US B-2 bombers head to Gaum amid Israel-Iran tensions
Listen to article
Six US Air Force B-2 stealth bombers have departed from Missouri and appear to be en route to Guam, amid growing speculation over a potential American military role in the escalating Israel-Iran conflict.
Guam is a US island territory in Micronesia, in the Western Pacific.
The aircraft, tracked via flight data and confirmed through air traffic control communications, took off from Whiteman Air Force Base and refuelled mid-air—suggesting they may be carrying heavy payloads, possibly including bunker-buster bombs.
The B-2 Spirit is one of the only aircraft in the world capable of carrying 15-ton GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs. These weapons, which are designed to penetrate fortified underground targets, are considered by defence experts to be key to attacking Iran's heavily reinforced nuclear facilities, particularly the Fordow enrichment site.
'Destroying [Fordow] from the air is a job only the US can do,' said Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, speaking to Fox News Digital.
Jonathan Ruhe, Director of Foreign Policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), added that the bunker-busters are engineered to penetrate deep layers of earth, rock, and concrete before detonating underground. The resulting impact, he said, could either fully destroy a target or cause surrounding structures to collapse.
Trump returns for security briefings
President Donald Trump is expected to return to the White House on Saturday, where he will receive intelligence briefings with the National Security Council over the weekend. He has said a decision on potential US involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict will be made soon.
The president has recently clashed with Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who testified in March that there was "no evidence" Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Trump publicly stated she was "wrong," while Gabbard later claimed her comments were misrepresented, accusing the media of spreading 'fake news.'
In a statement posted on X, Gabbard said: 'America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree.'
Speculation over Diego Garcia stop
It remains unclear whether the B-2 bombers will continue past Guam toward Diego Garcia—a key US-UK military base in the Indian Ocean, located around 3,500 km (2,175 miles) from Iran. Defence analysts have suggested Diego Garcia could serve as a forward-operating base in the event of military escalation.
According to reports, between two and four B-2 bombers, along with six aerial refueling aircraft, departed from Missouri in the early hours of Saturday.
US sanctions on Iran
While the United States has not directly entered the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict, the State Department announced new sanctions on Friday targeting Iran's defense industry. Eight entities and one individual have been blacklisted for allegedly procuring sensitive military machinery from China for Tehran.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who initially sought to distance Washington from the conflict, said the measures aim to curtail Iran's ability to escalate military operations.
The developments come as regional tensions intensify following Israeli airstrikes on Iranian military and nuclear sites. Iran has vowed retaliation, while calls for de-escalation have come from countries including Turkey, Russia, and China.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
Israel signals it may strike Iran's nuclear facilities before US deadline, sources say
Listen to article Israeli officials have told the Trump administration they do not want to wait two weeks for Iran to reach a deal to dismantle key parts of its nuclear program and Israel could act alone before the deadline is up, two sources said, amid a continuing debate on Trump's team about whether the US should get involved. The two sources familiar with the matter said Israel had communicated their concerns to Trump administration officials on Thursday in what they described as a tense phone call. The Israeli officials said they do not want to wait the two weeks that US President Donald Trump presented on Thursday as a deadline for deciding whether the US will get involved in the Israel-Iran war, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The Israeli participants on the call included Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Israel Katz and military chief Eyal Zamir, according to a security source. The Israelis believe they have a limited window of opportunity to move against the deeply buried site at Fordow, the crown jewel of Iran's nuclear program, said the sources. The United States is the only country with the bunker-busting bombs powerful enough to reach the facility, which is dug into the side of a mountain. Reuters reported on Saturday that the United States is moving B-2 bombers to the Pacific island of Guam, reinforcing the possibility that the US could participate directly in an attack. The B-2 can be equipped to carry America's 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, designed to destroy targets deep underground, such as the one at Fordow. A person in Washington familiar with the matter said Israel has communicated to the US administration that it believes Trump's window of up to two weeks is too long and that more urgent action is needed. The person did not say whether the Israelis made that point during the high-level call. During the call, Vice President JD Vance pushed back, saying the United States shouldn't be directly involved and suggesting that the Israelis were going to drag the country into war, said the sources. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also participated in the call, said a security source. Reuters could not determine who else took part in the call. The Jerusalem Post reported earlier that a phone call had taken place on Thursday. The prospect of a US strike against Iran has exposed divisions in the coalition of supporters that brought Trump to power, with some prominent members of his base urging him not to get the country involved in a new Middle East war. Vance has frequently criticized past US involvement in conflicts, including Iraq and Afghanistan, but has lately defended Trump against Republican critics who urge the administration to stay out of the Iran conflict. Other Republicans, including Trump ally Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, have said they hope Trump will help Israel finish destroying Iran's nuclear program. Trump, who campaigned on a promise to keep the US out of what he called "stupid" foreign wars, has himself seemed conflicted at times about whether to join the Israeli attack on Iran or focus on diplomatic efforts to end Tehran's nuclear program. But his rhetoric in recent days has become increasingly aggressive toward Iran. Iran insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. The White House declined to comment for this story. The Israeli Prime Minister's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Iran's mission to the United Nations also did not immediately respond. Israeli strike on Fordow increasing likely Publicly, Netanyahu has not ruled out Israel attacking Fordow alone, though officials have not provided any details on how that would be achieved. Four sources said it is now increasingly likely that the country will launch a solo military operation. Israeli air superiority over much of Iran makes an operation more feasible, though still risky, said two of the sources. The Israelis feel they have the momentum and have limited time given the costs of the war, one source added. "I don't see them waiting much longer," said the source. It is not clear whether such an operation would involve bombing, ground forces, or both. Two of the sources said that rather than attempting to destroy the entire site Israel could instead do significant damage to it. That could mean focusing on destroying what is inside the site rather than the site itself, said one of the sources, declining to elaborate. Some analysts have speculated that Israel could use special forces to enter Fordow and blow it up from inside. Another scenario being considered, according to a source familiar with the matter, would be to drop a series of munitions in rapid succession in an attempt to breach the fortified site, similar to how the Israeli military killed Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah last year. Such a strike could be followed by an incursion by special forces, the source said. It is not clear that Israel has munitions powerful enough to penetrate the fortified facility. It is widely believed that to have a high chance of success, US intervention would be needed. But even with the massive firepower of a joint US-Israeli military action, military and nuclear experts believe that a military operation would probably only temporarily set back a program the West fears is already aimed at producing atom bombs one day, although Iran denies it.
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
Why China and Russia will not enter Iran-Israel war
Listen to article The escalating war between Israel and Iran is currently being led by two main developments that may eventually determine how this war might end. The first development is that President Trump has announced that he is giving Iran two weeks to reconsider its position before the US may take a final decision to enter the war on Israel's side. The second development is that the Iranian foreign minister is traveling to Geneva to meet the foreign ministers of European countries, as the two sides explore the possibility of finding a diplomatic solution to the problem before the US weighs its options to join the war. Interestingly, there is also an increased debate on the subject of whether, at some stage of this ongoing conflict, the other two great powers, China and Russia, may join this war. In case they don't, it is assumed that the world will once again turn to a unipolar moment with the US acting as the de facto global hegemon. I tend to disagree with this assessment and try to justify my claim based on pure, realistic logic. The Israeli military strikes on Iran, despite the ongoing process of negotiations between the US and Iran, once again proved the realist assumption that in the anarchic structure of the international system, states cannot be certain about each other's intentions and must continue to acquire capabilities to maintain balance of power to protect themselves. That the weak states are taken advantage of was proved in how China bore a century of humiliation from 1840 to 1940, where the Europeans and the Japanese took advantage of its weakness and vulnerability. The same happened with Russia, which, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, became weak and vulnerable, and NATO expanded eastwards and included its former republics as member states. This disregard for Russian security by the US and its allies only happened because Russia was weak. As President Putin reoccupied the office of Russian President in 2012, Russia started contesting NATO's eastward encroachment. Russia grew powerful, became the regional hegemon and started protecting its sphere of influence. The realist logic is based on state survival first; and to survive, great powers must continue to acquire power, enhance their capabilities and safeguard their interests at all costs. And that's what Russia did. The US never allowed Europeans to interfere in its sphere of influence in the western hemisphere, and there should be no doubt that both China and Russia go by the same strategic and realist logic and would not want outside interference in their sphere of influence. The US premise of viewing Russia and China as posing geopolitical threats to the world is a premise based on wrong assumptions. There was a time that the US indulged in exporting liberal hegemony in the world with disregard to the power politics and the concept of balance of power, as the other two great powers, Russia and China, were weak. The US and its western allies were able to expand NATO eastwards only because of this slack in the international system of the time. If the US decision of NATO expansion seemed rational at that time, then from the Russian perspective, Russia's decision to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO under the changed international environment of multipolarity may also be considered rational. Professor Mearsheimer, famous realist scholar, professes the theory that all states are rational. But he also states that theories are simplifications of realities, and realities are complicated. Theories are utilised to navigate the world; and sometimes, depending on the prevailing international conditions and environment, theories may prove wrong. If in the unipolar moment the eastward expansion of NATO was a rational decision based on the realist theory of power maximisation then the Russian decision to fight war in Ukraine in the changed international environment may also be considered as a rational decision by a state acting on the realist logic of state survival and power maximisation. To answer the question of why China or Russia will not directly participate or join the war, even if the US intervenes in the war on behalf of Israel, is also based on realist logic. If the US intervenes in this war, it will not be able to fully pivot towards the Asia-Pacific to contain China. So, from the Chinese point of view, the involvement of the US and its allies in the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East may go on forever, as that would prevent the US from deploying its assets against China to contain it. Russia also has no interest in dominating Eastern Europe or the whole of Europe. It did that when it was the Soviet Union and had the military capability with hundreds of deployed combat divisions in Eastern European countries. Today, Russia doesn't have that capability. So, the US and Western premise of portraying Russia and China as global threats is a myth. The US and China are two powers fueled by two different ideologies. The US ideology of liberal internationalism is on the wane as democracies all over the world are receding and autocracy, authoritarianism and nationalism are dominating the world politics. China's rise is based on the Confucian ideology of peaceful rise. But over time, China's economic capability is giving rise to its military capability based on the pure realistic logic of survival in an anarchic system. The US also took the same route in becoming the most powerful state. The classic security dilemma guides the US-China relationship in which the rise of a great power instills fear in the mind of the existing power, thus creating global concern and fear of war. Great powers never fight directly with each other. During the long bipolar period many proxy wars were fought, but the US and the Soviet Union never fought a direct war with each other. Great powers will continue to engage in security competition like both the Soviet Union and the US did during the Cold War, but to imagine that they will ever directly engage in a hot war is a wrong assumption. Lastly, both the Korean War and the Vietnam War proved costly for the US, as even without directly participating in the war, the Soviet Union and China ensured that the US was not able to achieve its political objectives in these wars. Iran can rest assured that Russia and China, without directly participating in the war, will ensure that its sovereignty and territorial integrity are respected. Iran will pay a cost in engaging in this war, but it will not be the regime change or discontinuity of uranium enrichment for its civil nuclear energy.
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Ariana Grande calls out Trump's criminal record in anti-ICE repost
Ariana Grande has once again used her platform to weigh in on U.S. politics, resharing a viral post to her Instagram Story that criticizes former President Donald Trump and U.S. immigration policy. The quote, which quickly spread across social media, reads: 'Could someone explain which crimes get you deported and which ones get you elected president? It's so confusing.' The pop superstar did not add commentary to the post, but her decision to amplify it speaks volumes, especially amid renewed public outcry over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids and growing scrutiny of Trump's legal battles. Grande's reposting comes at a time when celebrity political engagement is more visible than ever. Known for her activism, Grande has previously encouraged voter turnout, spoken on LGBTQ+ rights, and voiced concern over racial injustice. Her latest post continues a pattern of using her massive following—over 380 million on Instagram—to spotlight political message resonated with thousands online, drawing praise from fans and activists alike. The post indirectly contrasts the criminalization of undocumented immigrants with the political survival of figures like Trump, who continues to campaign despite facing multiple indictments. Whether intentional or not, Grande's post has reignited debates about justice, accountability, and privilege in the U.S. legal system—raising questions far beyond the confines of pop culture.
