Latest news with #CentralCommand
Politico
2 days ago
- Politics
- Politico
GOP hawks appear to be winning over Trump on Iran
President Donald Trump, who criticized his predecessor for allowing new wars to break out on his watch, is increasingly listening to a small group of Iran hawks who have been pushing to go tougher on Tehran. Trump has become more receptive to arguments by those advocating more military engagement, including Gen. Michael 'Erik' Kurilla, who leads Central Command, as well as Republican senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Tom Cotton of Arkansas, according to an administration official, a former official and another person familiar with discussions, all granted anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations. Graham said he spoke with Trump on Monday evening while the president was still at the G7 meeting in Canada and encouraged him to lean into Israel's ongoing effort to eradicate Iran's nuclear program. 'He called me right before he left,' Graham said. 'I said, 'Mr. President, this is a historic moment. Four presidents have promised that they won't get a nuclear weapon. On your watch, you can fulfill that promise.'' Trump is now openly considering using 'bunker buster' American bombs to target Iran's heavily fortified Fordo enrichment facility — a move that seemed unthinkable even a week ago, when he repeatedly confirmed he had asked Israel to hold off on bombing Iran's program so that diplomacy could play out. Only the U.S. possesses the 30,000-pound bombs capable of reaching Iran's underground nuclear sites, and those can be carried only by American B-2 stealth bombers because they are so heavy. 'The movement right now is away from diplomacy and toward U.S. involvement,' a second Trump administration official told POLITICO late Tuesday. 'We are moving toward taking out Iranian nuclear facilities.' Trump has taken a newly menacing posture toward Iran, calling Tuesday for the regime's 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER' in a spate of social media posts, while hunkering down with national security aides in the Situation Room. 'The hawks seem to have the upper hand,' said a Western diplomat familiar with administration discussions, granted anonymity to speak about ongoing talks. The White House argues that Trump isn't deviating from previous positions. 'He has always been against forever wars,' said Alex Pfeiffer, a White House spokesperson. 'But he hasn't been against military engagement,' noting that Trump directed the assassination of Iran's most powerful military commander Qasem Soleimani in his first term. Vice President JD Vance, who has previously advocated a more limited approach in dealing with Iran, posted a lengthy defense Tuesday of Trump's consideration of striking Iran and offered his support. 'He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the president,' Vance said, adding, 'of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy. But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue.' The White House firmly believes U.S. involvement can be restricted to a series of tactical strikes against specific facilities, without descending into an extended war or turning into an effort oust the regime in Tehran, as POLITICO previously reported. Notably, when Trump convened a meeting of national security aides in the Situation Room Tuesday afternoon, Vance was on Capitol Hill speaking to Republican senators and unable to take part. Jon Hoffman, a research fellow in defense and foreign policy at the libertarian Cato Institute which has opposed American involvement, said those advocating restraint on Iran haven't 'given up the fight.' 'A lot of individuals internally are really trying to hold their ground,' he said. 'This is very concerning, because up to this point, Trump, in terms of his quote, unquote 'restraint' stance, it's just all been rhetoric. There's really been no real test.' That said, it's unclear whether Trump's recent statements suggesting he is warming to direct confrontation are the direct result of these conversations. His openness to a more forceful approach also stems from his feeling that the isolationists in and around the administration haven't given him enough options and that Trump had tried their way, according to a GOP foreign policy operative and one of the people familiar with Trump's conversations with Iran hawks. The restrainers are also still in key roles. Vance's national security adviser, Andy Baker, has seized operational control of the National Security Council, according to the administration official and a former national security official. The former official described Baker as 'an isolationist through and through' and said 'he's become essentially the day-to-day director.' Still, the non-interventionists are treading cautiously, talking to Trump but not openly looking to limit his choices. Sen. Josh Hawley said he spoke with Trump on Tuesday and praised the president's approach. 'He does not want a broader conflict. So I think he's managed this pretty deftly at this point,' Hawley said. He added that Trump doesn't need congressional authorization to strike Iran and downplayed Trump's dramatic call on Truth Social for Tehran to evacuate. 'He's telling Iran, 'You're not going to get a nuke,'' Hawley said. 'Come to the negotiating table and get a deal with him — or you can face Israel.' Trump is still weighing options. 'He was hoping for a deal, and he might still get one,' said one Trump ally close to members of the president's foreign policy team who was granted anonymity to discuss the president's thinking. 'But you heard him saying how successful Israel's initial assault was. Supporting it after the fact and even considering joining it and piling on gives him a way to claim a major foreign policy win after a lot of his diplomatic efforts have stalled out.' The U.S. has surged tankers and warships into the Middle East in preparation to defend against any attacks on American troops and assets. On Wednesday, Trump said 'nobody knows' what he will decide to do. 'I may do it. I may not do it,' he told reporters outside the White House. 'Iran's got a lot of trouble, and they want to negotiate,' Trump continued. 'And I said, 'Why didn't you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction? Why didn't you negotiate?' I said to people, 'Why didn't you negotiate with me two weeks ago? You could have done fine. You would have had a country.'' John Sakellariadas, Katherine Tully-McManus, Joe Gould and Jake Traylor contributed to this report.
Japan Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Japan Times
Bunker-buster bomb draws focus as Trump weighs Iran options
U.S. President Donald Trump has a wide range of military assets in the Middle East and across the globe to bring to bear in a potential fight against Iran as he weighs one of the most momentous foreign policy decisions of his administration. That arsenal includes powerfully destructive bombs, long-range stealth bombers, an aircraft carrier strike group, Navy destroyers and U.S. troops — offering Trump multiple options if he decides to intervene more directly in support of Israel. Some resources like the B-2 bomber are in the U.S. while other assets are either in the region or on the way. It's unclear whether Trump will deepen U.S. involvement beyond helping Israel defend against Iranian air attacks as he has done in recent days. On Tuesday afternoon, the president gathered his national security staff for a White House Situation Room meeting. The administration, though, has been surging military resources to U.S. Central Command, which oversees the Pentagon's operations in the region. And forces already in the area include naval and air power that could play a crucial role in any U.S. action against Iran. The Islamic Republic has already suffered its worst assault in decades, with Israel's strikes on the country's nuclear and military infrastructure damaging key facilities and killing senior personnel. One weapon, though, is seen as particularly effective if the situation were to escalate and draw the direct involvement of the U.S. The Massive Ordnance Penetrator or "MOP' — better known as the bunker-buster bomb — weighs 30,000 pounds and is the world's largest precision-guided weapon. The GPS-directed bomb, assembled by Boeing, has been touted repeatedly as the only weapon capable of delivering a knockout blow to Tehran's atomic ambitions, which would require a successful strike on the heavily protected enrichment site at Fordow. Hidden beneath a mountain and believed to be buried around 60 to 90 meters deep, many experts believe that damaging Fordow can be achieved only by the MOP — a weapon the U.S. alone possesses. Each bunker buster can be independently targeted and released, "making it possible to deliver a MOP right on top of another MOP,' said Rebecca Grant, a Lexington Institute analyst. Grant said drone surveillance in the area could also help the military "refine the strike' at the last minute and noted that Iranian nuclear facilities such as Fordow have been studied by the U.S. for years. The decision on whether to use that weapon is poised to be one of the most critical Trump makes. The bomb could alter Iran's decision-making over its nuclear program and because its deployment would involve American planes and pilots it would place the U.S. at the center of an offensive military action. "If Israel can achieve that result through its operations, that is the best case,' said Daniel Shapiro, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and onetime deputy assistant defense secretary. "But if it requires U.S. participation to target the Fordow facility, that has to be on the table for President Trump to consider.' A B-2 stealth bomber drops a laser guided bomb during a training run in April 1998. | USAF / Getty Images / via Reuters Deploying the MOP would involve another crucial military asset, the B-2 stealth bomber, which can carry two of them. The B-2 would fly thousands of miles from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to deliver the bombs deep within Iran. The U.S. demonstrated the power of its B-2 fleet in October, when bombers flew from Whiteman to hammer Iran-backed Houthi weapons facilities buried underground. Earlier this year, as many as six B-2s were spotted on a runway on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in a deployment that was interpreted by many as a message to both Iran and the Houthis. The Air Force said those aircraft returned to their base in May. U.S. Central Command, which oversees the longstanding U.S. military presence in the Middle East, would play a key role in any operations on Iran, with responsibility for a force spread across multiple countries, including Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and drawing on troops from different military services and special operations forces. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has "directed the deployment of additional capabilities' to the command. The administration is also sending as many as 20 KC-135 and newer KC-46 aerial refueling tankers to undisclosed locations, according to a defense official, helping extend the range of U.S. air power. Those resources would offer Trump additional flexibility in determining his course of action. U.S. personnel in the region, including Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy servicemembers, number 40,000-45,000, according to the most recent Central Command figures. The Navy is also poised to be a critical component, with resources that can both aid any action on Iran and have already been employed to help protect Israel from retaliatory strikes. The USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group has been in the region of the Arabian Sea for seven months. The ship carries about 3,000 sailors, according to the Navy, with another 2,000 in its air wing. The air wing boasts an extensive array of military hardware, including F-35 and F-18 fighter jets, EA-18 aircraft that can disrupt enemy radar and communication systems, E-2Ds with advanced radar to help identity threats more quickly, as well as Osprey tiltrotor aircraft and Sea Hawk helicopters. In addition to the centerpiece carrier, the group also includes a guided-missile cruiser, the USS Princeton, and guided-missile destroyers. Another strike group headed by the USS Nimitz is scheduled to relieve the Vinson and is currently in the Indo-Pacific, offering additional forces. The Navy has three Aegis missile defense destroyers in the Eastern Mediterranean — the USS Arleigh Burke, USS The Sullivans and the USS Thomas Hudner, with two more vessels arriving shortly, according to a defense official. Two additional destroyers are in the Red Sea. A U.S. official said the Arleigh Burke and The Sullivans fired numerous SM-3 anti-ballistic missile interceptors over the weekend to help defend Israel. An Army unit in the region also fired THAAD interceptors at Iranian ballistic missiles, according to another official.
South China Morning Post
3 days ago
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
Trump's Iran options: stealth bombers, warships and a ‘bunker buster'
US President Donald Trump has a wide range of military assets in the Middle East and across the globe to bring to bear in a potential fight against Iran as he weighs one of the most momentous foreign policy decisions of his administration. Advertisement That arsenal includes powerfully destructive bombs, long-range stealth bombers, an aircraft carrier strike group, US Navy destroyers and US troops - offering Trump multiple options if he decides to intervene more directly in support of Israel. Some resources like the B-2 bomber are in the US while other assets are either in the region or on the way. It was unclear whether Trump will deepen US involvement beyond helping Israel defend against Iranian air attacks as he has done in recent days. On Tuesday afternoon, the president gathered his national security staff for a White House Situation Room meeting. The administration, though, has been surging military resources to US Central Command, which oversees the Pentagon's operations in the region. And forces already in the area include naval and air power that could play a crucial role in any US action against Iran. A mock-up of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. Photo: US Air Force via AFP The Islamic Republic has already suffered its worst assault in decades, with Israel's strikes on the country's nuclear and military infrastructure damaging key facilities and killing senior personnel. One weapon, though, is seen as particularly effective if the situation were to escalate and draw the direct involvement of the US.
Hindustan Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Now Trump is urged to go 'all in' on crushing Iran
'WE REMAIN COMMITTED to a Diplomatic Resolution to the Iran Nuclear Issue!' declared Donald Trump on June 12th. Within hours Israel attacked Iran. That conflict continues to escalate relentlessly. Iran has just hit Israel's cities with waves of ballistic-missile and drone strikes. Meanwhile Israeli warplanes have targeted Tehran's air-defence systems for a second night. Israel has now struck Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow and Isfahan, claiming to have inflicted 'significant damage'; more attacks may come. America's forces are already helping to defend Israel against missile attacks. The big question now is whether Mr Trump is drawn in deeper. That is what some Republicans are urging. On June 13th Senator Lindsey Graham said if diplomacy failed, he 'strongly' believed it was in America's national security interest to 'go all-in to help Israel finish the job'. It is now clear Mr Trump had advance warning. His foreign-policy team, torn between hawks and isolationists, gathered at Camp David on June 8th to discuss the looming Iran crisis. Mr Trump spoke to Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, on June 9th and 12th as well as on June 13th after the attacks. America's embassy in Iraq was partially evacuated on June 11th. The Israeli preparations were taking place alongside American diplomacy, with the next round of Iran talks led by White House envoy Steve Witkoff, due on June 15th in Oman. Those talks had lost momentum. But Israel, hostile to an Iran deal, was still probably keen to act before any potential agreement. The success of the initial attacks led Mr Trump to endorse them fully retrospectively. 'I think it's been excellent. We gave them a chance and they didn't take it,' he told one interviewer. 'I always knew the date,' he boasted to another. More on the war between Israel and Iran: America's military is already involved. Its air defence systems have helped shield Israel and on June 13th both ground-based batteries and a US Navy destroyer shot down Iranian projectiles. America's Central Command (CENTCOM) is likely to be involved in helping Israel track Iranian ballistic missile launches, which can be spotted from American infra-red satellites. Yet in keeping with the picture of initial American ambivalence, the superpower is not set up for a full-scale war. In mid-May it removed one of its two aircraft-carriers in the region. The stealthy B-2 bombers deployed to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean were recently replaced with older B-52 aircraft. Mr Trump clearly holds out hope for diplomacy, posting on social media, 'Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire'. But the lines of communication with Iran may now be closing. According to reports on June 14th an Iranian official dismissed the US-Iran negotiations as 'meaningless'. America may be drawn in further. It is rushing destroyers to the Middle East. The USS Nimitz, an aircraft-carrier in the Pacific, cancelled a visit to Vietnam, suggesting it might head west. America can also supply more real-time intelligence and refuel Israeli jets to give them more 'dwell time' over Iran. Israel has thus far conducted limited attacks against Iranian nuclear sites. People familiar with planning for the scenario say that it probably lacks the capacity to destroy Fordow, the deeply buried enrichment plant, through traditional bombing, though it could block tunnel entrances and ventilation shafts. Israel may be calculating that America can be persuaded to join the campaign with its heavy bombers, which carry the 30,000lb bombs capable of burrowing deeper, rather than leave the job half-done. America could also be pulled in by Iranian retaliation. Iran's limited ability to strike at Israel may force it to consider other options. It could hit American targets in the region, hoping to spook Mr Trump. It could use its proxies to attack shipping in the Red Sea (as the Houthis have been doing), or it could close the Strait of Hormuz and attack energy facilities in the Gulf (raising oil prices). And if the Iranian regime is brought down by Israel's efforts—an ambition that Mr Netanyahu raised explicitly on June 13th, saying that the strikes were 'clearing the path' for its overthrow— the president may not be able to escape the resulting chaos, which could easily threaten America's interests or its allies in the region. Only a month ago when in Saudi Arabia Mr Trump articulated a different vision, of a Middle East 'golden age' that was 'defined by commerce, not chaos'. He decried Western intervention in the region and said that henceforth American policy would be based on trade and investment. In one interpretation, joining Israel's attack could create a transformative moment for the Middle East, hastening that goal by severely weakening or ending a decaying Iranian regime that has caused mayhem beyond its borders for decades. Yet as other American presidents have found, the region has a way of shattering utopian ideas. At home Republicans are broadly supportive of Israel and American assistance for it. 'Israel IS right—and has a right—to defend itself!' posted Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House, on June 13th. Yet the longer the campaign goes on the more a backlash may build among MAGA-movement members hostile to foreign interventions. Some are already sharing an old video clip of Mr Trump denouncing Barack Obama's Iran policy: 'Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate.' The dilemma for the ever-ambivalent Mr Trump is acute: if he chooses to go 'all in' in helping Israel destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, he could shorten the conflict. Yet by doing so he could also escalate it and expose America to another forever war. Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.
Mint
6 days ago
- Politics
- Mint
Now Trump is urged to go 'all in' on crushing Iran
'WE REMAIN COMMITTED to a Diplomatic Resolution to the Iran Nuclear Issue!" declared Donald Trump on June 12th. Within hours Israel attacked Iran. That conflict continues to escalate relentlessly. Iran has just hit Israel's cities with waves of ballistic-missile and drone strikes. Meanwhile Israeli warplanes have targeted Tehran's air-defence systems for a second night. Israel has now struck Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow and Isfahan, claiming to have inflicted 'significant damage"; more attacks may come. America's forces are already helping to defend Israel against missile attacks. The big question now is whether Mr Trump is drawn in deeper. That is what some Republicans are urging. On June 13th Senator Lindsey Graham said if diplomacy failed, he 'strongly" believed it was in America's national security interest to 'go all-in to help Israel finish the job". It is now clear Mr Trump had advance warning. His foreign-policy team, torn between hawks and isolationists, gathered at Camp David on June 8th to discuss the looming Iran crisis. Mr Trump spoke to Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, on June 9th and 12th as well as on June 13th after the attacks. America's embassy in Iraq was partially evacuated on June 11th. The Israeli preparations were taking place alongside American diplomacy, with the next round of Iran talks led by White House envoy Steve Witkoff, due on June 15th in Oman. Those talks had lost momentum. But Israel, hostile to an Iran deal, was still probably keen to act before any potential agreement. The success of the initial attacks led Mr Trump to endorse them fully retrospectively. 'I think it's been excellent. We gave them a chance and they didn't take it," he told one interviewer. 'I always knew the date," he boasted to another. More on the war between Israel and Iran: America's military is already involved. Its air defence systems have helped shield Israel and on June 13th both ground-based batteries and a US Navy destroyer shot down Iranian projectiles. America's Central Command (CENTCOM) is likely to be involved in helping Israel track Iranian ballistic missile launches, which can be spotted from American infra-red satellites. Yet in keeping with the picture of initial American ambivalence, the superpower is not set up for a full-scale war. In mid-May it removed one of its two aircraft-carriers in the region. The stealthy B-2 bombers deployed to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean were recently replaced with older B-52 aircraft. Mr Trump clearly holds out hope for diplomacy, posting on social media, 'Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire". But the lines of communication with Iran may now be closing. According to reports on June 14th an Iranian official dismissed the US-Iran negotiations as 'meaningless". America may be drawn in further. It is rushing destroyers to the Middle East. The USS Nimitz, an aircraft-carrier in the Pacific, cancelled a visit to Vietnam, suggesting it might head west. America can also supply more real-time intelligence and refuel Israeli jets to give them more 'dwell time" over Iran. Israel has thus far conducted limited attacks against Iranian nuclear sites. People familiar with planning for the scenario say that it probably lacks the capacity to destroy Fordow, the deeply buried enrichment plant, through traditional bombing, though it could block tunnel entrances and ventilation shafts. Israel may be calculating that America can be persuaded to join the campaign with its heavy bombers, which carry the 30,000lb bombs capable of burrowing deeper, rather than leave the job half-done. America could also be pulled in by Iranian retaliation. Iran's limited ability to strike at Israel may force it to consider other options. It could hit American targets in the region, hoping to spook Mr Trump. It could use its proxies to attack shipping in the Red Sea (as the Houthis have been doing), or it could close the Strait of Hormuz and attack energy facilities in the Gulf (raising oil prices). And if the Iranian regime is brought down by Israel's efforts—an ambition that Mr Netanyahu raised explicitly on June 13th, saying that the strikes were 'clearing the path" for its overthrow— the president may not be able to escape the resulting chaos, which could easily threaten America's interests or its allies in the region. Only a month ago when in Saudi Arabia Mr Trump articulated a different vision, of a Middle East 'golden age" that was 'defined by commerce, not chaos". He decried Western intervention in the region and said that henceforth American policy would be based on trade and investment. In one interpretation, joining Israel's attack could create a transformative moment for the Middle East, hastening that goal by severely weakening or ending a decaying Iranian regime that has caused mayhem beyond its borders for decades. Yet as other American presidents have found, the region has a way of shattering utopian ideas. At home Republicans are broadly supportive of Israel and American assistance for it. 'Israel IS right—and has a right—to defend itself!" posted Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House, on June 13th. Yet the longer the campaign goes on the more a backlash may build among MAGA-movement members hostile to foreign interventions. Some are already sharing an old video clip of Mr Trump denouncing Barack Obama's Iran policy: 'Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate." The dilemma for the ever-ambivalent Mr Trump is acute: if he chooses to go 'all in" in helping Israel destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, he could shorten the conflict. Yet by doing so he could also escalate it and expose America to another forever war.
