Israel's trying to wipe out Iran's nuke program. It won't be an easy kill.
Israel launched a major operation on Friday targeting Iran's nuclear program.
Israeli officials said aircraft struck Iran's main enrichment facility at Natanz, among other sites.
It's hard for Israel to completely wipe out Iran's nuclear program, given that much is underground.
Israel launched an air assault against Iran early Friday morning that officials said is intended to damage Tehran's nuclear program.
Hundreds of Israeli warplanes participated in a series of widespread airstrikes targeting sites associated with Iran's nuclear and missile programs, as well as military leaders and air defense systems, in a major escalation that has already drawn a retaliatory attack from Tehran.
Specifically, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that his forces "struck at the heart" of the country's nuclear enrichment and weaponization programs, and targeted its main enrichment facility at Natanz. The extent of the damage is unclear so far, but analysts said it appeared to be limited based on satellite imagery.
Netanyahu had long pushed for a military approach to Iran's nuclear program, as opposed to the deal that the Trump administration was hoping to settle to prevent Tehran from building nuclear weapons.
Iran has said that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes.
However, military and nuclear experts say firepower alone won't be enough to completely wipe out Iran's nuclear program. It has many scientists with nuclear expertise and has stored its most critical facilities in bunkers buried deep underground.
This makes the facilities particularly challenging targets that, from the air, can only be reached by the largest bunker busters, which Israel lacks, or repeated strikes in the same spots.
Natanz, home to Iran's largest uranium enrichment site, is located several floors underground in the center of the country. The Israel Defense Forces said its airstrikes damaged an underground area of the facility that contains an enrichment hall with centrifuges, electrical rooms, and additional infrastructure.
Satellite imagery captured on Friday revealed what appears to be significant damage at Natanz, but only on the surface.
Iran's other main enrichment site, Fordow, is buried even deeper in the side of a mountain and is the country's most "hardened" facility, said Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow for proliferation and nuclear policy at the UK-based Royal United Services Institute think tank.
In comments shared with Business Insider, Dolzikova said Fordow has not been affected by the Israeli strikes, nor have other locations. "Should Iran make a decision to produce a nuclear weapon, it would likely do that at hardened and potentially still secret sites," she said.
It's unclear what air-to-ground munitions Israel used to strike Natanz and the other targets affiliated with Iran's nuclear program. However, it would take a very large bunker-buster bomb to reach underground and destroy the more hardened sites.
The likely best weapon for the job is the US military's GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, one of the most powerful non-nuclear bombs and the largest bunker buster in America's arsenal at 15 tons. These munitions can only be carried by the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber and the B-21 Raider in development.
Israel doesn't have bomber aircraft capable of carrying the largest bunker-buster munitions. The IDF shared footage showing its fighter jets — F-35s, F-16s, and F-15s — taking off and landing during the strikes. Weapons experts pointed out that some of the aircraft appear to be carrying 2,000-pound guided bombs. Israel's F-15I, though, can carry 4,000-pound anti-bunker bombs.
Military analysts with RUSI estimated in March that the Fordow site could be as deep as 260 feet underground, likely beyond the reach of even America's MOP. Damaging it would almost certainly require repeated strikes, likely over days or weeks.
US officials said Washington was not involved in the Israeli strikes. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned Iran not to retaliate against American forces in the region, something Tehran and its allies have done in the past.
The US Navy has one aircraft carrier and six surface warships in the Middle East right now. These assets are capable of providing air defense in the event of a larger Iranian response. So far, Tehran has retaliated by launching dozens of drones at Israel.
Beyond the nuclear sites, Israeli officials said forces also went after other high-profile Iranian targets, including its top scientists, senior military commanders, air defenses, and ballistic missile program.
Read the original article on Business Insider
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
32 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Alert: Iran confirms 2 additional high-ranking generals were killed in Israeli strikes on the country
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Iran confirms 2 additional high-ranking generals were killed in Israeli strikes on the country.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Five key points for London from Spending Review
It is no secret that the mayor of London was not pleased with what was - or rather, what was not - in the government's recent Spending Review. Sadiq Khan's wish list, including money for new transport infrastructure projects, was surrounded by tumbleweed. An increase in police funding - unlikely to fill the Met's budget black hole - offered cold comfort, and there were slim pickings for council finances. The government would disagree with his outlook, pointing to investment in affordable homes, free school meals and the NHS. So let's take a closer look at the offerings for the capital. Transport Transport for London (TfL) is getting a four-year spending settlement of £2.2bn. It's a big deal because in recent years, not knowing how much government funding it would be getting beyond the next year TfL has struggled to plan ahead. TfL commissioner Andy Lord said having four years of cash guaranteed meant TfL could now complete the introduction of new trains on the Piccadilly line and Docklands Light Railway (DLR), and new signalling on 40% of the Tube. He said it can now procure a new tram fleet, progress discussions on new Bakerloo line trains and can get to work on renewing some of London's critical roads, tunnels and flyovers. Infrastructure In bad news for City Hall, no cash was allocated for the new transport infrastructure projects Sir Sadiq had been pinning his hopes on. These included the DLR extension to Thamesmead, the Bakerloo line extension to Lewisham and the West London Orbital between Hendon and Hounslow. This spending review was about the government's priorities and it was clear new London-based transport projects were not on that priority list. Instead, it pointed at old infrastructure announcements we already knew about -Heathrow expansion and HS2 to Euston. I asked the mayor's team whether it was an anti-London spending review. The answer was unequivocal: "Yes it is". However, an olive branch to City Hall was offered in a Treasury document, which said "the potential growth and housing benefits" of the DLR extension was recognised, and that the government "is committed to working with TfL to explore options for delivery". Sir Sadiq, who spent the run-up to last year's General Election telling journalists a Labour government working with a Labour mayor would mean London would get what it needs, was clearly not pleased. In the statement, he said it was "disappointing" there was no commitment to invest in the new infrastructure. He warned that without such investment, it will be unable to build "the new affordable homes that Londoners need". Housing The good news on housing was the £39bn for affordable homes over 10 years, which has been welcomed by the G15 group of the capital's leading housing associations. Chair, Ian McDermott - who is also the chief executive of the Peabody housing association - said it was clear ministers understood the issues. "In London the challenge remains considerable, but this settlement offers a real opportunity to turn the tide." Antonia Jennings, chief executive at the Centre for London thinktank, agreed it will bring more certainty to home builders, although did specify "the devil is in the detail". That brings us to the not-so-pretty side of this £39bn funding - we do not yet know what proportion of the funding will actually come to London. Ms Jennings warned a 10-year plan does not help Londoners today who are struggling to find affordable homes. She added that it would have been "very helpful to see… an uplift to the Local Housing Allowance" to help private renters. The Spending Review did include £950m to help councils pay for what the government described as "good-quality temporary accommodation" instead of "costly bed-and-breakfasts and hotels". London's boroughs have welcomed that, but again, it is not clear how much will come to London. London's councils now collectively spend £4 million a day on temporary accommodation to house homeless Londoners, and it is unclear if this sum would make much of a dent in that. Policing Yes, the chancellor did announce an increase of 2.3% for policing, but - and it is a huge but - the Metropolitan Police is facing a black hole in its funding of £260m this year. Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, warned of potential cuts to officer numbers and said they might be forced to choose which crimes the Met can afford to focus on. So is a 2.3% increase enough? The mayor of London thinks not. The statement he issued to us read: "I remain concerned that this Spending Review could result in insufficient funding for the Met and fewer police officers." In response, the chancellor Rachel Reeves told the BBC: "I really don't accept that there need to be cuts when we're increasing the money the police force gets." Clearly all is not harmonious between London's Labour mayor and the Labour government on this issue. Local government Put simply, London boroughs wanted more. The Treasury did announced an increase of around 3.1% per year in local authority core spending power, but London Councils has been warning it expects a collective funding gap of £500m this year. Chair of the group, Claire Holland, who also leads Lambeth Council, said boroughs' finances remain "extremely difficult" and the funding "will remain very tight." She said the critical issue going forward would be whether the government includes the cost of housing in how it decides the funding formula that determines the proportion of money each council receives. Pointing to research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that suggested London local government funding was 17% lower than its relative need, Holland said the distribution of funds "can be make or break for us in London". She added it was "vital" a new funding formula is implemented, that matches resource to need. Then there is council tax. Treasury documents for the spending review suggest council tax is expected to rise by 5% a year to pay for local services and that bills are also expected to rise further to pay for an increase in police funding. In London that has already been happening for years. Most councils here raised their council tax by the maximum 5% allowed this year and the mayor has, for several years, raised the council tax precept (the amount the Greater London Authority adds to your council tax bill) to provide more funding for the Met Police. Londoners can probably expect that trend to continue. From next year London will get an integrated settlement, bringing it in line with how funding works for combined authorities in some other parts of the country. So instead of the Greater London Authority getting different pots of cash from central government for, for example, housing or policing, which has to be spent on those areas, the mayor will get one budget pot and the GLA will decide how to spend it. Winners and losers: Who got what in the spending review? Why London councils want more Spending Review cash Could this be London's property hotspot in 2040? Leaks and crumbling ceilings: Met says half its buildings face closure
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Britain could be dragged into the Israel-Iran conflict
It was the moment that Benjamin Netanyahu had awaited for decades: at 3am on Friday, the Israeli prime minister's forces launched a massive attack on Iran, aiming to wipe out swathes of its nuclear weapons programme. Israel said its goal was to 'roll back' Tehran's programme, which it considers an existential threat, and has signalled that more strikes will follow, which could destroy the nuclear project altogether. But as the dust settles following Israel's initial salvo of air strikes, the risk of this operation unleashing an all-out regional war – and one that could even drag in Britain – looks higher than ever. On Friday night, Iran unleashed dozens of Iranian ballistic missiles towards Israel, the IDF said, with explosions heard in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and at least two civilians killed. Credit: X Iran's foreign ministry has signalled that it will retaliate, not only against Israel but also the United States, which it says 'approved' the attack and serves as Israel's 'primary patron'. 'The US government, as the primary patron of this regime, will also bear responsibility for the dangerous repercussions of the Zionist regime's reckless actions,' it warned. Those words could open the door to a large-scale Iranian response against US military bases in the Middle East, including those in Iraq, Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE. Ellie Geranmayeh, a senior Middle East analyst at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said: 'This is the biggest military attack Iran has faced since the war with Iraq in the 1980s, and is being viewed by Iran as a declaration of war. 'In Iran's view, there is no way that the Netanyahu government acted without a US green light.' Mr Netanyahu confirmed this on Friday, saying that Israel informed the United States about its plans to attack Iran before carrying them out. Credit: Reuters On Friday, The New York Times reported that the US government would 'soon' send additional fighter jets to the Middle East, suggesting that the Trump administration expects attacks shortly from Iran or its proxies that will require a military response. US officials said that the Pentagon is also 'positioning warships and other military assets' in the region to protect American troops from a possible attack. The Iranian statement also claimed that 'grave and far-reaching consequences' will be inflicted on Mr Netanyahu's 'supporters' – raising the possibility that key allies Britain and France might be dragged into regional conflict as well. While the UK is not currently planning to take part in defending Israel from Iranian counter-attacks, Iran's allusion to Western 'supporters' suggests that British military bases in the region could also be considered legitimate targets by Tehran as it draws up plans for retaliation. The UK has air bases in Qatar, the UAE, Oman and Cyprus, as well as a naval support facility in Bahrain. There is already a precedent for the UK launching air strikes on Iran's proxies, such as in April when the RAF used Typhoon jets to strike Houthi drone production sites in Yemen. If Iran were to target UK military sites as part of a wider assault on Israel and its key allies, Britain could react in kind by striking Iranian targets with fighter jets from one of its Gulf state bases, which are on the other side of the Persian Gulf from Iran. Tehran will be under immense pressure to respond forcefully to the latest attack, and says the US will soon 'receive a forceful slap'. But the regime has been left weakened by a string of catastrophic blows over the past two years to its main proxy groups and regional allies, and will be carefully weighing its options for a response. Hezbollah, the regime's biggest proxy group in Lebanon, was decimated by Israel last year, and its closest regional ally, Bashar al-Assad in Syria, was overthrown in December. On Friday, Hezbollah announced that it will not retaliate against Israel on Iran's behalf, underlining how severely it has been weakened by a wave of Israeli airstrikes and pager-bomb attacks, which decapitated its leadership and most senior commanders. In Yemen, the Houthi militia group recently halted its attacks on US vessels in the Red Sea under a ceasefire deal with Washington, and may be reluctant to break that deal only for the sake of rushing to Iran's defences. But experts say that if the Houthis break that ceasefire and rejoin the fray, it could significantly increase the likelihood of British involvement, due to a need to prevent a repeat of the havoc that Houthi strikes caused for trade vessels in the Red Sea in 2023 and 2024. Dr Burcu Ozcelik, a senior fellow from the Royal United Services Institute security think tank, said: 'Any such move would reverberate far beyond Yemen, threatening maritime security in the Red Sea and risking direct entanglement of the US and UK in a widening regional conflict.'In Moscow, Iran's strongest ally, officials have released a lukewarm response to the Israeli operation, which expressed 'concern' about the 'cynical' aggression – hardly a rallying cry to join Tehran in a regional war. In other words, Tehran is diplomatically isolated at present, which could reduce the risk of other key global players, other than the US, being dragged into the fighting. John Foreman, a former UK defence attache to Moscow, said Vladimir Putin was unlikely to get drawn into a Middle Eastern conflict in defence of his Iranian allies. 'Russia's relationship with the UAE and Saudi Arabia is probably more important to it. Iran has always been under the cosh, and now I don't think Russia wants to be between the Americans and the Iranians,' he said. He added that much of the Russian military support that was expected to be given to Tehran as thanks for drone shipments for Putin's war on Ukraine has not materialised. 'If you look at what Russia has given Iran, it has never given them the advanced fighters or the advanced air defence that Iran probably needed,' he said. As for a counter-attack coming directly from Iran, this could involve ballistic missile and drone attacks on Israel and US assets in the region. Previous waves of Iranian missile and drone attacks on Israel, in April and October 2024, caused limited damage, in large part due to air defence and interception provided by Western allies, including the UK. But there is a key difference: Iran's April salvo was responding to Israel bombing an Iranian embassy complex in Damascus, while October's was a response to Israel killing Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas leader, and Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader. Those previous escalations pale in comparison to Friday's direct attacks on Iranian soil, which have not only severely damaged Iran's nuclear facilities but also wiped out some of the country's most senior military commanders – including the chief of staff of the armed forces. Credit: @fararunews / Telegram Iran may also consider asymmetrical forms of retaliation such as cyber-attacks or harassing shipping assets in the Strait of Hormuz to drive up oil prices. Renewed action from Israel in the coming days that goes even further than Friday's attack, and which might occur before Iran manages to respond to the first round, cannot be ruled out. On Friday afternoon, Israel continued to pummel Iran with air strikes targeting surface-to-surface missile launch sites, no doubt seeking to limit Iran's capacity to respond. As of Saturday, Israel appeared to have severely damaged, but not completely demolished, Iran's Natanz site, the main nuclear facility. It targeted other key sites such as the Fordow enrichment facility near Tehran, but not the Isfahan nuclear technology centre, which employs thousands of nuclear scientists. Credit: Reuters The name of Israel's operation – Rising Lion – may even be an allusion to pre-Revolution Iran, as the lion is a symbol of the Iranian monarchy that was overthrown in 1979. This potentially hints that Israel's true goal goes far beyond suppressing the Iranian nuclear programme and could envisage the downfall of the Islamic Republic. If Israel's operation expands even further – and Donald Trump has suggested that it will unless Iran comes to the negotiating table – it could be considered by Iran to not just be a dire threat, but an existential one. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
