Latest news with #B2
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
US did not use bunker-buster bombs on one of Iran's nuclear sites, top general tells lawmakers, citing depth of the target
The US military did not use bunker-buster bombs on one of Iran's largest nuclear sites last weekend because the site is so deep that the bombs likely would not have been effective, the US' top general told senators during a briefing on Thursday. The comment by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, which was described by three people who heard his remarks and a fourth who was briefed on them, is the first known explanation given for why the US military did not use the Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb against the Isfahan site in central Iran. US officials believe Isfahan's underground structures house nearly 60% of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile, which Iran would need in order to ever produce a nuclear weapon. US B2 bombers dropped over a dozen bunker-buster bombs on Iran's Fordow and Natanz nuclear sites. But Isfahan was only struck by Tomahawk missiles launched from a US submarine. The classified briefing to lawmakers was conducted by Caine, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. Spokespeople for Caine did not return requests for comment. Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy told CNN on Thursday night after receiving the briefing that some of Iran's capabilities 'are so far underground that we can never reach them. So they have the ability to move a lot of what has been saved into areas where there's no American bombing capacity that can reach it.' An early assessment produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency in the day after the US strikes said the attack did not destroy the core components of the country's nuclear program, including its enriched uranium, and likely only set the program back by months, CNN has reported. It also said Iran may have moved some of the enriched uranium out of the sites before they were attacked. The Trump officials who briefed lawmakers this week sidestepped questions about the whereabouts of Iran's stockpile of already-enriched uranium. President Donald Trump again claimed Friday that nothing was moved from the three Iranian sites before the US military operation. But Republican lawmakers emerged from the classified briefings on Thursday acknowledging that the US military strikes may not have eliminated all of Iran's nuclear materials. But they argued that doing so was not part of the military's mission. 'There is enriched uranium in the facilities that moves around, but that was not the intent or the mission,' Republican Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas told CNN. 'My understanding is most of it's still there. So we need a full accounting. That's why Iran has to come to the table directly with us, so the (International Atomic Energy Agency) can account for every ounce of enriched uranium that's there. I don't think it's going out of the country, I think it's at the facilities.' 'The purpose of the mission was to eliminate certain particular aspects of their nuclear program. Those were eliminated. To get rid of the nuclear material was not part of the mission,' GOP Rep. Greg Murphy told CNN. 'Here's where we're at: the program was obliterated at those three sites. But they still have ambitions,' said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. 'I don't know where the 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium exists. But it wasn't part of the targets there.' '(The sites) were obliterated. Nobody can use them anytime soon,' Graham also said. Weapons expert and professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies Jeffrey Lewis told CNN that commercial satellite images show that Iran has accessed the tunnels at Isfahan. 'There were a moderate number of vehicles present at Isfahan on June 26 and at least one of the tunnel entrances was cleared of obstructions by mid-morning June 27,' Lewis said. 'If Iran's stockpile of (highly enriched uranium) was still in the tunnel when Iran sealed the entrances, it may be elsewhere now.' Additional satellite imagery captured on June 27 by Planet Labs show the entrance to the tunnels were open at the time, according to Lewis. The preliminary DIA assessment noted that the nuclear sites' above ground structures were moderately to severely damaged, CNN has reported. That damage could make it a lot harder for Iran to access any enriched uranium that does remain underground, sources said, something that Graham alluded to on Thursday. 'These strikes did a lot of damage to those three facilities,' Murphy, the Connecticut Democrat, told CNN on Thursday night. 'But Iran still has the know-how to put back together a nuclear program. And if they still have that enriched material, and if they still have centrifuges, and if they still have the capability to very quickly move those centrifuges into what we call a cascade, we have not set back that program by years. We have set it back by months.' Caine and Hegseth on Thursday said the military operation against Fordow went exactly as planned but did not mention the impacts to Isfahan and Natanz. CNN's Manu Raju contributed to this report.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Pete Hegseth Chides Former Fox News Colleague Jennifer Griffin As 'About The Worst' During Defense Secretary's Press-Bashing Briefing
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth delivered a diatribe about the media and its coverage of the U.S. bombings on Iran, and at one point he chided a former Fox News colleague, Jennifer Griffin. The purpose of the press conference, in which Hegseth was joined by Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared to be to push back on a report earlier this week. CNN reported on a Defense Intelligence Agency initial assessment that Iran's nuclear program was not fully destroyed by the U.S. strikes and likely set it back only months. Other news outlets followed with similar stories. More from Deadline Judge Rules For Meta In AI Lawsuit Brought By Sarah Silverman And Other Authors, But Warns Of Illegally Using Copyrighted Works In Training Models CNN Says It Stands "100% Behind" Correspondent Natasha Bertrand After Donald Trump Calls For Her Firing Judge's "Fair Use" Ruling In Favor Of Anthropic Is Likely Just The Start Of Lengthy Copyright Battles Over AI Training Models Griffin, the chief national security correspondent at the Pentagon, asked Hegseth whether he had 'certainty that all the highly enriched uranium was in the Fordow mountain, or some of it, because satellite photos showed there was more than a dozen trucks there two days in advance. Are you certain none of that highly enriched uranium was moved?' Hegseth responded, '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.' Griffin then noted that she 'was the first to describe the B2 bombers, the refueling, the entire mission, with great accuracy. So I take great issue with that.' Earlier this week, Griffin also reported on the early intelligence assessment from the DIA, but she also noted that the report was given a 'low confidence' level. Before he became Defense Secretary, Hegseth was co-host on Fox & Friends Weekend. Trump and others in the administration have attacked CNN and other outlets over their reporting on the DIA report, going so far to say that it demeans the members of the military who carried out the mission. But a number of news outlets have noted that the reports could change. Trump has claimed that Iran's nuclear sites were 'obliterated' and, like Hegseth, has cited other assessments and statements. But the full impact of the U.S. bombing strikes is still being studied. At the start of his press conference, Hegseth complained that the DIA assessment was 'leaked because someone had an agenda to try and muddy the waters and make it look like this historic strike wasn't successful.' 'You cheer against Trump so hard, in your DNA and in your blood, cheer against Trump because you want him not to be successful so badm you have to cheer against the effciacy of these strikes,' Hegseth said. Best of Deadline Everything We Know About 'My Life With The Walter Boys' Season 2 So Far Everything We Know About The 'Reminders of Him' Movie So Far Everything We Know About The 'Hunger Games: Sunrise On The Reaping' Movie So Far
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
2 days ago
- Politics
- First Post
Donald J Trump: Salsa, not Taco
Speaking at the Hague, US President Donald Trump said that progress was being made to end the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. Reuters After President Donald J Trump ordered US B2 bombers to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities using 30,000-pound GBU-57 bunker buster bombs, it would be difficult to poke him with the TACO jibe. For those still not in the know, TACO stands for 'Trump always chickens out,' reportedly coined by Financial Times journalist Robert Armstrong. When, three weeks back, a CNN reporter hurled the TACO accusation at him, Trump said it was a 'very negative question' and that what Wall Street called 'chickening out' was actually negotiation. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Be that as it may, the TACO meme went viral. As to who liked Trump to Salsa, I think the credit should go to an episode description I saw on PGurus in a conversation between Sree Iyer and Sridhar Chityala. I don't think they developed the metaphor, though. By now TACO seems to have been comprehensively falsified, even if the anti-Trump establishment has already started its propaganda that the strikes were not effective. Let us acknowledge that while it is easy to poke fun at Trump, his actions have proved that he is a very gutsy individual in addition to being a decisive president. Let's not forget his response to the assassination attempt during the heat of his campaign when he got back to his feet, raised his fist and said, 'Fight, fight, fight.' I agree that he loves to shoot his mouth off, especially when he has the media, and via the media, the world as his stage. But that doesn't mean that he talks nonsense all the time or that he doesn't know what he is about or trying to accomplish. Instead, I would argue that his actions prove that he is the boldest American president in recent decades. Now, salsa, also part of the Mexican cuisine so popular in the US and all over the world, which does much to spice up a bland taco, may not function as an acronym. But its spicy and memorable taste is more akin to Trump's presidency, which is as unforgettable as it is exciting. Never a dull moment and certainly zesty all the way. Hence, the quip 'Trump always chickens out,' now sounds and lands like a cheap shot, a lazy caricature hurled by critics who underestimated the US president's resolve. The bombing of Iran sent shockwaves through global geopolitics. As did the Trump engineered ceasefire. Again, critics may carp, 'It has already been violated. By both sides.' True. But ceasefires don't stop the bleeding like diarrhea pills plug loose motions. They take a while fully to take effect, with each side trying some last-minute strikes to smoothen over the wrinkles, so to speak, if not mop up some of the spillovers. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD For years, Iran's regime had poked and prodded, testing America's resolve through proxy militias and nuclear brinkmanship. Previous administrations, cautious, deliberative, and often paralysed by escalation concerns, had largely given Iran a free run of the middle east. With their surrogates and proxies such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, plus various bands of mercenaries swarming across Syria and Iraq, they had created a ring of fire encircling Israel. Even if the rest of the world didn't care, this was clearly an existential threat to the very existence of the only Jewish state in the world. Worse, Iran's nuclear bomb-in-the-making was, to change metaphors, a thorn in the side of most other middle eastern states, including Saudi Arabia and UAE. Neither Russia, nor China were comfortable with the idea of nuclearised Iran and the middle east. The US position was that it would not, under any circumstances, permit Iran to build a bomb. Previous administrations under Joe Biden and Barrack Obama tried to buy peace by bribery or sanctions. But that was only kicking the can down the road. It is Trump who has bitten the bullet. Risking isolation and opprobrium not only from the other members of the G7 but also from the European Union. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Where India stand in all this? The Indian 'right wing' commentariat, quite foolishly at times, called Trump names and painted him out to be untrustworthy, or worse, treacherous and cowardly. The US is, whether we like it or not, still a superpower. India is not. Actually, geopolitics is much more complicated. The US economy is nearly eight times the size of India and China's five times. We shouldn't punch below our weight, true. But trying to punch above our weight is to pump fists in the air and look silly. We cannot afford to underestimate either the US or China. While Operation Sindoor was a grand success, we cannot rest on our laurels. We have to plan and prepare for the next confrontation. Our enemies are not going to take their worsting lying down. They are already reequipping themselves swiftly and surely. India needs to play the hyperpower rivalry to its advantage rather than trying to take down the US president a notch or two through its 'B' team of social media influencers. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Now, let's return to the 'salsa, not taco' metaphor. A taco is familiar, structured, even boring. A known quantity. Salsa, on the other hand, is unpredictable. It's the kick of jalapeño, the tang of lime, and a variable level of spice from the mild to the sizzling. Trump's presidency, similarly, is undeniably spicy, a whirlwind of controversy, charisma, and unrelenting energy. His unfiltered communication style, willingness to upend decades of political orthodoxy, and penchant for chaos throws his opponents off balance and the public engaged, if not enraged. Salsa doesn't apologise for its hotness; neither does Trump. The writer is an author, columnist, and former Director, Indian Institute of Advanced Study. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
NBC News
2 days ago
- Politics
- NBC News
Trump navigates the most complex foreign policy crisis of his presidency, one ‘Truth' at a time
As the conflict between Iran and Israel heated up, and in the wake of surprise U.S. attacks on Iran, President Donald Trump has been carrying out the delicate art of diplomacy through blunt social media posts, full of the bravado — and capital letters — that characterize much of his communications. 'There is not another military in the World that could have done this,' Trump posted to his Truth Social platform on Saturday, announcing the airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. 'NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter.' 'This is an HISTORIC MOMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ISRAEL, AND THE WORLD,' he added in a follow-up. 'IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR. THANK YOU!' For many in the U.S. — including some elected officials — Trump's posts were the primary way to learn about what was happening. Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said he first learned about the strikes this way. Since June 17, Trump has posted to his social media site more than two dozen times on a conflict in which he played a central role. His updates were often punctuated, "Thank you for your attention to this matter!' And, on Wednesday, he even posted footage of a few B2 stealth fighter jets dropping bombs as 'Bomb Iran,' a parody of the 1960's song 'Barbara Ann,' played in the background. Trump has also shared adulatory coverage of his handling of the conflict, frequently linking to commentary on Fox News in recent days and citing political figures like Charlie Kirk and even Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor who ran against Trump for president in 2016. Trump has for years veered from political convention in using social media to campaign, target rivals or advance his agenda. But in the most consequential foreign policy moment of his presidency, Trump's diplomacy by social media has garnered renewed attention, remarkable for its break from how past presidents have carried out such interactions. 'Any comment made by the president of the United States about America's national security is interpreted as our official policy and has impact on the world, regardless of the format in which the comment was made,' Adrienne Watson, who served as National Security Council spokesperson for President Joe Biden, said. "The language of a tweet should be treated with as much care as a diplomatic negotiation. Otherwise, the president has needlessly risked misinterpretation and miscalculation.' Trump's allies and advisers have expressed appreciation for the president's messaging, even in such a high-stakes setting. They said his seemingly off-the-cuff style has helped hammer home his message and make his position clear to all involved. And they added that the very public nature of his social media posts puts additional pressure on both Israel and Iran to go along with what the U.S. wants. 'When you reduce ambiguity in a national security or foreign policy environment, it's a good thing,' one Trump administration official, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly, said. 'The game of telephone through old models of diplomatic channels, you can still use them. But when appropriate, the commander in chief voicing his goals, his ideas, so forcefully and so clearly, is a good thing.' Kenneth Weinstein, the Japan chair of the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank, said Trump's social media strategy is about his need 'to eliminate the middleman.' 'He does not trust the bureaucracy to take his messages and transmit them, and he can transmit them very bluntly and very directly and in real time, rather than having to go up and down the chain,' Weinstein said. 'And that's what he sees: The reactions can be immediate to it, rather than setting up a meeting, and somebody has to get on an airplane.' Weinstein said he sees Trump's method as effective because other countries know these posts reflect his real thinking. 'Whether it's deceiving the Iranians, whether it's bluntly delivering a message to either our allies or partners or our adversaries, they get the message and they understand it's coming from him,' he added. 'And they don't have to scratch their heads and wonder.' But there are risks in Trump's approach, too, particularly as he speaks on nuanced diplomatic matters in absolute terms — whether it be about ' totally destroyed ' nuclear sites or a ' forever" ceasefire, results he may be trying to manifest at an early stage. Those risks were magnified Monday, when Trump was the first to announce a ceasefire agreement on Truth Social. 'It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a Complete and Total CEASEFIRE (in approximately 6 hours from now, when Israel and Iran have wound down and completed their in progress, final missions!), for 12 hours, at which point the War will be considered, ENDED!' Trump wrote. That post kicked off hours of confusion, as both Israel and Iran seemed reluctant to confirm that there was an agreement and that they would abide by it. Trump posted through it. At crucial moments when it seemed the ceasefire hung in the balance, he weighed in multiple times to exhort both sides, but especially Israel, not to do anything to set the other off. Trump also engages in more traditional diplomatic methods, like calling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday and urging him to turn around Israeli planes set to target Iran. 'President Trump was exceptionally firm and direct with Prime Minister Netanyahu about what needed to happen to sustain the ceasefire,' a White House official told NBC News. 'The Prime Minister understood the severity of the situation and the concerns President Trump expressed.' Later Tuesday afternoon, an initial assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that the U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear enrichment sites did not destroy the facilities, but rather set the country's nuclear program back by only a few months, according to three people with knowledge of the report. That assessment ran counter to Trump's Truth Social posts, which talked up the ' obliteration ' of three Iranian nuclear facilities the U.S. bombed over the weekend and the ' monumental damage ' they sustained. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt disputed the DIA report as 'flat-out wrong,' adding, 'The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump, and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran's nuclear program.' Trump's message has at times appeared to conflict with other administration officials, like on Sunday when, after Vice President JD Vance told NBC News' 'Meet the Press' the administration's 'view has been very clear that we don't want a regime change' in Iran, Trump posted to Truth Social: 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' 'MIGA!!!' he added. Trump later said he does not want regime change in Iran. Elliott Abrams, a deputy national security adviser under President George W. Bush and a special representative for Iran and Venezuela in Trump's first term, said that while there are upsides to the president's social media diplomacy — particularly the speed with which he is able to spread messages and the certainty readers have that they're getting Trump's own views — the filters that are being pushed aside 'can serve a really useful purpose.' 'There isn't anybody who knows everything and can't make mistakes,' Abrams, now a senior fellow in Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said. 'And that includes presidents, which is why they're supposed to have and use a good staff.' 'The statement about 'obliterating' their nuclear weapons program … when he made that statement we clearly had no information,' Abrams added. 'So the danger you run into there is your remarks are discounted and everyone says well, 'He probably doesn't mean that.' So you're undermining your own impact.' Reached for comment on Trump's social media strategy amid the conflict, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said: 'The President has proven that our Commander in Chief can remain accessible while maintaining operational security for important missions, as proven by the tremendous success and flawless execution of Operation Midnight Hammer." Trump's handling of communications around a foreign conflict is far different than that of his predecessors — though being able to message quickly under these conditions is critical under any process, said Rufus Gifford, who served as Biden's chief of protocol and ambassador to Denmark under President Barack Obama. 'You want to control the narrative,' Gifford said. 'So you have to release a statement quickly in order to make sure that people understand what just happened. Because obviously, if you drop a bomb, people are going to learn pretty quickly that that just happened. So you have to take responsibility for it.' But Gifford said that the tone leaders take in talking about the degree of success of such an operation should be similar to how they communicate during any sort of national disaster, whether it be a mass shooting or a hurricane. 'You own it, and you show that leadership,' he said. 'And then in the days and weeks to come, we'll figure out and we will provide more, but it's more important than anything else that you have that what you're reporting to the American people is 100% true, and the world is 100% true, at least to the best of your knowledge. And I think that that doesn't happen in this instance, and I think that's damaging.' 'When the United States speaks, it's very often the last word,' Gifford added. 'It's hard when diplomacy is contingent on the informality and … a degree of bad grammar and all-caps and all that ridiculousness. I understand that's a style that [others] support. But generally speaking, I find it to be largely counterproductive. And potentially even risky considering the situation.' Trump's posts also show a leader who is eager to put his own stamp on the conflict and cement his role in history alongside it. At times, he has presented himself as the only person who could stop a conflict, writing Monday evening that 'Israel & Iran came to me, almost simultaneously, and said, 'PEACE!'' 'I knew the time was NOW,' he wrote. On Tuesday, referring to the Arab-Israeli War of 1967, which Israelis refer to as the Six-Day War, Trump dubbed the recent conflict between Israel and Iran the '12 DAY WAR.' 'Both Israel and Iran wanted to stop the War, equally!' Trump wrote Tuesday. 'It was my great honor to Destroy All Nuclear facilities & capability, and then, STOP THE WAR!' A close Trump ally, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the president 'knows this is a historical event, and he wants to establish exactly what he wants the history books to be, and he doesn't trust anyone else to do that.' 'You've got three people who all want to have history written slightly different,' this person added, referring to Trump, Netanyahu and Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. 'He's trying to establish himself as the most dominant figure of the story.' The president's social media habits highlight what a second Trump administration aide said is his broader approach to governance. 'Trump doesn't think he needs to be staffed, really,' this person said, adding that Trump isn't one to require that national security decisions to go through multiple levels of policy coordination committees and then an international security cabinet meeting. 'It's just not bottom up. He's in the room with his advisers, and he makes decisions, and then he tells the whole world.' As for the impact of Trump's diplomacy-via-Truth Social posts, this person said all of the actors in the region are still trying to sort out their own positions. 'The best way to describe it is, there's probably a lot of confusion from everybody, friend and foe alike, which I think is how he likes to operate,' this person said. 'That's an uncomfortable position for most people. It's not an uncomfortable position for the president. He likes strategic ambiguity because he thinks it gives some flexibility on decision making.'
Newsroom
2 days ago
- Politics
- Newsroom
Iran's nuclear weapons dash hits a hurdle, but race far from over
It's a long time since we've been on the edge of our seats wondering if a full-blown nuclear war is about to happen. But many had that sensation when the US President said last weekend that Iran's nuclear facilities had been 'completely and totally obliterated'. Trump's bullseye claim is now in question but the bombing had many experts talking about the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 at the height of the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union. 'They were very real fears and there were some very close calls, in particular during the Cuban Missile Crisis we now know the world came incredibly close to nuclear conflict,' international law and nuclear weapons expert Anna Hood of Auckland University says. People feared then that the 'Cold War would turn hot'. Since then we have had volatile moments and right now the risk is heightened, she says. 'There were higher numbers of weapons during the Cold War. We have seen some level of disarmament since then but we haven't seen enough movement in the last few years. The numbers are still very high.' Not only have the numbers stayed high, but countries are trying to upgrade and enhance the weapons they do have, she says. 'I would like to hope that most states, all states, wouldn't go there [nuclear war] or even if they've got nuclear weapons that that's not what they'll use but I think there are very serious risks in terms of what happens in the heat of a conflict, in terms of accidents.' Hood focuses much of her time on the numerous nuclear issues afflicting the world today and how to work towards a nuclear-free world. 'We are a long way unfortunately from that,' she admits, pointing to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists' annual Doomsday Clock showing we are closer than ever – 89 seconds to midnight, and catastrophe. Hood tells The Detail why the US strike on Iran is a violation of international law and the possible consequences. While the impact of the B2 stealth bomber attacks is still not clear, senior physics lecturer at Auckland University David Krofcheck says it does not end Iran's nuclear ambitions. 'Israel has had a go at assassinating their nuclear weapons scientists there but you can't destroy knowledge, and that's the critical thing. It can be rebuilt, you just start from scratch,' he says. Iran insists it is not developing weapons, but Krofcheck says he can't think of another reason it would need to enrich uranium to 60 percent, as confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. But even with 60 percent enriched uranium, there's more to the process and it would have been months before it had a weapon ready. 'That nuclear device that's built might be gigantic, the size of a house. It's not something you can pick up and put on a missile and shoot at another country.' Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here. You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
