunker-busting bombs, a serious assault by the US designed to eliminate the facility would probably require the deployment of more than one bomber. Bronk said: 'An attack would require redundancy since the weapons have to function and be delivered perfectly to get down into the facility and explode at the right depth to cause critical damage.' Satellite imagery in May showed the presence of six B-2 bombers at Diego Garcia, about half the total number considered operational at any one time – the US has a total of 19 – but there has not been any more recent reporting. Several companies supplying commercial satellite imaging also work for the US government. According to a 2019 article in the New York Times, at some point a decade before, the US Pentagon constructed a replica of Fordow and test-bombed it with a 30,000lb device. A highly classified video of the attack was later shown by Leon Panetta, a defence secretary under Barack Obama's presidency, to the Israeli politician Ehud Barak. 'The bomb destroyed the mock-up in the desert,' the newspaper reported. The US may also consider attacking Iran's other nuclear enrichment site, at Natanz. Though a smaller overground site was destroyed by bombing on Friday, a facility somewhere between 8 and 12 metres underground is said by the IAEA to be relatively undamaged, though the Israeli military has disputed this. An important question for the White House and the Pentagon is whether they believe, after five days of airstrikes by Israel, that there is any threat to US jets operating over Iran. But there is no shortage of military assets available if the US wants to mount an expanded attack targeting any remaining air defence and missile launch sites. A second aircraft carrier strike group, led by the USS Nimitz was sent from east Asia towards the Middle East earlier this week, where it will join the USS Carl Vinson carrier, which is already operating relatively close to Iran, around the Arabian Sea. At least three US destroyers are now also in the eastern Mediterranean. • This article was amended on 18 June 2025. RAF Fairford is in Gloucestershire, not Oxfordshire as an earlier version said. The spelling of Andersen air force base, Guam, in the top graphic was also corrected.
