Latest news with #U.S.CentralCommand
Newsweek
a day ago
- General
- Newsweek
New Satellite Image Shows U.S. Aircraft Carrier Deployed Near Iran
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A new satellite image reveals the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier deployed in the Arabian Sea, near Iran. Newsweek has reached out to the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and Iran's Foreign Ministry for comment. Why It Matters The deployment demonstrates the continuing active U.S. naval presence in the region and preparedness for further conflict despite the ceasefire between Israel and Iran. The aircraft carrier has been operating within the CENTCOM's area of responsibility where it has been operating in April during the U.S. military campaign against Yemen's Houthi group and remained during Israel's war with Iran, in which the United States also conducted strikes against Iranian nuclear sites. Image captured by the European Space Agency's Sentinel-2 satellites on June 28 shows the USS Carl Vinson in the Arabian Sea. Copernicus/Sentinel Hub Image captured by the European Space Agency's Sentinel-2 satellites on June 28 shows the USS Carl Vinson in the Arabian Sea. Copernicus/Sentinel Hub Copernicus/Sentinel Hub What To Know The satellite image capturing the USS Carl Vinson near Iran was identified by open-source intelligence analyst MT Anderson on X, formerly Twitter. Two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers were accompanying the carrier, he added. The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) conducts operations in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. — U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) June 28, 2025 The U.S. Naval Institute's fleet and marine tracker update on Monday revealed the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier, along with Carrier Air Wing 2, conducting operations in the Arabian Sea. The ship was spotted six days after the U.S. hit three major Iranian nuclear facilities — Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan — with B-2 stealth bombers which took off overnight from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, flying over 13,000 miles in a 36-hour-long round trip, according to the Pentagon. On Saturday, the Pentagon announced a $961.6 billion defense budget request. For the U.S. Navy, it revealed plans to build 19 new ships and improve nuclear shipyards, maintaining an overall fleet of 287 ships in 2026. What People Are Saying Open-source intelligence analyst MT Anderson wrote on X: "After playing hide-and-seek since May 4, 2025, the USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) and Carrier Strike Group 1 have finally popped back onto our radar. New satellite imagery from June 28, 2025, confirms their presence in the Northern Arabian Sea... It's a strong reminder that even when quiet, these global assets are always on mission. The reappearance of a full CSG highlights sustained readiness and strategic presence in a key region." U.S. Department of Defense on X, Monday: "Revitalizing the maritime industrial base in the United States ensures a robust naval presence and safeguards our interests at sea. @SECNAV emphasizes that shipbuilding is not just a matter of industry, it's vital for our national security." Iran's Armed Forces Spokesperson Brigadier General Abolfazl Shekarchi, as quoted by Mehr News Agency: "The Islamic Republic of Iran has never considered the word 'cessation of conflict' as an option. The Zionist regime is never trustworthy, neither for anywhere in the world nor for Iran." What Happens Next The United States is sustaining naval readiness in the Middle East to ensure rapid response capabilities as tensions with Iran persist and there remains a high risk of a resumption of hostilities.
The Diplomat
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Diplomat
Trump Touches a Raw Nerve in Delhi
The U.S. president has not only disregarded Indian sensitivities with his recent comments on mediation but is also cozying up to Pakistan. India's relationship with the United States is under strain. On June 18, Trump hosted Pakistani Army Chief Gen Asim Munir for a lunch meeting at the White House. While his courting of Munir was probably aimed at enlisting Pakistan's support for U.S. military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and sealing deals on cryptocurrency and trade in critical minerals, the meeting is likely to have involved discussions and decisions that will impact India. 'There would have been a quid pro quo,' an Indian government official told The Diplomat on condition of anonymity. 'Trump would have agreed to provide Pakistan with new military aid and to boost its military capabilities through the sale of advanced fighter aircraft, among other things. Given Trump's newfound interest in mediation and peace-making, he could have promised Munir that he would push India to accept a settlement of the Kashmir conflict.' Trump's meeting with Munir came days after General Michael Kurilla, commander of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), described Pakistan as a 'phenomenal partner' of the U.S. in countering terrorism and praised its role in the 'arrest and extradition' of Islamic State Khorasan terrorists. Kurilla's high praise of Pakistan's contribution as a counter-terrorism partner marks an important shift in the Trump administration's perception of Pakistan. In 2017, Trump had slammed Pakistan for providing 'safe havens for terrorist organizations, the Taliban, and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond.' Although the U.S. had given Pakistan billions of dollars in aid, 'they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting,' he said. The Trump administration's newfound appreciation of Pakistan's value in countering terrorism comes at a time when India has stepped up highlighting Islamabad's role in supporting anti-India terrorism. The U.S. support to India on this matter has disappointed Delhi in recent months. Although the U.S. expressed solidarity with India after the terrorist attack at Pahalgam on April 22, it did not support India's right to self-defense once India's launched military strikes on Pakistan, adopting instead a cautious, even neutral position, calling for a quick end to the military exchanges. Despite India's opposition to third parties intervening in India-Pakistan conflicts, the U.S. reportedly brokered the May 10 ceasefire. Not only did the ceasefire come at a time when the war was going against Pakistan, but also, Trump repeatedly boasted about having mediated the agreement and arm-twisting the two sides with trade deals to end the war. This did not go down well in India. Trump hyphenated or equated India with Pakistan, which Delhi loathes. Besides, he put the Narendra Modi government in an embarrassing spot as India has traditionally opposed third-party mediation in its conflicts with Pakistan. In effect, the U.S. president 'undermined carefully developed political understandings on key issues, especially on Kashmir and Pakistan,' C. Raja Mohan, distinguished fellow at the Council for Strategic and Defence Research, wrote in the Indian Express. Among the 'understandings' that Trump disregarded with his 'loose cannon comments was India's long-standing opposition to third parties playing a role in settling India-Pakistan conflicts,' the government official said. Washington's praise of Pakistan's counterterrorism efforts was particularly offensive to New Delhi as it came less than two months after the Pahalgam attack. Trump's courting of the Pakistani military, which India sees as the patrons of the anti-India terrorist groups, was particularly distasteful. 'Public opinion in India now tends to see the U.S. as an unreliable partner,' Ajay Bisaria, a former Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan, told DW. It wasn't supposed to be this way. Trump's re-election as president was welcomed in India. Trump 2.0 was expected to work in India's favor. After all, despite bilateral differences on the Russia-Ukraine war and hiccups on immigration and trade issues, India-U.S. bilateral relations warmed during Trump's first term, benefiting from not only the personal rapport between Trump and Modi but also the strong bipartisan consensus that existed in the U.S. on the importance of India-U.S. cooperation. With Trump back in the White House, India-U.S. relations were expected to deepen, especially since the new Trump team had several officials of Indian origin or said to be closer to India on India-Pakistan issues. However, things have not gone according to that script. Since February, thousands of Indian nationals have been deported back to India for illegally entering the U.S. They were sent back in chains on a 40-hour flight home. Indian foreign ministry officials reportedly objected to their shackling and raised the issue with their American counterparts. But that did not alter the U.S. mistreatment and humiliation of Indian nationals. Then, with regard to the imposition of 'reciprocal tariffs' on U.S. trade partners, Trump showed India no leniency. While the 26 percent tariff imposed on India is lower than that on several Asian countries, the U.S. has sealed a deal with China. With little over a week to go for the July 9 deadline, a trade deal with India remains elusive. Should India be worried about the downturn in its relations with the U.S.? Not overly. The U.S. has warmed up to Pakistan and its generals in the past as well, and India has weathered previous crises that emerged from fraying ties with Washington. Besides, the India-U.S. partnership today enjoys bipartisan consensus in the U.S., and draws its resilience and strength from the firm institutional foundation, shared strategic vision, converging interests and structural logic that defines the partnership. U.S. national security documents not only see India as a 'major defense partner' but also as a 'like-minded partner and leader in South Asia and the Indian Ocean, active in and connected to Southeast Asia,' and a 'driving force of the Quad and a net security provider in the region.' The U.S. is no doubt important for India, but so is India to the U.S. In its response to the Trump-Munir meeting, India said last week that it is 'confident' that India's relations with the U.S. would continue to be the 'most consequential partnership of the 21st century.' 'Our partnership with the United States is wide ranging, grounded in shared democratic values and growing strategic convergence,' MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said. This confidence stems from the broad and deep foundation on which the India-U.S. partnership is based. And yet India must not underestimate Trump's capacity to damage bilateral relations in pursuit of his interests. Without responding shrilly to every remark that he makes, India should be proactive in protecting the partnership. While the White House plays a central role in foreign policy making, there are other actors, including the U.S. Congress, business corporations, civil society and the Indian diaspora, whose support India must draw upon. The powerful Indian diaspora is known to have played a key role in swinging U.S. foreign policy decisions in India's favor in the past, as with the India-U.S. civilian nuclear deal. Unfortunately, it has been reduced to playing cheerleaders at Modi-Trump public events in recent years. Instead, India should draw on the diaspora's connections to articulate not the narrow vision of any party or person, but the long-term interests of the country.
The Hindu
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
What is the legality of U.S. strikes on Iran?
The story so far: On June 22, U.S. President Donald Trump launched military strikes on Iran, joining its ally Israel in efforts to derail Iran's nuclear programme, which both countries claim is approaching weapons production. Iran retaliated the following day with missile attacks on Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command. After nearly two weeks of escalating hostilities, Iran and Israel agreed to a ceasefire on June 24. What is a lawful exercise of self-defence? The UN Charter, under Article 2(4), prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in narrowly defined circumstances — a claim of self-defence under Article 51 or with the UN Security Council's (UNSC) authorisation. The restrictive interpretation, grounded in the text of Article 51, permits self-defence only in response to an armed attack that is already under way. A more permissive interpretation allows for self-defence in response to an armed attack that is imminent. This broader interpretation, often referred to as anticipatory self-defence, has been endorsed in several UN-affiliated reports. Notably, the 2004 report of the Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change affirmed that 'a threatened State, according to long-established international law, can take military action as long as the threatened attack is imminent, no other means would deflect it, and the action is proportionate'. These criteria are derived from the famous Caroline case, which established that the use of force is lawful only when the need for self-defence is 'instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation'. Over time, many states have argued that the Caroline standard is too rigid to address contemporary security threats. This has led to attempts to reinterpret and expand the notion of imminence, giving rise to the controversial doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence. Under this doctrine, a state may use force not only in response to an attack that is imminent but also during what is perceived as the 'last window of opportunity' to neutralise a threat posed by an adversary with both the intent and capability to strike. The U.S. has been a leading proponent of this doctrine, invoking it to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 'Pre-emptive self-defence lacks the requisite state practice and opinio juris to qualify as customary international law. States are generally reluctant to endorse its legality, as the absence of an imminent threat renders the doctrine highly susceptible to misuse,' Prabhash Ranjan, Professor at Jindal Global Law School, told The Hindu. Did Iran pose an 'imminent' threat? The U.S. has not submitted an Article 51 notification to the UNSC declaring its strikes on Iran as self-defence. However, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described them as a precision operation to neutralise 'threats to national interest' and an act of 'collective self-defence' of U.S. forces and its ally, Israel. Tehran has maintained that its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes and remains under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, on June 12, the UN nuclear watchdog passed a resolution accusing Iran of violating its non-proliferation obligations, while noting that inspectors have been unable to confirm whether the programme is 'exclusively peaceful'. In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard initially told Congress that while Iran had stockpiled materials, it was not actively building a nuclear weapon. However, she later warned that Iran could do so 'within weeks,' after President Trump claimed Iran could develop one 'within months.' Dr. Ranjan noted that the criteria for determining an 'imminent threat' remain highly contested, as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has never ruled on the legality of anticipatory self-defence or pre-emptive strikes. 'For the U.S. to credibly invoke pre-emptive self-defence, it must present clear evidence of both Iran's intent and capability to strike in the near future. This is a difficult threshold to meet, given that Iran does not yet possess a nuclear weapon,' he said. He added that ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations indicate that diplomatic means were still available. What about collective self-defence? Under Article 51 of the Charter, Israel can call on the assistance of its allies to exercise collective self-defence against an attack. 'Israel's strikes on Iran, framed as pre-emptive action against perceived nuclear threats, are legally suspect. This, in turn, casts doubt on the legitimacy of any claim to collective self-defence,' Dr. Ranjan said. Israel has also sought to justify its military offensive as part of an 'ongoing armed conflict,' citing a history of attacks by groups like Hamas and the Houthis, which it claims act as Iranian proxies. However, to legally sustain this argument, Israel must meet the 'effective control' test set by the ICJ in Nicaragua versus U.S. (1986). This is a high threshold to meet since it requires proof that Iran exercises 'overall control' over these groups beyond merely funding or arming them. What are the implications? Allowing states to invoke pre-emptive self-defence would effectively grant powerful nations the licence to unilaterally use force based on mere conjecture. This would further weaken the already fragile rules-based international order. It is, therefore, crucial to resist expanding legal definitions of what constitutes an imminent threat, particularly when punitive action by the UNSC against permanent members like the U.S. remains unlikely due to their veto power.
25-06-2025
- Politics
With July 4 just days away, US law enforcement on high alert for Iran retaliation
With the Fourth of July just days away, law enforcement and federal officials are on guard about Iranian retaliation in the United States, despite officials saying there are no specific, credible threats at this time. This comes after the U.S. military's strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities by B-2 stealth bombers and Tomahawk cruise missiles. "We would be foolish to assume that they're not plotting revenge even if we can't see it right now. It will come, and we need to maintain vigilance because if we don't, they will use the element of surprise to their advantage and cause harm," said Elizabeth Neumann, a former Department of Homeland Security assistant secretary for counterterrorism during the first Trump administration. Even before Saturday's bombing mission in Iran, the U.S. was at a heightened level of security after a string of high-profile terrorist attacks occurred across the country in the first six month of 2025 -- including a deadly truck ramming rampage in New Orleans on New Year's Day and a June 1 Molotov cocktail attack in Boulder, Colorado. The wave of extremist violence has come against a backdrop of a rising number of assaults, vandalism and harassment nationwide linked to the Israel-Hamas war. In the wake of the U.S. mission to cripple Iran's ambitions to develop a nuclear weapon, Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, released a message on social media saying, "We will not surrender." Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi threatened in a speech that his country will seek revenge that will have "everlasting consequences" and accused the United States of committing "dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior." "In accordance with the U.N. Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interests, and people," Araghchi said. On Monday, Iran carried out a missile attack on the United States' Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. U.S. Central Command said both U.S. and Qatari forces "successfully defended" against the attack and that no casualties were reported. Later in the day, President Donald Trump announced that a ceasefire had been agreed upon between Israel and Iran, but tensions remained high into Wednesday. 'A long memory' In reponse to the U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear apparatus, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a nationwide bulletin, saying the ongoing conflict is "causing a heightened threat environment in the United States" and warning that "low-level cyber-attacks against US networks by pro-Iranian hacktivists are likely, and cyber actors affiliated with the Iranian government may conduct against US networks." Neumann, an ABC News contributor, said Iran's initial response to the U.S. bombing of three of its nuclear facilities is similar to what the country did following the Jan. 3, 2020, U.S. strike in Baghdad, Iraq, that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani, leader of Iran's elite Quds Forces. Five days after Soleimani's death, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard launched a ballistic missile attack on the U.S. Al Asad airbase in western Iraq. The attack left over 100 U.S. service members with traumatic brain injuries, according to the Pentagon. "We were definitely very concerned about the potential for something to happen in the homeland," said Neumann, who was working in the DHS under the first Trump administration when Soleimani was killed. Neumann said the DHS's Iran specialists assumed Iran would activate sleeper cells possibly in the United States and that Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Shiite militia group, would launch terrorist attacks against U.S. interest. But Neumann said Iran's attack on the Al Asad airbase was used by Iran to appease its domestic audience by publicly displaying pictures of the attack to give the impression they were pushing back against the United States. "Since they mostly control the airwaves in Iran, they can kind of get away with it. They don't actually have to do a major military strike and hurt us the way that we've hurt them because they can just kind of manufacture the story that they want for their domestic audience," Neumann said. Neumann recalled that at the time, the DHS rapidly prepared an assessment of what Soleimani's assassination could mean for the United States and released a bulletin similar to the one DHS put out this week. But after the attack on the Al Asad airbase, Iran's response quieted down. "The Iranian regime ... has a long memory and they recognize that they do not have the strength right now to get back at us," Neumann said. "But they will wait and they will look for opportunities to cause harm." She noted that in August 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that a member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard attempted to pay an individual $300,000 to kill John Bolton, the National Security Advisor during Trump's first term, saying it was likely in retaliation for Soleimani's death. In November 2024, the Department of Justice announced that three people, including one described as an "asset" of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, were charged in Iran-linked murder plots, with one of them accused of trying to assassinate then-President-elect Trump to avenge the killing of Soleimani. Iran could turn to 'crude or escalatory tactics' employing proxies A threat assessment by the Center for Internet Security that was released after the U.S. bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities, said, "Tehran is likely to leverage a combination of direct, proxy, and irregular/inspired forces to conduct physical, cyber, or terrorist attacks against US interests both at home and aboard." "In light of Israeli strikes and the degradation of the Iranian proxy network in the Middle East, Iran will likely seek to re-establish deterrence against its adversaries, potentially relying on crude or escalatory tactics and informal networks," according to the assessment. "US interests -- particularly Embassies and military bases overseas -- are likely to be targeted, and it is possible that Tehran will order or encourage attacks on the US government institutions, businesses, critical infrastructure, or civilians." Since the Oct. 7, 2023, widespread surprise attack on Israel by Hamas terrorists that ignited the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, the DHS and FBI have repeatedly issued warnings that large-scale events are prime targets of violence. "Violent extremist messaging continues to highlight major sporting and cultural events and venues as potential targets, and threat actors -- including domestic violent extremists (DVEs), homegrown violent extremists (HVEs) inspired by Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), and other mass casualty attackers not motivated by an ideology -- previously have targeted public events with little to no warning," according to the joint bulletin put out in May by the DHS and FBI. Given the nation's alarming security threat, the FBI is planning to reallocate potentially thousands of FBI agents away from immigration enforcement work to focus on cyber threats and counterterrorism efforts, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News on Tuesday. Months ago, as ABC News has previously reported, the FBI directed agents from around the country, many of them working on counterterrorism and cyber issues, to focus instead on helping DHS conduct immigration enforcement operations. 'Lone wolf' and cyberattacks Richard Frankel, a retired FBI agent, said that no credible threats against the U.S. homeland have been uncovered, "but there has been a lot of chatter." Frankel said in an ABC News Live interview on Monday that the FBI has been briefing the governors across the country about the heightened threat. "They're going to tell the governors that they need to maybe heighten their protection of special sights," said Frankel, an ABC News contributor, adding that the New York Police Department has added extra security to landmarks such as the Empire State Building and the National September 11 Memorial & Museum as well as synagogues and other religious institutions. Don Mihalek, a retired senior Secret Service agent and a national security and law enforcement consultant, said a major concern for law enforcement is that Iran or its proxies will try to elicit "lone wolf" attackers, who are radicalized online, to create mayhem on its behalf. "I think that's the bigger issue that everybody is worried about because I don't think the Iranians are dumb enough to launch a state-sponsored, flag-waving attack against the continent of the United States," Mihalek, an ABC News contributor, said. "But I think they definitely could get some guy in a basement who is antisemitic, who is anti-U.S., who just needed that little push to go to the local shopping center or a mall some place and conduct a low grade, low level attack that would disrupt that part of the United States and if it was coordinated it would have a significant impact on the U.S." Mihalek noted the possibility of Iranian sleeper cells being activated in the United States to organize and execute attacks. During a House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science on Monday, Attorney General Pam Bondi was asked by Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, how many Iranian sleeper cells currently exist in the United States. "Congressman, I can't talk about that in this setting. But what I can tell you is I know Homeland Security, I know the FBI, and they are focusing on doing everything we can to keep our nation safe. And they will continue to do that," Bondi said. Asked by Gonzales how many active cases of threats to the homeland the DOJ currently has open, Bondi answered, "Countless" without elaborating. And just flagging DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's comments on the threat from Monday: Reporters asked DHS Secretary Kristi Noem on Monday about the possibility that people who have crossed the border illegally could be Iranian-affiliated, radicalized actors. "We're aware that some of these folks that may have come into our country could've been radicalized and so that is why we go out every day to identify individuals that could be a threat to our homeland," Noem said. "We recognize that as tensions escalate, there could be more of a potential for threats here at home. That's why we're at an elevated threat right now and we will continue to stay diligent." Nome said that in the past, there have been people who have been radicalized both in the United States and abroad. Asked about concerns over the upcoming Fourth of July holiday, Noem said, "There's been concern since I took this job." "We have incredible threats to this country from many nations that are enemies to the United States of America," Noem said. "It's not just Iran. It's North Korea, Russia, China -- consistently every single day are trying to threaten our way of life." How can the average citizen help? Mihalek said another worry for law enforcement is that Iran or its supporters will attempt to commit cyberattacks in the United States. In 2023, then-White House deputy national security advisor Anne Neuberger told the Associated Press that an Iranian hacker group known as "Cyber Av3ngers" had conducted low-level cyberattacks on U.S. water authorities in multiple states and were responsible for a string of ransomeware attacks on the health care industry. Mihalek said the average citizen could play a significant role in protecting themselves and helping law enforcement thwart attacks, particularly during large events scheduled around the Fourth of July. "If you see something strange or have somebody in your orbit who is acting strange, you want to let somebody know so they can look at it and investigate it. Often when that happens, the threat is mitigated before it becomes a problem," Mihalek said. "The other part is if you're going out some place, you're going to an event, take the time to look for the exits, how to get out of some place, pay attention to your surroundings and listen to your gut."
The Hindu
25-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
U.S.'s heavy duty attack on Iran's nuke sites
The story so far: On June 21, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. military carried out precision strikes on three key Iranian nuclear facilities, mainly Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. He further stated that the strikes were a 'spectacular' military success and that Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been 'completely and totally obliterated'. The key part of these strikes were conducted by the B-2 Spirit stealth bombers which dropped GBU-57 bunker busters to penetrate the Fordow enrichment facility located deep inside a mountain, that was beyond the capability of Israel. Later on Sunday, U.S. Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff detailed the strikes carried out by the U.S. Central Command (Centcom) under 'Operation Midnight Hammer'. How were the strikes carried out? After proceeding quietly and with minimal communication for 18 hours from the U.S. to the target area, the first of the seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers dropped two 30,000 lb GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) 'bunker buster' bombs at the Fordow site at approximately 6:40 p.m. EDT, Gen. Caine told media houses. The initial mission package also included several decoy aircraft that flew west over the Pacific Ocean as 'a deception effort known only to an extremely small number of planners and key leaders here in Washington,' he stated. 'The U.S. employed several deception tactics — including decoys — as the fourth and fifth generation aircraft pushed out in front of the strike package at high altitude and high speed, sweeping in front of the package for enemy fighters and surface-to-air missile threats', according to Gen. Caine. 'Following the initial strike on Fordow, the remaining B-2s went on to deploy their ordnance, eventually totalling 14 MOPs hitting the targeted areas,' he said noting that this was the first operational use of the GBU-57 MOP. In addition to the MOPs, a U.S. submarine launched more than two dozen Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles at key infrastructure targets at the Isfahan site, bringing the overall total of precision-guided weapons employed during the operation to approximately 75. 'Initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction,' Gen. Caine stated, although later in the day several U.S. officials expressed doubts on the extent of damage to the Fordow facility. What is a B-2 stealth bomber? The U.S. Air Force (USAF) operates the country's bomber fleet which consists of 114 B-1 Lancers, 21 B-2 Spirit and 137 legacy B-52 aircraft. Of these, B-2 is the only fully stealth aircraft while the B-1 has some stealth features. Each B-2 costs over $2 billion, the most expensive aircraft ever, and so only 21 aircraft were built. One B-2 crashed in 2008 while another was damaged in 2022, and with the repair work deemed prohibitive, it is set to be retired soon. This leaves only 19 B-2 aircraft in active inventory. The B-2 has always inspired awe with its bat-like shape, and has been extensively showcased by Hollywood. It is a dual-capable multi-role heavy bomber, powered by four engines. According to the USAF, the B-2's low observability is derived from a combination of reduced infrared, acoustic, electromagnetic, visual and radar signatures. 'These signatures make it difficult for sophisticated defensive systems to detect, track and engage the B-2,' the USAF states. The B-2 made its first flight in 1989 and began operations in 1997. With a crew of two, it can carry a payload of 40,000 lb, has an un-refuelled range of 6,000 miles and a service ceiling of 50,000 feet. It is 69 feet long, 17 feet high and has a wingspan of 172 feet, half the length of a football field. For Sunday's mission, the B-2s flew 37-hours non-stop, from their home base to the target location and back, re-fuelling several times mid-air, making it the second longest mission ever. The B-2s hold the record for the longest air combat mission in history. As per its manufacturer Northrop Grumman, in 2001, six B-2s were the first to enter Afghan airspace for a record setting 44-hour mission. According to an article in the New York Post, the B-2 pilots 'have their cockpits outfitted with mini refrigerators and a microwave oven to keep their crew fed and alert' and also have a toilet and enough space for one person to lay down and rest. A March 2025 report of the U.S. Congressional Research Service (CRS) states that the USAF continues to modernise the B-2. Northrop Grumman was awarded a contract in 2024 of up to $7 billion to maintain and improve B-2 stealth and communications capabilities, engines, and displays through 2029. The B-2s are extremely maintenance intensive. According to a detailed account in The Atlantic on the B-2s employed in Libya in 2018, 100 hours of maintenance were required for every hour of flight. This is mainly because the advantage of stealth is B-2's edge, and it is achieved by design and radar-absorbing materials. To maintain them, the aircraft needs temperature controlled hangers to protect against changes in temperature, humidity, and dust. Why was there a need for 'bunker-busters'? The nuclear fuel enrichment site at Fordow is located 60 miles south of Iran's capital Tehran in the mountainous region close to the city of Qom. The facilities are buried deep underground, estimated to be 80-90m deep, to withstand Israeli airstrikes. Iran acknowledged its existence only in 2009. That's why there was a need for the GBU-57 MOP and the B-2 Spirit that can carry it. It also meant that the U.S. had to officially enter the Israel-Iran conflict which began on June 13, when Israel started bombing Iranian nuclear and military facilities. The GBU-57 MOP, according to the USAF is a weapon system designed 'to accomplish a difficult, complicated mission of reaching and destroying our adversaries' weapons of mass destruction located in well protected facilities.' It is more powerful than its predecessor, the BLU-109 and the GBU-28. According to USAF, a total of 20 MOPs were contracted. The B-2 Spirit is the only aircraft in the USAF capable of employing the 20.5 ft, 30,000 lb MOP which is guided by GPS to reach and destroy targets. Given the weight, each B-2 can hold two MOP bombs. According to a 2012 CRS report, the GB-57 has a penetration capability of up to 200 feet underground before exploding. 'By some reports, it was expected to penetrate as much as 200 feet through 5,000 psi reinforced concrete, and 25 feet into 10,000 psi reinforced concrete,' it states. The New York Times quoted a senior U.S. official who stated that the strike on the Fordow site did not destroy the heavily fortified facility but has severely damaged it, taking it 'off the table.' The person noted that even 12 bunker-busting bombs could not destroy the site. What next? This mission was not, and has not been, about regime change, Mr. Hegseth said. 'The president authorised a precision operation to neutralise the threats to our national interests posed by the Iranian nuclear program and [in support of] the collective self-defense of our troops and our ally, Israel.' However, it is unclear whether the objectives of fully neutralising the nuclear enrichment facilities of Iran has been accomplished. Moreover, the whereabouts of the enriched uranium are unknown, as per U.S. officials. A next generation bomber, the B-21 Raider, a dual-capable penetrating-strike stealth bomber, is currently under development. The B-21 is similar to the B-2, but slightly smaller, with a distinctive beak domed centre. According to a USAF fact sheet, the B-21 has been designed with an open systems architecture to allow for faster new software integration. With a plan to make them enter service in the next few years, the USAF is looking at acquiring a minimum of 100 aircraft at an average unit procurement cost of $550 million.
