U.S. strikes Iranian nuclear sites in targeted attack, Trump says
Category: News & Politics
Via: perrie-halpern • last year • 42 commentsBy: Tom Winter and Jonathan Allen
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President Donald Trump said Saturday night that Iran's major nuclear enrichment facilities were "completely and totally obliterated" after the United States dropped bombs on them — and warned that American forces would carry out further hostilities if Tehran does not negotiate a peace settlement.
The airstrikes, which targeted the Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites, are the first time the United States has conducted a direct military attack on Iran, and they further escalated a military conflict between Iran and Israel that began on June 13.
U.S. Navy submarines also launched 30 Tomahawk missiles into Iran.
Trump's claim about the result of the strikes could not be independently confirmed.
"There will be either peace or there will be tragedy," Trump said in a nationally televised address from the White House, with Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio flanking him. "Remember, there are many targets left. ... [I]f peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill."
Trump first announced the strikes on Truth Social at 7:50 p.m. ET.
At the White House, Trump thanked God, the military and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying U.S. officials "worked as a team" with their counterparts in Tel Aviv.
Netanyahu, in his first public comments on the U.S. strikes, congratulated Trump for his "bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might" of the American military.
The decision will "change history," Netanyahu said in an English-language video statement.
In a brief phone interview with NBC News' Kristen Welker, Trump called the strikes a "great success" and a "complete and total success."
A gamble by Trump
Trump's decision to bomb Iran represents a gamble that U.S. military action against Tehran's nuclear program can remain limited in scope and that the United States will not be drawn into another open-ended war in the Middle East.
Trump and his aides appear to have calculated that the U.S. action did not mean opening the door to a long-term military assault on Iran and that a one-off strike could deal a decisive blow to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
U.S. military commanders have not yet outlined the possible damage to Iran's nuclear sites, including a deeply buried facility in Fordo believed to hold enriched uranium and sophisticated centrifuges. If the bombing was less than precise or if Iran moved key nuclear-related hardware, U.S. aircraft could still be ordered back to finish the job.
Even if the bombing raids hit their targets, the decision to attack Iran carries risks and uncertainties.
If Trump's gamble pays off, Iran's nuclear capabilities will be set back years and possibly decades. Iran could find itself severely weakened, having suffered a series of devastating blows over the past year from Israel's military and intelligence operations.
But Iran has a history of striking at more powerful adversaries by using asymmetric tactics, including terrorist attacks. In 1983, Washington accused Iran of using Lebanese Hezbollah militants to carry out lethal bombings of a Marine Corps barracks and the U.S. Embassy in Beirut.
With both Israel and the United States bombing its territory and Israel's government suggesting Iran's government might collapse, Iran's political leaders are likely to see the current conflict as a fight for the survival of their regime.
Iran has said it has a right to self-defense if it is attacked, and it could be looking to strike at U.S. bases or embassies in and outside the region. Iran still has ballistic and cruise missiles that it could try to fire at American bases in the Persian Gulf or elsewhere, a scenario the U.S. military has long prepared for.
It's not clear whether Iran could retaliate with missile attacks on U.S. or allied forces in the Gulf. Israel has managed to intercept many of the ballistic missiles and drones that Iran has fired over the past week, though its air defenses are coming under increasing strain.
Iranian officials could choose a more drastic response by planting sea mines or attacking commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway between the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean through which a fifth of the world's oil passes.
Such a move could cause havoc in the oil markets and the global economy. But it would also disrupt Iran's own oil exports, depriving the country's struggling economy of badly needed oil revenue. And it could antagonize other countries that have so far stayed out of the conflict.
After he spoke Saturday night, Trump posted on Truth Social, "ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT. THANK YOU! DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES"
Iran had long counted on its proxy forces in the region as a defensive ring to fend off its enemies and deter any possible attack by Israel or the United States.
But its most important ally, Hezbollah in Lebanon, has been devastated by a series of Israeli attacks and assassinations. And in the Palestinian enclave of Gaza, Hamas — which Iran armed and trained — has been badly weakened and its leaders have been killed.
But Tehran still has Shiite militias in Iraq and Houthi militants in Yemen that could possibly target American forces, including in Syria.
The New York Police Department said in a statement that it was putting officers at sensitive locations around the city in the wake of the U.S. action.
"We're tracking the situation unfolding in Iran," the statement said. "Out of an abundance of caution, we're deploying additional resources to religious, cultural, and diplomatic sites across NYC and coordinating with our federal partners."
Partisan reaction
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., attacked Trump's decision to strike Iran, saying that "the risk of war has now dramatically increased."
"President Trump misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East," Jeffries said in a statement.
Tommy Vietor, who was a National Security Council spokesperson during the Obama administration, warned of retaliatory attacks by Tehran against the United States.
"Iran might retaliate today, tomorrow or in months. Or a year from now, Iran or its proxies might blow up a bus filled with American tourists in Cyprus," Vietor wrote on social media. "No one knows what comes next. Bombing Iran started something that we no longer have the capacity to predict or contain."
Republican members of Congress said on social media that they supported Trump's decision to bomb the three nuclear sites in Iran.
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said, "Good. This was the right call. The regime deserves it."
Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said the attack was necessary. "The prospect of the Iranian regime acquiring nuclear weapons represents the most acute immediate threat to America and our allies," he said.
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas called Trump's actions "courageous and correct," and Sen. Rick Scott of Florida said the president's actions show "what peace through strength looks like."
Focus on Fordo site
The facility at Fordo, Iran's most advanced, is built inside a mountain and believed to be safe from any bomb except the United States' GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a "bunker buster" weapon.
Trump did not say which type of bombs were used, but it was widely expected that the GBU-57 would be used. Earlier in the day, several American B-2 stealth bombers, which are the only plane that can carry GBU-57 bombs, which weigh 30,000 pounds, took off from Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri.
Trump's turn
NBC News has reported that Trump initially opposed Israel's taking military action against Iran, favoring negotiations over bombing. But in the days before Israel's strikes on Iran, he became convinced that Israel's heightened anxiety over Iran's nuclear enrichment capabilities was warranted.
After a pivotal June 8 briefing from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, about Israel's plans and U.S. options for supporting its operation, Trump gave tacit approval for Israel to conduct strikes and for the U.S. to provide limited backing.
Even though many of his MAGA allies have advocated against U.S. military involvement, Trump's rhetoric about Iran has steadily escalated since Israel's bombing campaign began.
On Tuesday, he called for Iran's "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!" on Truth Social.
Wednesday morning, he said he was still considering U.S. strikes.
"I may do it. I may not do it," he told reporters outside the White House. "Nobody knows what I'm going to do."
"I may do it. I may not do it," he told reporters outside the White House. "Nobody knows what I'm going to do."
On Saturday, Trump's decision was clear: an unprecedented US military attack that he hopes will weaken Iran so decisively that its leaders will make major concessions.
Trump ended his speech with a warning to Iran's leaders. "Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must make peace," he said. The question now is how Iran responds.
Tags
Who is online
111 visitors
Eventually Iran's leader will also have to be eliminated.
If that happens, it should be done by the Iranian people and not us or Israel. Let's be honest, the US has a horrible track record on regime change.
Of course, but they tried in 2009 and many lost their lives. The problem is that nobody wants to be the first killed in a revolution.
Let's be honest, the US has a horrible track record on regime change.
It is not the US. It has been democrat leaders. Jimmy Carter is responsible for all this. The Shah wasn't perfect, but he was pro-American & pro-western, and the alternative was clearly straight up evil. Then came Obama and Biden who tried to appease the very regime that coined the phrase "death to America."
Why? It hasn't been necessary to eliminate Kim Jong Un. The critical step now is to dismantle Iran's terror networks and proxies. That would isolate Iran just as North Korea has been isolated. The absolute worst thing to attempt would be nation building. We don't need another Hamid Karzai.
I don't want to nation build. I want to enable the Iranians. I don't think they'll put another Islamic maniac in power.
Ali Khamenei is 86 years old. Eliminating Khamenei won't accomplish much. IMO what is needed is for the Iranian people to demand progressive reforms. We know from our own experience that Iran becoming liberal would weaken the country.
Turkey will need to be watched more closely. The only country really poised to fill a power vacuum in Iran would be Turkey. Turkey is currently dealing with a flood of Iranians fleeing the war. Turkey is a wild card that may or may not prove to be significant.
Of course, it is reported that democrats have condemned the attack.[✘]
[✘]
[✘]
[✘] Can anyone else try and explain why liberals are always wrong on every 80/20 issue?
[deleted][✘]
in an effort to stop the free fall of his polling numbers, trumpski has resorted to the tried and true republican standby of engaging in a military adventure, this time in the middle east. his eyes directed towards his 2 biggest fantasies of launching a nuke and of requiring a redo of his failed military parade with a more appropriate victory parade for himself, participating as the conquering hero focal point to his adoring sycophants. riding in an open convertible would probably be best.
Morning...dumb question...but has anyone else noticed how Trumpet and his tag alongs are starting to dress the same? It looks a bit weird....
... their black uniformss are still being tailored. there's been a lot of design alterations. it's an ongoing process ...
got to get the runes just right
the regular slacks versus riding pants debate has taken 8 months ...
Not just completely obliterated, but completely AND totally obliterated.
Hard to opine on this given the lack of insider information. This could be one of Trump's good moves or it could trigger a shit storm. Will have to see how this evolves to make sense of it.
I will say that Trump does appear to be escalating hostility and has clearly interjected the USA in a foreign war. If he were not PotUS he would be blasting the current PotUS for taking the very action he took and claiming that if he were PotUS there would have never been a war between Iran and Israel and that the USA would never be involved.
some of the intelligence agencies from our allies, trump has marginalized recently, are claiming that trump telegraphed his intent weeks ago and that iran had a lot of materials already moved prior to those sites being bombed. I'm interested to see how trump tries to end-run the constitution on this one, especially considering the timing of the attack as legislators were on their way home.
Trump is so good at keeping news to himself, hard to imagine that he would telegraph a potential attack.
Not sure what you are referring to regarding constitutionality because precedence provides a PotUS the ability to engage in an attack ... especially when an ally (Israel) has been attacked.
Israel was attacked by Iran? Only if you play the tape at an angle. Israel attacked Iran. There was no recent provocative event to trigger a defensive attack. Only the suspicion that they were "Near" an atomic weapon. Just like Hussein.
meh, the story has worked before on the paranoid and gullible ...
Trump and the current dysfunctional GoP are constantly using slim threads of justification like this. And the SCotUS sometimes supports it.
Why would he. It was perfectly legal.
he violated the war powers resolution.
No he didn't. It's not the first time a call like this was made. The ONLY difference between this time and previous operations was who the POTUS is.
I'll leave the whataboutisms to those that need them ...
So you chose to be the partisan hypocrite. Can't say that I'm surprised.
our own intelligence agencies are confirming the presence of more than a dozen heavy trucks at the site in the days preceding the attack.
You need to provide sources to support your assertions not only for this one but, the original above. Remember, "no one is above the CoC, ToS."
Source: Trust Me Bro.
= hegseth's likely source
Given it was YOUR comment without a source...
spin, spin, spin ...
Dodge, dodge, dodge.
Later dude.
you have the same resource to seek the truth as anyone else that comments here. try using it ...
how gross
trumpski and hegseth spent 100x more spinning this story than the bombers did over the site ...
He grew six inches
I'll wait for melania's confirmation.