Iran threatens US bases in response to strikes on nuclear sites
International concern focused on fears that the unprecedented US attacks would deepen conflict in the volatile region. PHOTO: EPA-EFE
Iran threatens US bases in response to strikes on nuclear sites
WASHINGTON - Iran on June 22 threatened US bases in the Middle East after massive air strikes that Washington said had destroyed Tehran's nuclear programme, though some officials cautioned that the extent of damage was unclear.
International concern focused on fears that the unprecedented US attacks would deepen conflict in the volatile region after Israel launched a bombing campaign against Iran earlier this month.
Mr Ali Akbar Velayati, an advisor to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said bases used by US forces could be attacked in retaliation.
'Any country in the region or elsewhere that is used by American forces to strike Iran will be considered a legitimate target for our armed forces,' he said in a message carried by the official IRNA news agency.
'America has attacked the heart of the Islamic world and must await irreparable consequences.'
President Donald Trump urged Iran to end the conflict after he launched surprise strikes on a key underground uranium enrichment site at Fordo, along with nuclear facilities in Isfahan and Natanz.
'We had a spectacular military success yesterday, taking the 'bomb' right out of their hands (and they would use it if they could!)' he said on social media.
And while the US president did not directly advocate regime change in the Islamic republic, he openly played with the idea – even after his aides stressed that was not a goal of American intervention.
'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' Mr Trump posted on his Truth Social platform. 'But if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!'
Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told a Pentagon press briefing earlier that Iran's nuclear programme had been 'devastated', adding the operation 'did not target Iranian troops or the Iranian people'.
Standing beside Mr Hegseth, top US general Dan Caine said that while it would be 'way too early' for him to determine the level of destruction, 'initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction'.
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meanwhile said his country's military strikes will 'finish' once the stated objectives of destroying Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities have been achieved.
'We are very, very close to completing them,' he told reporters.
Tehran protests
As Iran's leaders struck defiant tones, President Masoud Pezeshkian also vowed that the United States would 'receive a response' to the attacks.
People gathered on June 22 in central Tehran to protest against US and Israeli attacks, waving flags and chanting slogans.
In the province of Semnan east of the capital, 46-year-old housewife Samireh told AFP she was 'truly shocked' by the strikes.
'Semnan province is very far from the nuclear facilities targeted, but I'm very concerned for the people who live near,' she said.
In an address to the nation hours after the attack, Mr Trump claimed success for the operation, and Vice President JD Vance followed up on June 22 morning.
'We know that we set the Iranian nuclear programme back substantially last night,' Mr Vance told ABC.
But he also suggested Iran still had its highly enriched uranium.
'We're going to work in the coming weeks to ensure that we do something with that fuel,' he said. 'They no longer have the capacity to turn that stockpile of highly enriched uranium to weapons-grade uranium.'
Another Khamenei advisor, Mr Ali Shamkhani, said in a post on X that 'even if nuclear sites are destroyed, game isn't over, enriched materials, indigenous knowledge, political will remain'.
Mr Rafael Grossi, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council that craters were visible at the Fordo facility, but no one had been able to assess the underground damage.
He added that attacks on nuclear facilities could cause radiation leaks, but the IAEA had not detected any.
Retaliation risk
Israel's military was checking results of the US raid on the deeply buried nuclear facility in Fordo, with a spokesman saying it was uncertain if Iran had already removed enriched uranium from the site.
The main US strike group was seven B-2 Spirit bombers that flew 18 hours from the American mainland to Iran. Mr Trump said on June 22 that the planes had landed safely on US soil after the marathon mission.
In response to the attack, which used over a dozen massive 'bunker buster' bombs, Iran's armed forces targeted sites in Israel including Ben Gurion airport near Tel Aviv, with at least 23 people wounded.
Nine members of the Revolutionary Guards were killed on June 22 in Israeli attacks on central Iran, local media reported, while three people were killed after an ambulance was also struck.
Israeli strikes on Iran have killed more than 400 people so far, Iran's health ministry said.
Iran's attacks on Israel have killed 24 people, according to official figures.
The United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman, which had been mediating Iran-US nuclear talks, criticised the US strikes and called for de-escalation.
French President Emmanuel Macron on June 22 warned against an 'uncontrolled escalation' in the Middle East, as he and his German and British counterparts called on Tehran 'not to take any further action that could destabilise the region'. AFP
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
25 minutes ago
- CNA
Commentary: Iran has no good choices to respond to US strikes – only the best of bad options
SINGAPORE: In the end, it was the American president who appeared to be the most dead set against 'stupid, endless wars' in the Middle East that sent the nation's military back into the region in a purely offensive manner. Although expectations were raised that the United States could act against Iran, the attacks early on Sunday (Jun 22) were a surprise – at least in terms of timing. Donald Trump gave Iran two weeks to come to a decision on whether it wanted to return to the negotiating table. Instead, he took all of two days to strike. Whether the two-week window was a ruse, or whether the US leader had gained new intelligence about Iran's unwillingness to negotiate – or even whether Mr Trump had already decided to attack when he set the deadline – will likely be unknown for some time, if ever. Another big unknown is how successful the American attacks were in setting back Iran's nuclear programme. Mr Trump claimed that Iran's nuclear facilities had been 'completely and totally obliterated'. But the press conference on Sunday night by the Pentagon provided neither detailed battle damage assessments nor satellite imagery that could shed light on the success of Operation Midnight Hammer beyond the superlatives employed by Mr Trump. Details will surely be clearer to the White House, but whether the message has been received by Tehran remains an open question. IRAN HAS NO GOOD CHOICES Perhaps what was most significant about the president's remarks was what was not explicitly stated: The US action was intended as a one-time effort, and whether it stays that way is up to the leadership of the Islamic Republic. That, of course, hinges on two things: Whether the bomb and missile strikes were as effective as claimed, and how Iran will respond to them. On the former, a successful mission is a preferable outcome: It increases the chances that calm will return sooner, rather than later – because Iran has no good choices. If, as threatened, it decides that the only way forward for it is to exit the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and take its programme underground, this will likely invite more American, and Israeli, action as they seek to exploit a moment of extraordinary Iranian weakness and vulnerability. This is a trail that has been blazed by North Korea, which is now estimated to have about 60 nuclear weapons. Washington will have no doubt learned lessons from its failure to keep Pyongyang from breaking out. Then again, the kinetic options that were available to the US in Iran were never really on the table in the case of North Korea, despite threats from a succession of US presidents – Mr Trump himself warned of 'fire and fury like the world has never seen'. The risks of a dramatic escalation, geopolitical uncertainty and lack of solid intelligence were among the reasons the US did not draw a firm line in the sand, and allowed North Korea to call its bluff. When it comes to Iran, the line has been drawn, and the consequences for crossing it have been clearly spelled out. DOING NOTHING WOULD BE CAPITULATION As Mr Trump put it, there will either be peace or tragedy for Iran, and the choice is theirs. Beyond the missile salvo it launched on Israel hours after the US strikes, Iran could hit American bases and the 40,000 troops in the Middle East as retaliation. It could also lash out by attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz, crippling oil supplies and attack Gulf Arab states, as it has done in the past. It could also resort to cyberattacks, or terrorist actions against US and Israeli interests around the world. But that is inviting further trouble on itself. The US attacks on Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, Mr Trump claimed, were the 'most difficult' for the military to carry out, and that future ones would be 'a lot easier'. For good measure, he added a footnote: 'Remember, there are many targets left.' In its current weakened and exposed state, any action Iran takes to widen the conflict will make its position even more precarious. That said, Iran cannot be expected to do nothing. Standing idly by would be tantamount to announcing its humiliating capitulation to the world. For the regime, much worse could follow: Doing nothing would validate an idea that many Iranians themselves believe – that their leaders have led them down a reckless path that has brought them economic misery, international opprobrium and isolation from the world. Iranians are a proud people and will rally around the flag in the face of severe attacks, setting aside political and ideological differences despite all their misgivings. An unconditional surrender, however, will force them to look inward at the choices that brought them here, and begin a reckoning against the clerical regime. WHAT'S THE BEST OF BAD OPTIONS? That leaves Iran the best of bad options – one it has taken before. In 2020, during Mr Trump's first term, it took five days after the US assassination of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps leader Qassem Soleimani before Iran retaliated. It fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at US bases in Iraq. Before it pressed the trigger, however, Tehran telegraphed the attacks, allowing Americans to seek safety. This prevented US fatalities, although more than 100 troops suffered traumatic brain injuries. This would appear to be the best course forward. Iran can claim retaliation in force, both sides can then put a lid on this episode and then sit down to work out a lasting solution. An agreement on the terms of Iran's surrendering of its nuclear ambitions – without ever using that word – may then be worked out, allowing all sides to claim some wins, and climb down from the escalatory ladder. Then again, in the Middle East, there are exceedingly few who have been accused of being rational actors.
AsiaOne
30 minutes ago
- AsiaOne
Iran must not take destabilising action, European leaders say, World News
FRANKFURT — The leaders of Britain, France and Germany on Sunday (June 22) urged Iran not to take any actions that would further destabilise the region following US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities overnight. "We have consistently been clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and can no longer pose a threat to regional security," the government heads of Germany, Britain, France, known as the E3, said in a joint statement. "We call upon Iran to engage in negotiations leading to an agreement that addresses all concerns associated with its nuclear programme. We stand ready to contribute to that goal in coordination with all parties." The E3 also confirmed their support for the security of Israel, the statement said. US forces struck Iran's three main nuclear sites, President Donald Trump said late on Saturday, warning Tehran it would face more devastating attacks if it does not agree to peace. "We will continue our joint diplomatic efforts to defuse tensions and ensure the conflict does not intensify and spread further," the E3 statement said. [[nid:719363]]
AsiaOne
an hour ago
- AsiaOne
UN Security Council meets on Iran as Russia, China push for a ceasefire, World News
UNITED NATIONS — The UN Security Council met on Sunday (June 22) to discuss US strikes on Iran's nuclear sites as Russia, China and Pakistan proposed the 15-member body adopt a resolution calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in the Middle East. "The bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States marks a perilous turn," UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told the Security Council on Sunday. "We must act — immediately and decisively — to halt the fighting and return to serious, sustained negotiations on the Iran nuclear programme." The world awaited Iran's response on Sunday after President Donald Trump said the US had "obliterated" Tehran's key nuclear sites, joining Israel in the biggest Western military action against the Islamic Republic since its 1979 revolution. Russia and China condemned the US strikes. "Peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved by the use of force," said China's UN Ambassador Fu Cong. "Diplomatic means to address the Iranian nuclear issue haven't been exhausted, and there's still hope for a peaceful solution." But acting US Ambassador to the UN Dorothy Shea told the council the time had come for Washington to act decisively, urging the Security Council to call upon Iran to end its effort to eradicate Israel and terminate its drive for nuclear weapons. "Iran long obfuscated its nuclear weapons programme and stonewalled our good-faith efforts in recent negotiations," she said. "The Iranian regime cannot have a nuclear weapon." Russia's UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia recalled former US Secretary of State Colin Powell making the case at the UN Security Council in 2003 that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein constituted an imminent danger to the world because of the country's stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. "Again we're being asked to believe the US's fairy tales, to once again inflict suffering on millions of people living in the Middle East. This cements our conviction that history has taught our US colleagues nothing," he said. Cost of inaction 'catastrophic' Iran requested the UN Security Council meeting on Sunday. Iran's UN Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani accused Israel and the US of destroying diplomacy, said all US allegations are unfounded and that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty "has been manipulated into a political weapon." "Instead of guaranteeing parties' legitimate rights to peaceful nuclear energy, it has been exploited as a pretext for aggression and unlawful action that jeopardise the supreme interests of my country," Iravani told the council. Israel's UN Ambassador Danny Danon praised the US for taking action against Iran, saying: "This is what the last line of defence looks like when every other line has failed." He accused Iran of using negotiations over its nuclear programme as camouflage to buy time to build missiles and enrich uranium. "The cost of inaction would have been catastrophic. A nuclear Iran would have been a death sentence just as much for you as it would have been for us," he told the council. It was not immediately clear when the council could vote on the draft resolution. Russia, China and Pakistan have asked council members to share their comments by Monday evening. A resolution needs at least nine votes in favour and no vetoes by the US, France, Britain, Russia or China to pass. The US is likely to oppose the draft resolution, seen by Reuters, which also condemns attacks on Iran's nuclear sites and facilities. The text does not name the United States or Israel. "Military action alone cannot bring a durable solution to concerns about Iran's nuclear programme," Britain's UN Ambassador Barbara Woodward told the council. "We urge Iran now to show restraint, and we urge all parties to return to the negotiating table and find a diplomatic solution which stops further escalation and brings this crisis to an end." UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi said that while craters were visible at Iran's enrichment site buried into a mountain at Fordow, "no one — including the IAEA — is in a position to assess the underground damage." Grossi told the Security Council that entrances to tunnels used for the storage of enriched material appear to have been hit at Iran's sprawling Isfahan nuclear complex, while the fuel enrichment plant at Natanz has been struck again. "Iran has informed the IAEA there has been no increase in off-site radiation levels at all three sites," said Grossi, who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency. [[nid:719362]]
