Latest news with #B2
Sky News AU
32 minutes ago
- Politics
- 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
- Politics
- 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
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Sky News AU
'Flat-footed': Prime Minister Anthony Albanese convenes National Security Committee 24 hours after US strikes on Iran
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has convened a meeting of the National Security Committee of Cabinet almost 24 hours after the United States conducted strikes against Iran. The committee includes Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, Defence Minister Richard Marles, and other cabinet members. Mr Albanese has not made a public appearance since US President Donald Trump confirmed the strikes on Sunday. Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Penny Wong finally expressed support for the US attacks on Monday after initially failing to back Australia's closest ally. 'What happens now matters. We do not want to see escalation. We call for diplomacy, de-escalation and dialogue,' Ms Wong said at a doorstop press conference on Monday. 'The world does not want to a full-scale war in the Middle East.' Ms Wong also told reporters that Australia was 'not a central player' in the Israel-Iran conflict. Two Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) planes landed in Dubai on Sunday ahead of repatriation flights for Australians stranded in Israel. According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) there were about 2,900 Australians in Iran and 1,300 in Israel who were seeking to leave the region. Acting shadow foreign affairs minister Andrew Hastie, in response, criticised the Albanese government for being "flat-footed" in its response to the conflict on Monday. 'I think, though, what yesterday demonstrated was that the prime minister's flat-footed," he told the ABC. "His instincts aren't great on this, and he should have called a NSC (National Security Council) meeting yesterday for an event of such significance." Shadow competition minister Dave Sharma also told Sky News that Australia had made itself 'irrelevant' through the conflict. 'We had (Defence Minister) Richard Marles… calling for de-escalation at the very same time, almost, that US B2 bombers… were striking nuclear targets in Iran,' he said. 'No one listens to our views seriously anymore on these issues, particularly in the Middle East.' Just hours before President Donald Trump confirmed the US had destroyed Iran's nuclear facilities, Mr Marles had called for 'de-escalation'. "The Iranian nuclear ballistic missile program is most definitely a threat to the peace and stability of not only the Middle East," he told Sky News on Sunday. 'We have used our voice to urge de-escalation. And that's our position in respect of both the Iranian program, but also, more specifically, in respect of this conflict.' Mr Marles was asked if he was having '$1 each way' by not explicitly supporting the US bombing of Iranian nuclear sites, prohibiting their access to world-ending technology. The Defence Minister stumbled over his answer as he attempted to explain the government's stance on the matter. 'Uh, uh. Um, I'm... articulating the Australian government's position. That's the only thing I can articulate,' Mr Marles said. 'We are making it clear that we see that the Iranian program represents a threat to the peace and stability of the region and the world... 'What we're saying in relation to this specific conflict is that we are worried about its prospect for escalation.' Roughly 24 hours later, Ms Wong insisted the government was 'very clear' in its support for US strikes against Iran. 'Australia has been clear, along with the international community, that Iran cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon,' she told reporters at Parliament House. 'We support action to prevent that from occurring and this is what this was.' Her comments mark a notable shift in tone from the carefully worded government statement released on Sunday. That initial statement did not include any reference to Australia 'supporting' the US action.
9 News
8 hours ago
- Politics
- 9 News
'Obliterated' or 'quite superficial'? What's really happened to Iran's nuclear sites
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here Warplanes. Submarines. Cruise missiles. Bombs that weigh more than 13 tons. After initially favouring diplomacy, US President Donald Trump resorted to an extraordinary use of force against Iran on Saturday night, striking three of the regime's key nuclear sites. Trump claimed Iran's nuclear facilities had been "obliterated," but some Iranian officials downplayed the impact of the strikes – just as they did when Israel first struck Iran's facilities on June 13. A file photo from inside the Fordow facility that was released by Iran in 2020. (EPA/AAP) With satellite imagery of the overnight strikes beginning to emerge, here's what we know about the damage the US inflicted on Iran's nuclear program. Fordow is Iran's most important nuclear enrichment facility, buried deep inside a mountain to guard it from attacks. The main halls are believed to be some 80 to 90 metres below ground. Analysts have long said that the US was the only military in the world with the kind of bomb required to burrow that deeply – the enormous, 13-ton GBU-57. The US used six B2 bombers to drop 12 of those "bunker-busting" bombs on the site, a US official told CNN. A CNN analysis of satellite imagery showed that the US strikes left at least six large craters at the Fordow site, pointing to the use of bunker-busting bombs. The images, captured by Maxar, showed six separate impact craters in two nearby locations at Fordow. The craters are visible along a ridge running over the underground complex. Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, told CNN that there had been a "direct kinetic impact" on Fordow, but that it was too soon to judge whether it had caused internal damage to the underground site. "Of course, one cannot exclude (the possibility) that there is significant damage there," he said. A satellite image of Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant in Iran, as it was in 2004. (Maxar Technologies via CNN Newsource) David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), told CNN that the satellite imagery suggested "a considerable amount of damage could have been done to the enrichment hall and adjacent halls that provide support to enrichment." "Total destruction of the underground hall is quite possible," Albright said, while stressing that a full assessment of the damage would take time. NR Jenzen-Jones, a munitions specialist and director of the research company Armament Research Services (ARES), concurred that there were at least six entry points in Fordow following the US strikes. "The larger, central entry holes in the two groupings have irregular shapes and suggest multiple munitions struck the same precise location," Jenzen-Jones told CNN. "This is consistent with the theory of an attack on such a deeply buried target as the Fordow site, which would require multiple precisely delivered, and carefully calibrated, penetrating munitions to essentially 'smash' and blast their way through to the deeper, more protected areas of the site," he added. Satellite imagery also showed significant changes to the color of the mountainside where the facility is housed, indicating a vast area was covered with a layer of grey ash in the aftermath of the strikes. A CNN analysis of imagery collected before the US strikes suggested Iran had taken steps to reinforce the entrances to the tunnels believed to lead into the underground facility, likely in anticipation of a coming strike. That imagery showed dirt piled up in front of at least two of the six entrances. Although Iran's foreign minister said the US had crossed a "very big red line," other Iranian leaders downplayed the strikes' impact. Manan Raeisi, a politician representing the city of Qom, near Fordow, said the damage from the attack was "quite superficial". But Albright, of the ISIS, told CNN that initial reports from Iran "should be dismissed". He said that, during previous rounds of strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, Tehran has soft-pedaled their impact, only for satellite imagery to tell a very different story. Natanz is the site of Iran's largest nuclear enrichment centre and was targeted in Israel's initial attack on Iran on June 13. The site has six above-ground buildings and three underground structures, which house centrifuges – a key technology in nuclear enrichment, turning uranium into nuclear fuel. The above-ground facilities were damaged in Israel's initial attack. The IAEA said the strikes damaged electrical infrastructure at the plant. Although it is not clear if Israel's strikes caused direct damage to the underground facilities, the IAEA said the loss of power to the underground cascade hall "may have damaged the centrifuges there." A file image taken in 2007 of an anti-aircraft gun position at Iran's nuclear enrichment facility in Natanz. (AP) The US also targeted Natanz in its Saturday night operation. A US official said a B2 bomber had dropped two bunker-busting bombs on the site. US Navy submarines also fired 30 TLAM cruise missiles at Natanz and Isfahan, the third Iranian site targeted by the US. A CNN analysis of satellite imagery showed two new craters had emerged at the site, likely caused by the bunker-busting bombs. The craters – one with a diameter of around 5.5 metres, the other around 3.2 metres, according to the Maxar images – sit directly above parts of the complex located underground. The extent of the underground damage at the site is unclear at this time. Isfahan, in central Iran, is home to the country's largest nuclear research complex. The facility was built with support from China and opened in 1984, according to the non-profit Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI). Some 3000 scientists are employed at Isfahan, NTI says, and the site is "suspected of being the centre" of Iran's nuclear program. Following the US strikes, at least 18 destroyed or partially destroyed structures could be seen in satellite imagery, a CNN analysis found. The site was visibly blackened by the degree of rubble thrown up by the strikes. Albright said initial reports suggested that the US also struck tunnel complexes near the Isfahan site, "where they typically store enriched uranium." If confirmed, Albright said this would show that the US was trying to take out Iran's stocks of uranium that had been enriched to 20 per cent and 60 per cent. Weapons-grade uranium is enriched to 90 per cent. CNN could not independently verify reports that tunnel complexes near the Isfahan site were targeted. At a Pentagon news conference yesterday, General Dan Caine, US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a US submarine had "launched more than a dozen Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles against key surface infrastructure targets" at the Isfahan site. Israel Iran Conflict World USA Donald Trump nuclear CONTACT US
The Hindu
9 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Man of war: on Donald Trump is no peacemaker
Donald Trump is no peacemaker. While out of power, he railed against America's 'forever wars'. He claimed that if he were the President, the Ukraine war would never have started. The Trump base blamed America's globalists for its forever wars. Yet, on Mr. Trump's watch, Israel, Washington's closest ally, began attacking Iran on June 13, even as the U.S. and Iran were still in talks. At first, Mr. Trump and his Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that America was not involved in the war, and warned Iran against targeting U.S. soldiers or bases in West Asia. Iran did not. Tehran's response was directed solely at Israel, the aggressor. But a week later, when Israel was struggling to intercept Iranian ballistic missiles, American B2 bombers dropped bunker-busting bombs at Fordow, Iran's most heavily fortified nuclear facility, while U.S. submarines fired Tomahawk missiles at the Natanz and Isfahan nuclear plants. This is now unmistakably Mr. Trump's war. He came to power promising peace. And in just six months, he has become a warmonger and a globalist aggressor. When it comes to wars, the U.S. hardly learns from its mistakes. It invaded Afghanistan in 2001, vowing to destroy al-Qaeda. defeat the Taliban and 'democratise' the country. But 20 years later, it handed it back to the Taliban. It invaded (and destroyed) Iraq in 2003, lying that Baghdad possessed weapons of mass destruction. It invaded (and destabilised) Libya in 2011 in the name of protecting Libyans from their government. In the case of Iran, America's intelligence agencies concluded in March that Iran did not have an active weaponisation programme. Iran once signed a nuclear agreement with the U.S. and other major powers and accepted checks on its nuclear programme. It was Mr. Trump who tore up the deal. Iran again joined talks with the U.S., and it was Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's Prime Minister, who destroyed diplomacy this time. This war will have serious consequences for West Asian stability and global order. Major powers will now have less incentives to trust Mr. Trump's overtures for dialogue. Smaller powers will have greater incentives to join the arms race for their own survival. North Korea will never give up its nukes. If Iran's regime survives this storm, it could seek to rebuild its nuclear programme. If it decides to strike American bases, the war could spiral into something more dangerous. Mr. Netanyahu's unchecked militarism, which is in part aimed at protecting his hold on power at home, has plunged the region into a deep security abyss. Mr. Trump has made it catastrophically worse by turning Israel's war into America's war. Darker days lie ahead for West Asia.
