Latest news with #Fordow
NHK
3 hours ago
- Automotive
- NHK
New satellite imagery of Iran's Fordow nuclear site released
US firm Maxar Technologies has released satellite imagery of Iran's Fordow nuclear site, which was recently targeted by a US bombing. The imagery of the area captured on Friday shows vehicles and equipment near holes believed to be airstrike craters. Those vehicles and equipment were not seen in the imagery taken last Sunday right after the attack. The company says several excavators and bulldozers are seen moving dirt. It says efforts are underway to repair the main access road to the nuclear facility.
Wall Street Journal
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
WSJ Opinion: Trump, the Media and a Cease-Fire Amid Iran Talks
As talks with Iran get underway, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth condemns the news media's misleading coverage of the bunker bomb strikes on Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, amid a mission briefing from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Caine. Photo:/Kevin Wolf/AP
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘You have been the worst': Secretary Hegseth blasts former Fox colleague
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had harsh words for his former Fox News colleague, who asked him a question on Thursday about the Trump administration's recent strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. Jennifer Griffin, Fox's chief national security correspondent, asked Hegseth about the effectiveness of the strikes and if he was certain there was highly enriched uranium inside the Fordow mountain in Iran. She referenced satellite photos that showed more than a dozen trucks at the site two days in advance. 'Are you certain none of that highly enriched uranium was moved?' Griffin asked Hegseth. Hegseth, a former host on 'Fox & Friends,' responded by criticizing Griffin and her reporting. 'Of course we're watching every single aspect. But Jennifer, you've been about the worst, the one who misrepresents the most intentionally what the president says,' Hegseth said. In response, Griffin defended her reporting. 'I was the first to describe the B-2 bombers, the refueling, the entire mission with great accuracy,' she said. 'So I take issue with that.' Hegseth then said that the strikes on Iran were 'the most complex and secretive military operation in history.' 'I appreciate you acknowledging that this is the most successful mission based on operational security that this department has done since you've been here,' he told Griffin, 'and I appreciate that.' Fox News chief political analyst Brit Hume defended his colleague and said that Hegseth's comments were 'unfair.' 'Her professionalism, her knowledge, her experience at the Pentagon is unmatched, and I have had and still have the greatest regard for her,' Hume said on the network. 'The attack on her was unfair.' Following the U.S.'s strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities on Saturday, President Donald Trump claimed that the strikes 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear program. The following week, CNN and The New York Times reported that the strikes had set Iran's nuclear program back only by a few months. Trump, for his part, lashed out at the outlets on Truth Social, with one post claiming that their reporting on Iran was 'fake.' 'FAKE NEWS REPORTERS FROM CNN & THE NEW YORK TIMES SHOULD BE FIRED, IMMEDIATELY!!!' Trump wrote in another post. 'BAD PEOPLE WITH EVIL INTENTIONS!!!'' The New York Times reported on Thursday that Trump is threatening to sue the paper and CNN. A personal lawyer for Trump sent a letter to The New York Times, stating that the paper had damaged Trump's reputation, according to the paper. The lawyer demanded the Times 'retract and apologize for' their piece on Iran, The New York Times reported. 'No retraction is needed,' responded the New York Times's lawyer, David McCraw. 'No apology will be forthcoming. We told the truth to the best of our ability. We will continue to do so.' Trump admin appeals federal judge's decision rejecting ban of foreign Harvard students 2028 Dem frontrunner beating Kamala Harris has 0% Black support, poll finds Chicopee's next budget is 6% hike from this year. Here's where spending has increased Trump says he's terminating trade talks with Canada over tax on technology firms Mass. lawmakers get a deal; gun for first on-time (ish) state budget in years Read the original article on MassLive.
Daily Mail
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Opinion: Iran's 'missing' uranium and the plan to hide it
More than five days after President Donald Trump ordered unprecedented US strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities, Americans are just now starting to receive the first sober analysis of the attacks. Though the assessments are not coming from the US government and, especially, not from the mainstream American media. Over the past few days, many in the press have been chasing their tails over a classified Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report, which was disgracefully leaked by someone inside the Pentagon , Congress , or the US intel community. Such a preliminary report, probably based primarily on satellite imagery and geospatial analysis, is considered a 'low confidence' assessment, for no one can determine with any high degree of certainty the status of a clandestine nuclear facility buried deep underground from images taken from outer space. Indeed, the IAEC is an Israeli government authority, but the IAEC has every incentive to understate, not overstate, the impact of the US strikes on the underground uranium enrichment plant at Fordow – the crown jewel of the Iranian nuclear program. Their findings are supported by other Israeli intelligence agencies. Surely, the Israelis would be the first to advocate for additional strikes against Iranian nuclear targets if they believed a threat still existed. Logically, if they exaggerated the damage caused by the US attacks that would undermine their predicate for attacking Iran in the future to destroy any additional capabilities or nuclear weapons scientists. But according to the IAEC, the job is done. 'The devastating US strike on Fordow destroyed the site's critical infrastructure and rendered the enrichment facility inoperable,' read an IAEC statement released Wednesday. 'We assess that the American strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, combined with Israeli strikes on other elements of Iran's military nuclear program, has set back Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons by many years.' That Israeli assessment, however, comes with a caveat. The IAEC noted that the devastation of the Iranian nuke program can 'continue indefinitely' if Iran 'does not get access to nuclear material.' If Tehran was stashing enriched uranium outside of the facilities at Fordow or Natanz, which were both hit by American GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bunker buster bombs , then they may have the ability to reconstitute their program, which brings us to the latest nuclear red herring. Some in the media are raising alarm over publicly available satellite imagery that shows a line of cargo trucks parked outside Fordow in the days before the US strikes. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was pressed on this during a Pentagon news conference on Thursday. 'We're looking at all aspects of intelligence and making sure we have a sense of what was where,' he said. I'm certain that both the US and Israeli intel have been looking into this. But I have serious doubts that the Iranians would have moved nuclear material out of Fordow in the days before the strike. It's possible but it is far more likely that they were moving enrichment uranium or centrifuge parts into the heavily fortified mountain fortress. The Iranians, fearing additional Israeli attacks, would most likely have transferred any valuable materials into Fordow, knowing that the Israelis lacked the bombs capable of penetrating the rock shield around the facility and doubting that Trump would order a strike. Additionally, Tehran is well aware that Israel and the US have intelligence dominance over their entire country and would be closely monitoring the comings and goings at Fordow. Would the Iranians really have risked loading enrichment uranium into trucks only for them to be tracked and destroyed by their enemies? The idea strains credulity. Finally, it would be a massive, unimaginable intelligence failure by Israel and the US, after demonstrating extraordinary and exquisite operational skills, to simply forget to monitor a line of cargo trucks leaving Fordow. With that said, the Iranians were likely storing at least some enriched material in locations not destroyed in recent strikes. The third Iranian nuclear facility targeted in the US attack was the Isfahan site, which was hit by Tomahawk missiles, likely leaving deep tunnels intact. If material was kept there, it may still be there. That is why it is now critically important for the US to demand that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei agree to full, transparent and verifiable nuclear disarmament as part of any ceasefire agreement. And no deal would be worth the paper that it is printed on without the threat of American and Israeli military might to enforce it. There's got to be a clear signal from President Trump that any indication that the Iranians are moving materials or rebuilding or hiding weaponization activities will result in an overwhelming US response. And if the US is not prepared to strike again, they need to give the Israelis the green light act and threaten the regime that any retaliation against Israel carries the risk of a US military response.
Mail & Guardian
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Mail & Guardian
Diplomacy is not dead, the world has just forgotten how to use it
A satellite image shows the Fordow nuclear facility in Iran in this handout image dated June 14, 2025 (MAXAR TECHNOLOGY/HANDOUT VIA REUTERS) Last week, the United States launched a large-scale aerial attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, dropping 30 000-pound 'bunker buster' bombs on enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. The Strait of Hormuz has been . The question now is not whether diplomacy is dead in the Middle East, but whether anyone remembers what it looks like. And if they don't, we in South Africa should remind them. Just over three decades ago, our country faced what many believed was an irreversible path to civil war. Between 1990 and 1994, nearly 15 000 South Africans were killed in And yet, the leaders of this country – President FW de Klerk and Nelson Mandela, men from utterly different histories – chose dialogue over destruction. Together, they chose peace. They didn't just sign a document, they built the architecture of peace from scratch. They negotiated an What is happening now in Iran and Israel has its own unique causes. Since the collapse of the The US Israel, seeing this as an existential threat, launched pre-emptive strikes on The UN Charter, under If this sounds familiar, it's because history has shown us again and again what happens when diplomacy is abandoned and self-defence becomes synonymous with brutal force. But force is not policy. Bombs do not build stability. We know this because we have lived it. South Africa's transition succeeded not because we had the perfect Constitution waiting in a drawer or because our society had magically healed. It succeeded because both sides accepted that dialogue was less costly than bloodshed. They knew that without talks, there would be nothing left to govern. The But again and again, our leaders returned to the table. They understood that the process – imperfect, fragile, maddening – was more powerful than any one grievance. And this is the same lesson that must be applied in the Middle East. We must believe that there is nothing inevitable about war between Israel and Iran. Just as the Yes, Oslo ultimately failed. But its failure was not a repudiation of diplomacy; it was a failure of political courage to sustain it. The same can be said of the JCPOA. It was an imperfect but effective mechanism to prevent nuclear escalation. Iran complied . The international community verified . But it was unilaterally abandoned in 2018. The current crisis is the direct result. We know that diplomacy is not a naïve ideal. It is the first principle of international law. The Under And we have, over the years, seen other nations learn this. These were not miracles. They were choices. What would it take for the Middle East to choose peace? First, open channels unconditionally. Mandela Quiet diplomacy – through back-channels, third-party intermediaries, or regional platforms – is not weakness. It is how war is prevented. Second, include all parties. In South Africa, the ANC, the National Party, the IFP and even fringe groups were eventually brought into dialogue. In the Middle East, that means involving not just the US, Iran and Israel, but also the Gulf States, Turkey and actors like Hezbollah that hold sway over real conditions on the ground. Exclusion breeds sabotage. Inclusion creates accountability. Third, restore or renegotiate the nuclear deal. The JCPOA's technical architecture can still serve as a basis for limiting enrichment, lifting sanctions and guaranteeing regional security. The cost of inaction (or even indifference) is far greater than the political difficulty of re-engagement. Fourth, create guarantees. Whether through the UN or a new regional mechanism, a peace framework must include verification, economic support and political cover for leaders taking risks . Finally, appeal to people, not just governments. Leaders must prepare their populations for compromise. In South Africa, that meant referendums, unity talks and mass civic engagement (like the United Democratic Front). It was not easy. But it worked. The FW de Klerk Foundation believes in constitutionalism, dialogue and international law. We do not pretend that every context is the same, or that South Africa's path is easily copied. But we do know that peace is possible, even when it seems impossible. That truth is not negotiable. And it is not too late. Let the world remember that the best outcomes are built not from domination, but from diplomacy. Let the Middle East remember that peace is not the absence of war, but the presence of dialogue. And let the leaders of today remember that if Mandela and de Klerk could forge a new country from the ashes of division, then surely, even in the rubble of conflict, nations can find a path back to peace. Ismail Joosub is Manager of Constitutional Advancement at the FW de Klerk Foundation.
