Latest news with #MassiveOrdnancePenetrator
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Trump's big headache? U.S faces mounting risk to 40,000 troops in Middle East as Iran threatens response
If the United States joins the ongoing war between Israel and Iran, the Pentagon would be confronting a major issue regarding the fate of more than 40,000 US soldiers already deployed around the Middle East along with other US citizens who live and work in the region, as per a report. US Troops in the Line of Fire The United States troops stationed in between bases from Bahrain to Syria would be the most vulnerable to counterattacks, which might involve Iranian ballistic missiles, drones or terrorism if the US joins Israel to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, reported USA Today. A US Defense official told USA Today that Iran can strike 'all of them,' as quoted in the report. The fear comes as even previously Iran had launched 13 ballistic missiles at US troops in Iraq in January 2020, wounding around 100 US troops, according to the report. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting Luxeartisanship Buy Now Undo ALSO READ: Shocking poll: Two-thirds of Americans believe Donald Trump has committed crimes Will United States Join the War? Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump did not dismiss the possibility of entering the ongoing war, as he said on Wednesday, 'I may do it. I may not do it," adding, "I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do," quoted USA Today. Live Events Pentagon Moves to Protect Americans Abroad As per the report, in case the United States launches a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, the potential weapon the US could use is the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a bomb that can burrow deep into the earth before unleashing a huge explosion. With the aim to increase protection for Americans in the Middle East, the Pentagon has started shifting more firepower to the region this week, including the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier strike group, which is expected to be arriving in a few days, according to USA Today. A US official in anonymity told USA Today that the added warplanes from the Nimitz and others in the region would be able to deliver a devastating response in Iran if they did attack US troops, as quoted in the report. FAQs How many US troops are at risk in the Middle East? Over 40,000 US soldiers are currently stationed at bases from Bahrain to Syria, as per USA Today report. Why are they in danger? If the US joins Israel in striking Iran's nuclear sites, Iran could retaliate against American troops using missiles, drones, or terror attacks, as per the report.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Israel wants to demolish Iran's nuclear facilities. Does it need US military help?
WASHINGTON − As Israel and Iran trade blows in an escalating aerial war, Israel has its sights trained on taking out Iran's nuclear facilities – and it wants the U.S. military's help. Israel wants the Pentagon to drop the bombs because their penetrating weapons cannot reach the depth necessary to destroy underground facilities, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly. Israel has pressed the U.S. for years, without success, to join an offensive to decapitate Iran's nuclear program. "The answer is no," former President Joe Biden said last October when asked if he would take part. But after President Donald Trump asserted in a blizzard of all-caps Truth Social posts that "IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON," U.S. participation in a strike could be closer than ever. Military experts say there are multiple ways Israel could strike Iran's uranium enrichment plants – with or without help from the U.S. Fully demolishing Iran's nuclear facilities would require 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs, or "bunker-busters," which Israel's military doesn't have. Iran's Fordo nuclear facility – central to its uranium enrichment efforts – is buried around 300 feet underground, unreachable to non-penetrating bombs. The Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or GBU-57, has a 'high-performance steel alloy' warhead case that allows the weapon to stay intact as it burrows deep into the ground, according to Pentagon documents. Only U.S.-made B-2 warplanes are equipped to carry the bombs. Each B-2 Spirit stealth bomber based at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri can hold two of the penetrators. See how the bunker buster works: A closer look at the GBU-57 In 2012, the Air Force conducted five tests of the weapon at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Data and visual inspections showed that each bombing run 'effectively prosecuted the targets.' At the depth of Iran's most protected underground nuclear facilities, just one 30,000-pound bomb would likely not be enough to "impose significant damage" on nuclear centrifuges, said David Deptula, a retired Lieutenant General who was the principal attack planner for operation Desert Storm in the 1991 Gulf War. 'It brings to bear a capability that Israel doesn't possess on their own,' Deptula said. The U.S. raised eyebrows in April when it repositioned several B-2 bombers to Diego Garcia, a U.S. base on an island in the Indian Ocean, around 2,300 miles from Iran. Still, the B-2's long range means it could take part in missions with distant targets. "You can perform the strikes from the United States," he said. Given Israel's success so far at degrading Iran's air defenses, deploying the MOP may be unnecessary, said Scott Murray, a retired Air Force colonel and intelligence officer with experience identifying targets in the Middle East. Instead, Israel could use smaller penetrating weapons to collapse the entry ways to Iran's underground nuclear facilities, Murray said. Israel could then effectively bar Iran from recovery work at the sites. 'Think of it as a no-work zone patrolled from above,' he said. 'Air superiority buys incredible capability and flexibility.' More: Iran: 11 facts about a country rarely visited by westerners After five days of heavy bombing, Israel now has control over Iran's air space, clearing the way for such an operation. U.S.-made weapons were instrumental to achieve that control, a fact alluded to by Trump in a June 17 Truth Social post that said, "We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran." "Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn't compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured 'stuff,'" Trump wrote. Israel's military first clinched air superiority by sweeping the area with F-35 fighter jets, according to Deptula. Then, they deployed F-15s and F-16s in "follow-on attacks." Deptula called it a "textbook repeat" of the 1991 Operation Desert Storm – the U.S.'s air campaign against Iraqi forces led by Saddam Hussein, for which Deptula wrote the attack plans. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Israel takes aim at Iran's nuclear facilities. Does it need US help?
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
40,000 reasons to worry: U.S. troops in Middle East could face Iran blowback
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has at least 40,000 reasons to worry about the aftermath of a potential attack on Iran. That's the rough number of U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East, in bases from Bahrain to Syria and points in between. Not to mention U.S. citizens who live and work in the region. They would be vulnerable to counterattacks that could involve Iranian ballistic missiles, drones or terrorism should the United States join Israel in its ongoing attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran can strike 'all of them,' a U.S. Defense official said. The threat isn't theoretical. Iran launched 13 ballistic missiles at U.S. troops in Iraq in January 2020. That attack, which wounded about 100 U.S. troops, followed the U.S. drone strike that killed Gen. Qasem Soleimani, leader of Iran's elite Quds Force, part of the country's hardline paramilitary Revolutionary Guard Corps. On June 18, President Donald Trump didn't dispel the possibilty of entering the war. 'I may do it. I may not do it," Trump told reporters June 18. "I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do." More: 'Nobody knows what I'm going to do': Trump says he hasn't decided whether to strike Iran If the United States does attack Iran's nuclear facilities, a likely weapon is the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a bomb that can burrow deep into the earth before unleashing a huge explosion. More: How does a bunker-buster bomb work? A closer look at the GBU-57 This week, to bolster protection for Americans in the Middle East, the Pentagon has begun shifting more firepower to the region, including the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier strike group, which is days away from arriving. Those ships will join others capable of shooting down ballistic missiles. The added warplanes from the Nimitz and others in the region would be able to deliver a devastating response in Iran if they did attack U.S. troops, according to the U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly. Asked whether there were adequate protections in place to repel an Iranian attack, a Pentagon spokesperson pointed to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's X post on June 16. Hegseth noted the 'deployment of additional capabilities' to the region and that the protection of U.S. troops is 'our top priority.' On Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Hegseth told the Senate Armed Services Committee that 'maximum protection' measures were in place. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat on the committee, said he found Hegseth unconvincing. 'I was really disappointed that he failed to offer greater assurance that we have taken active measures to protect U.S. personnel, both military and civilian, in the event of a strike by the United States,' Blumenthal said in an interview. 'I asked specifically about drones and possibility of using them against American targets. I had no real comfort that there are adequate plans to stop or deflect such attacks.' Dispatching the Nimitz strike group is a good step, Blumenthal said. But he questioned the ships' ability to stop terrorist attacks or swarms of drones. Blumenthal also noted that Iran may have the ability to mount drone attacks from within the United States. He pointed to Ukraine's devastating drone attack on Russian warplanes deep inside its border. Israel, too, used drones smuggled into Iran as part of its attack. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: 40,000 U.S. troops at risk if Iran responds to an attack
The Hill
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hill
The US should aid Israel against Iran — but it should not enter their war
As Israel continues to pummel Iran, President Trump and his team confront three major issues. First, should the U.S. continue to support the Israeli operation, both with materiel supplies and with defenses against Iranian missile and drone attacks? And, for that matter, should Washington defend Israel in the U.N. and veto any Security Council resolution that seeks to halt Israel's attacks? Second, should Washington support any effort on Israel's part to effect regime change in whatever form it comes — including the assassination of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? Third, should America enter the war in support of Israel? Israeli aircraft cannot carry the 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator, the 'bunker buster' bomb that could be dropped on the Fordo nuclear development site. Only American bombers can do so. Several B-2 bombers are currently stationed at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and could reach any target in Iran. Having echoed Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1943 demand for Germany's 'unconditional surrender,' should Trump order the bombers to hit the deep underground site? It was Iran, not Israel, that initiated this conflict. For the last two decades, Khamenei has asserted that Israel 'will not exist' within 25 years. He has repeatedly termed Israel a 'cancer' — most recently in February 2024, when he called the Jewish State a 'cancerous tumor' that must be destroyed. Other Iranian leaders have spoken of razing Israel to the ground and targeting major Israeli cities. Indeed, two months after Khamenei's most recent statement, on April 13, 2024, Iran fired about 300 missiles at Israel, ostensibly in retaliation for the Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, Syria; there had been no direct attacks between the countries until then. It was only after that attack that Israel retaliated directly. Israel has every reason to take the Iranian leadership at its word. No one took Hitler seriously when he called for the destruction of the Jews in 'Mein Kampf,' or when he first took power in Germany in 1933. Khamenei is serious, and, given America's commitment to Israel's survival, the U.S. must take him seriously. Defending Israel against air attacks would be no different from America's ongoing defense of that country in the face of continuous missile attacks by the Tehran-sponsored Houthis. An Iranian nuclear capability therefore poses a threat not only to the Israeli government, but also to the Israeli people. No other state — not North Korea, not Russia — has threatened to wipe another people off the map. And given the threat to Israel's very existence that an Iranian nuclear capability would pose — regardless of whether Iran acquires the bomb in six weeks, six months or six years — it would also be appropriate for Washington to let Israel finish off the job against Tehran's nuclear project. But regime change is another matter. It is unwise for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to call for the ayatollahs to be unseated. It would be even less wise for Washington to support him in that effort. Regime change has worked in the past, but only when literally millions of American and allied forces on the ground defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. More recent attempts at regime change have ended in or will end in failure — not only America's long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also Russia's war against Ukraine. It is up to the Iranian people to overthrow their regime — not to outsiders whose efforts might actually unite the local population and strengthen their support for a regime they largely despise. Finally, the White House should resist the temptation to authorize U.S. forces to attack Fordo or any Iranian target. It is true that even President Barack Obama promised never to let Iran acquire a nuclear weapon and stated that 'all options' — including military — were 'on the table.' Nevertheless, Washington could obtain 'unconditional surrender' at the negotiating table, as long as Israel's onslaught continues without interruption. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has asserted that Iran is 'committed to diplomacy.' The White House should seize the opportunity for talks and demand that Iran completely dismantle its nuclear program. Some would argue that Iran should be allowed to enrich uranium at low levels, at least until a so-called regional consortium establishes a joint international nuclear enrichment facility. Such a proposal essentially echoes the Obama approach, which, as the International Atomic Energy Agency's recent censure of Iran demonstrates, was an abject failure. Iran would simply cheat again, as it has for 20 years. For that reason, the White House should accept nothing less than the total termination of Iran's nuclear project. However, for the U.S to bomb any target inside Iran is another matter. Better to leave it to the Israelis to figure out how to disrupt the activities at Fordo. A country that could paralyze Hezbollah by means of exploding pagers, and that has so deeply penetrated Iran that it has been able to wipe out the country's top echelon of military officers and nuclear scientists, can surely devise some means of dealing with Fordo. Of course Netanyahu wants to drag America into the war. He has spent decades trying to press Washington to join Israel in attacking Iran. He has not succeeded to do so in the past, and he should not succeed now. Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987.
Spectator
a day ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Striking Fordow will not solve the Iran problem
The world is watching Donald Trump to see if he will green light the use of one of America's most deadly weapons, the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (Mop), to destroy Iran's underground nuclear facilities at Fordow. As a man with a seemingly inexhaustible need for attention, this is a gratifying position for him to be in. But a potentially dangerous one for the rest of us. 'Trump doesn't have a taste for war,' someone said to me recently. 'War's bad for business.' This appears to be true so far; we have certainly seen Trump try his hand at peace-making in Gaza, Ukraine and Iran with consistently poor results. But history is full of examples of far more principled men than Trump acquiring a taste for war through a thirst for power and money. And we all know what Donald thinks about power and money. If this war, and America's involvement in it, could be presented to Trump as a step towards peace and money and more power, then we should not be surprised in the slightest if he says, 'Ok. Go ahead.' We hear the 'no surrender' messages coming out of Tehran (notwithstanding rumours of Khamenei's death overnight). It seems then a question of when not if America joins in. But striking Fordow will not solve the problem that this war has created. Iran's threats to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (hidden among the news cycle) give us a glimpse of the real pariah state in Tehran that might follow; unmoored from global norms, driven by a strong sense of vengeance and injustice and still limping on somehow. And with not an IAEA weapons inspector in sight, very much like the situation we have in North Korea. A decisive defeat for the Islamic Republic is now the only option left for America and Israel, for anything less than this would almost certainly give the world yet another broken nation in a troubled region full of conflict. Does Trump's administration possess the strategic attention span or will require to construct a strategy to rebuild what he has destroyed? Not a chance. And especially not now that the USA doesn't have a civilian aid agency (previously USAID) through whom this essential work would be carried out. Israel has no appetite or expertise for that sort of thing, either. This scenario is what worries the Gulf countries, of whom Saudi Arabia is the most prosperous and diplomatically powerful. Had you asked Riyadh four years ago if they'd have liked to see a non-Islamic Republic Iran, they'd have said yes. There is no love lost between Tehran and Riyadh, placing to one side the petro-dollar fuelled hiatus when the Shah was in power. But from Riyadh to Ankara, to Bahrain and beyond, the fear now is that perhaps the price to pay for removing Khamenei (decades of instability and conflict) is simply too high, no matter sectarian fault lines. And so, they are caught between desiring a swift end to the conflict and knowing that swift ends to conflicts in this region are illusory goals that belong to the fevered imagination of people like Netanyahu and Trump. And these views are distorted by the fog of war and ego respectively.
