Latest news with #PeterHegseth
Indian Express
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Operation ‘Midnight Hammer': 5 key takeaways from the Pentagon briefing on US bombing Iran
Senior Pentagon officials on Sunday gave a media briefing on 'Operation Midnight Hammer', the codename given to the US' precision strikes on three of Iran's nuclear facilities hours earlier, which marked a dramatic escalation in the Middle East and brought Washington and Tehran relations to a historic low since the Iranian Revolution. US Secretary of Defence Peter Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine on Sunday reiterated the Washington's policy on Tehran's nuclear programme and revealed new details on the covert operation, which was conducted well before the two-week self-imposed deadline set by Trump. The covert operation involved the use of over 125 aircraft and deception tactics, and the fleet included seven B-2 stealth bombers, the press briefing revealed. The US strike targeted three of Iran's most sensitive nuclear facilities — Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Natanz, Tehran's primary enrichment site, reportedly housed 13,500 operational centrifuges, capable of purifying uranium to 5 per cent, and over 160 advanced centrifuges capable of purifying uranium up to 60 per cent — a small step away from 90 per cent (weapons-grade purity). The Isfahan facility housed three Chinese-built research reactors. It also included the Uranium Conversion Facility, which converts 'yellowcake' uranium to uranium hexafluoride (the raw input for centrifuges). The Fordow enrichment site housed 2,000 operational centrifuges. What sets this site apart from the other facilities damaged in Israeli barrages since June 13 is its depth: built into the side of a mountain and buried approximately 260 to 300 feet underground, it is effectively impervious to conventional air strikes. Amid the Israeli bombardment, the Fordow nuclear facility stood unscathed. This site required the direct involvement of the US, which houses the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOP) in its arsenal – a 30,000-pound 'bunker buster' capable of destroying it. The Pentagon said these strikes were conducted to 'severely degrade Iran's nuclear programme.' The covert op featured seven B-2 Spirit bombers – with two crew members in each – flying from Missouri, backed by over 125 aircrafts, including 4th and 5th generation fighter jets (as decoys), surveillance planes, and aerial refuelers. The B-2s dropped 14 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (GBU-57s) on Natanz and Fordow, while a US guided missile submarine launched more than 24 Tomahawk missiles at Isfahan in a coordinated strike. The mission was conducted during a timeframe of 18 hours and involved multiple in-flight refuellings and deception tactics such as decoys and airspace clearing. All three nuclear facilities were struck between 6:40 pm and 7:05 pm (Eastern Time), with the Tomahawks delivering the final blow at Isfahan. In what marked the longest B-2 mission since 2001 and the first operational employment of the GBU-57, the White House maintained complete secrecy. Describing the operation as 'highly classified', Caine said that very few people in Washington were aware of the 'timing and nature' of the plan. Iran's air defenses failed to respond, and no US aircraft was fired upon. Caine concluded that the US was able to retain the element of surprise. Hegseth said the sites were 'obliterated,' and warned Tehran against retaliation. Hegseth described the strikes as 'bold and brilliant,' adding that it showed the world that 'American deterrence is back' and reaffirmed Washington's stance on the enrichment programme — that 'Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.' He also called the operation a 'spectacular success,' highlighting that no Iranian troops or civilians were targeted. 'As President Trump has stated, 'the US does not seek war', but… we will act swiftly and decisively when our people, our partner, or our interests are threatened,' Hegseth said, to pressure Tehran to come to the negotiation table. Following the attack, President Trump gave a press briefing from Washington, reiterating his previous calls that 'Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.' He warned Tehran against carrying out retaliatory attacks, saying that 'there will either be peace or tragedy for Iran, far greater than what we have witnessed over the last eight days.' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed Washington's move and, in a video message addressed to the US President, said, 'Your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities, with the awesome and righteous might of the United States, will change history.' Iran's Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said, 'the US entering the war is 100% to its own detriment.' Later in the day, Iran's Parliament approved plans to close the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway between the Gulf of Persia and the Gulf of Oman, responsible for 20 per cent of global trade. The Supreme National Security Council, the highest security body in the state apparatus, is yet to take the final call, Major General Kowsari, a member of the National Security Committee, said.
Straits Times
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Straits Times
US strikes Iran: What Trump needs to do to avoid embroilment in a wider regional war
The Fordow uranium enrichment plant near Qom, Iran, after US strikes on June 22. PHOTO: REUTERS Follow our live coverage here. – The US strikes on Iran's nuclear installations had devastated its nuclear programmes, but the mission, codenamed Operation Midnight Hammer, did not target Iranian troops or the country's people, said US Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth. Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
South China Morning Post
07-06-2025
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
Trump, Hegseth, Rubio: a triple threat to global stability
The Indo-Pacific cannot afford to become collateral damage in America's descent from diplomacy into dysfunction – a decline embodied by Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth's sabre-rattling and Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Marco Rubio's overreach. South Korea , At the recent Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore , Hegseth stunned Asia's defence and diplomatic elite by demanding that Indo-Pacific countries raise defence spending to 5 per cent of gross domestic product to 'counter China'. The proposal was not just tone-deaf; it was combustible. No country in the region, save for outliers, comes close to that threshold. Japan Australia – and certainly Southeast Asia, where military spending averages just 1.5 per cent of GDP – are in no position to meet such a demand. What Hegseth delivered was not a strategy, but an ultimatum. And in doing so, he risked catalysing the very action-reaction cycle Washington once sought to avoid: a region arming in anticipation, while Beijing accelerates its military posture in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait. Asean , already reeling from intensifying great power rivalries, finds itself caught in the crossfire of an American foreign policy that confuses coercion with clarity, and escalation with influence. Former US president Richard Nixon and then-secretary of state Henry Kissinger wielded ambiguity to signal strategic intent. By contrast, Hegseth, Rubio and US President Donald Trump offer only confusion and contradiction – wielded like a cudgel, fracturing the very alliances they claim to reinforce. In this environment, diplomacy is no longer the art of restraining power. It has become the art of surviving it. A cabinet without guardrails The Hegseth doctrine – if it can be called one – illustrates a deeper unravelling within Trump's second administration: the near-total removal of institutional counterweights. The National Security Council is diminished. The State Department's career corps, once the backbone of US diplomacy, has been hollowed out. What remains is a cabinet of loyalists, not strategists.
Malay Mail
06-06-2025
- Business
- Malay Mail
Drones for peace, not provocation: Asean's path to a smarter security architecture — Phar Kim Beng
JUNE 6 — The call for Asean to establish a joint and comprehensive drone strategy — one that is integrated from end to end — is not only timely but necessary. As highlighted in The Edge Malaysia's recent analysis, unmanned aerial systems (UAS) are no longer the preserve of great powers. Their utility spans civilian, commercial, and military spheres, and for South-east Asia — home to some of the world's busiest sea lanes and most porous borders — drones are fast becoming a critical component of future security management. Asean member states must recognise that the fragmented and ad hoc development of drone capabilities within the region leaves the bloc vulnerable — not only to transnational threats such as piracy, human trafficking, and smuggling — but also to external criticisms that Asean lacks the cohesion to defend its own strategic commons. The urgency of a region-wide drone policy becomes clearer when viewed through the lens of Washington's growing dissatisfaction with Asean defence spending. US Secretary of Defence Peter Hegseth has recently urged Asian allies to increase their defence expenditures to 5 per cent of GDP, a threshold that, while theoretically aligned with Washington's Indo-Pacific deterrence posture, is both economically unrealistic and politically hazardous for most Asean states. This call, if implemented blindly, would spark an action-reaction spiral in the region. Smaller Asean economies cannot afford such a massive reallocation of fiscal resources without harming their development priorities. Worse, this could inadvertently ignite a regional arms race, thereby undermining Asean's founding mission of peace, prosperity, and neutrality. Instead, the development of a collective Asean drone strategy offers a cost-effective and scalable alternative to brute-force military spending. Through a shared doctrine that standardises surveillance, patrol, data sharing, maritime mapping, and airspace management, Asean can boost deterrence while avoiding dangerous escalation. The writer says Asean should build a joint drone strategy — a smarter, scalable response to regional threats that avoids triggering an arms race and keeps the bloc's strategic autonomy intact. — Picture By Raymond Manuel To be effective, this drone framework must be rooted in interoperability, indigenous capability-building, and mutual trust. Member states like Singapore and Malaysia already possess considerable UAS capabilities, while others such as Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia are rapidly catching up. By pooling these assets under a regionally coordinated command and information-sharing protocol, Asean can maximise coverage across its extensive maritime zones — from the Malacca Strait to the Sulu Sea. Such an initiative would also reinforce the Asean Political-Security Community (APSC), giving substance to its goal of a 'rules-based, people-oriented, and people-centred community.' It can also extend to civil protection tasks, such as monitoring illegal fishing, forest fires, and climate-sensitive zones, thereby creating a whole-of-region ecosystem for drone use that aligns with both security and sustainability goals. Moreover, by presenting a united front in drone governance, Asean can push back against external dependency and technological coercion — such as restrictions from major drone-exporting countries — or the emergence of dual-use dilemmas, where drones are co-opted for foreign intelligence-gathering or cyber espionage. To avoid the mistakes of over-militarisation, Asean must anchor its drone policy in transparency and track 1.5 diplomacy, regularly engaging China, India, the GCC, the EU, and the US in technical dialogues and code-of-conduct discussions. This enhances confidence-building measures (CBMs), prevents incidents at sea or in airspace, and protects Asean's strategic autonomy. It is also worth emphasising that a joint drone strategy is not an arms race by another name. Rather, it is the embodiment of smart security spending, one that enables regional collaboration and coordination, without falling into the trap of Cold War-era defence spirals. Unlike tanks and submarines, drones offer flexible, mobile, and precise surveillance with a fraction of the financial and environmental costs. Indeed, Asean's ability to operationalise drone cooperation may become the litmus test of its broader institutional relevance in the evolving Indo-Pacific order. The region cannot afford to be seen as inert or indifferent — especially at a time when external powers are once again pressuring South-east Asia to choose sides or increase defence postures beyond sustainable levels. In conclusion, Asean needs to own the narrative of responsible innovation and cooperative defence. Establishing a comprehensive, integrated drone policy will not only address real security threats like piracy and human trafficking — it will also deflect unwarranted criticism from actors like Secretary Hegseth, whose sweeping demand for 5 per cent defence spending is deeply out of sync with the development goals and fiscal realities of Asean states. Rather than escalate regional tensions, Asean can show the world how a low-cost, high-return, technologically progressive security model can preserve peace, promote sovereignty, and reinforce the foundations of an integrated and inclusive security community. *Phar Kim Beng, PhD is professor of Asean Studies, International Islamic University Malaysia and a Senior Visiting Fellow, University of Cambridge. **This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Forbes
03-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
An Arms Race With China Won't Make Us Safer
WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 21: U.S. Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth listens as U.S. President Donald ... More Trump delivers remarks in the Oval Office of the White House on March 21, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump announced the Next Generation of Air Dominance (NGDA) program, the F-47, the sixth-generation high-tech Air Force fighter to succeed the F-22 Raptor. (Photo by) Fretting about – and exaggerating – the military threat posed by China is a cottage industry in official Washington. Whether it is performing mathematical contortions to explain how a country that spends two and one-half times less than the United States is in fact surging ahead, or bad mouthing America's manufacturing and science prowess relative to China, the message is the same – the United States needs to spend more and do more if it is to match China militarily in the years to come. But in reality, '[a] Meanwhile, a recent piece in the Wall Street Journal offered a bracing look at the relative economic prowess of the two superpowers, suggesting that Beijing has the lead – or soon will – in shipbuilding, basic manufacturing, industrial robots, and essential raw materials. The conclusion: 'If the U.S. faced a major conflict, it would need to reorient industries and workers, as it did in the two world wars of the 20th century.' But security isn't all about production capacity. For example, it doesn't mean much when it comes to reducing the risk of a nuclear conflict. The United States has an estimated stockpile of 3,700 nuclear warheads, versus 680 possessed by China. It's true that China has been building up its nuclear arsenal in recent years, but building more nuclear weapons in response would be a dangerous misuse of scarce funds. A 2022 study led by climate scientists at Rutgers University found that even a modest nuclear exchange, involving as few as 100 nuclear weapons, could so damage the planet's ability to grow food that it could result in over 5 billion casualties over time. The key to human survival is not piling up nuclear weapons, it is finding diplomatic means to prevent such a world-ending conflict from ever coming about. Given this stark reality, the Pentagon's quest to build a new generation of nuclear weapons is misguided. As for waging a conventional arms race with China, at immense cost, the question is, for what purpose? A U.S.-China war over Taiwan would be a disaster for all concerned, even if it did not escalate to the nuclear level. There would be heavy losses on each side, and a huge blow to the global economy in general and Taiwan's economy in particular. And there is no guarantee that a war between two nuclear-armed powers would not escalate into a full-blown nuclear confrontation. Washington needs to spend less time preparing for a war over Taiwan, and more time figuring out how to prevent one. That means coming to a common understanding with China on the potential future status of Taiwan and how that might be achieved. Just such an understanding undergirds the 'one China policy' that has kept the peace in the Taiwan strait for five decades. If there are concerns about China's relative production capacity, the answer is to invest in the overall strength of the U.S. economy, not to waste talent and resources on a narrowly focused arms race that will further drain talent and funds that are needed to address existential challenges like climate change and potential pandemics. Dealing with the non-traditional global threats cited above will require cooperation with China, not confrontation. Washington and Beijing don't need to be the closest of friends, but they do need to come to an understanding on how to protect their respective populations from the most urgent threats we face, threats that cannot be solved by building more nuclear weapons, or aircraft carriers, or robotic weapons. We need a fresh approach to relations with China, not a policy that harkens back to the Cold War, much less World War II. There's too much riding on the outcome to be bound by outdated notions that will only make war more likely.
