US defence secretary claims Trump ‘does not seek war' after Iran strike
The US launched a major attack on three Iranian nuclear sites, dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer, with President Trump claiming it "completely obliterated" Iran 's nuclear weapon chances.
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth stated the operation aimed solely to end Iran 's nuclear ambitions, insisting the administration "does not seek War" or regime change.
The attack, involving stealth bombers and numerous missiles, was reportedly planned for weeks, leading to speculation of "deliberate deception" despite earlier de-escalation assurances at the G7 summit.
The UN Secretary-General condemned the US action as a "dangerous escalation," while Iran vowed revenge, with its foreign minister flying to Moscow for talks with Vladimir Putin.
The UK and other allies organised repatriation flights amid fears of all-out War, with UK bases on high alert, though the UK Prime Minister supported the US action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
35 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Did Trump's strike pay off? New images show Iran's nuclear ambitions in ruins
US strikes on Iran may have set the country's nuclear programme back by several years, according to preliminary expert analysis. Donald Trump's claims that Iran's nuclear sites had been 'completely and totally obliterated' were likely to be an overstatement, serving and former US military officials said – but it is probable that all three facilities targeted suffered extensive damage. Under best-case assessments, Iran's capacity to enrich uranium has been severely degraded, if not destroyed. However, the country's existing stockpiles of uranium enriched to near weapons grade – enough to fuel 10 nuclear bombs – is thought to have survived. Understanding the extent to which the US has damaged Iran's nuclear programme is a vital in determining whether the strikes were a one-off or merely the opening salvo of a wider conflict US B-2 stealth bombers and cruise missiles struck Iran's three most important nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. If the strikes succeeded in destroying centrifuge halls at the facilities, they would prevent Iran from further enriching its uranium stockpiles to a purity of 90 per cent – something it has not done so far, according to UN inspectors. Satellite images of convoys leaving all three sites in recent days support Iran's claims that it moved its 400-kg stockpile – much of it previously held at Isfahan – to a secret underground location shortly before the strikes. Even if that were the case, however, the damage inflicted elsewhere would still make it difficult to turn the uranium into a bomb. Even if Iran had retained its fissile material, it would be 'like having fuel without a car,' said Ronen Solomon, an Israeli intelligence analyst. 'They have the uranium – but they can't do a lot with it, unless they have built something we don't know about on a small scale.' That is not beyond the realm of possibility. Iran succeeded in keeping its Fordow facility a secret for seven years before it was dramatically exposed, by Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy – then the leaders of the US, UK and France – at a joint press conference in 2009, following a joint intelligence operation. Fordow Of the three sites attacked, Fordow was by far the most important. The last-known site developed by the Iranians was deliberately designed to withstand aerial attack. An 'engineering marvel', in the words of one Western official, its main centrifuge halls lie buried up to half a mile inside a mountain. Not only does a layer of solid rock act as a natural shield impervious to most bombs, but additional artificial layers of reinforcement are also believed to have been added. The GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bunker-busting bomb – 12 of which the US dropped on Fordow – is capable of penetrating 60 metres of standard concrete before exploding. But Iran is believed to have reinforced the centrifuge halls at Fordow with ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC), which can withstand six times the amount of pressure of normal concrete – up to 30,000-lb per square inch. If Iran used the best quality UHPC, Fordow would have been significantly harder to destroy. Given that the site is underground, it remains difficult to assess the scale of the damage yet, with both Iranian and US officials saying they are still conducting evaluations. Natanz Above-ground facilities at Natanz, Iran's largest enrichment site, had already been damaged by extensive Israeli strikes, as shown by satellite imagery. The destruction of the site's electric substation may have knocked out power, potentially damaging centrifuges by causing them to spin out of control, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog. Natanz also housed an underground centrifuge hall thought to have been the target of two US bunker-busters. The site was additionally struck by cruise missiles fired by a US submarine in the Arabian Sea. Isfahan Much of Iran's mostly highly enriched uranium is thought to have been stored at the nuclear research and production centre near the city of Isfahan, the ancient capital of Safavid Persia. International inspectors verified the fuel was there a fortnight ago, but satellite imagery suggests Iran may have moved it in recent days. Israel had previously struck laboratories and three other buildings at the facility. The US did not use bunker-busters on Isfahan – which is thought to be mostly above ground – and instead attacked with cruise missiles. The strikes are thought to have damaged six additional buildings, including a fuel rod production facility. Overall assessment A fuller picture of overall damage may emerge in the coming days, with experts urging caution about attaching too much credibility to the US president's more optimistic pronouncements or to Iran's defiant claims that its nuclear capacity remains largely intact. Clionadh Raleigh, head of the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), a conflict-monitoring group, warned that although the strikes might alter the timeline of Iran's nuclear programme, they would do little to alter its ultimate trajectory. 'The regime's broader power and intentions are likely to remain intact,' said Ms Raleigh. 'Iran's military and intelligence systems are designed and built to survive. The structure is deeply layered and resistant to collapse. Even if key infrastructure is destroyed, the system adapts – and in some cases, becomes more dangerous in the process. 'There's no evidence that the strikes will permanently end Iran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities. What they may do is shift the timeline.' Others were less cautious. Mick Mulroy, a former Pentagon official who served in the first Trump administration, told the New York Times that the US strikes will 'likely set back the Iranian nuclear programme two to five years' – an assessment shared by Jason Brodsky of United Against a Nuclear Iran, a US-based pressure group. The setback stems not only from the strikes themselves. Repairing the damage will be far harder following the assassination of more than a dozen nuclear scientists in the past 10 days, Israeli officials said. 'Several of the eliminated scientists had spent decades advancing nuclear weapons, constituting a significant part of the Iranian regime's plans to annihilate the State of Israel,' one official said. 'These scientists had diverse professional expertise and extensive experience.'
Sky News
36 minutes ago
- Sky News
An Iranian attack on US military bases could draw the UK into the conflict
When I got to Chequers on Sunday morning the prime minister had clearly been up for most of the night and hitting the phones all morning with calls to fellow leaders in Europe and the Middle East as he and others scrambled to try to contain a very dangerous situation. His primary message on Sunday was to try to reassure the public that the UK government was working to stabilise the region as best it could and press for a return to diplomacy. But what struck me in our short interview was not what he did say but what he didn't - what he couldn't - say about the US strikes. It was clear from his swerve on the question of whether the UK supported the strikes that the prime minister neither wanted to endorse US strikes nor overtly criticise President Trump. Instead, his was a form of words - repeated later in a joint statement of the E3 (the UK, Germany and France) to acknowledge the US strikes and reiterate where they can agree: the need to prevent Iran having a nuclear weapon. He also didn't want to engage in the very obvious observation that President Trump simply isn't listening to Sir Keir Starmer or other allies, who had been very publicly pressing for de-escalation all week, from the G7 summit in Canada to this weekend as European countries convened talks in Geneva with Iran. 4:00 It was only five days ago that the prime minister told me he didn't think a US attack was imminent when I asked him what was going on following President Trump's abrupt decision to quit the G7 early and convene his security council at the White House. When I asked him if he felt foolish or frustrated that Trump had done that and didn't seem to be listening, he told me it was a "fast moving situation" with a "huge amount of discussions in the days since the G7" and said he was intensely pressing his consistent position of de-escalation. What else really could he say? He has calculated that criticising Trump goes against UK interests and has no other option but to press for a diplomatic solution and work with other leaders to achieve that aim. 1:15 Before these strikes, Tehran was clear it would not enter negotiations until Israel stopped firing missiles into Iran - something Israel is still saying on Sunday evening it is not prepared to do. The US has been briefing that one of the reasons it took action was because it did not think the Iranians were taking the talks convened by the Europeans in Geneva seriously enough. It is hard now to see how these strikes will not serve but to deepen the conflict in the Middle East and the mood in government is bleak. Iran will probably conclude that continuing to strike only Israel in light of the US attacks - the first airstrikes ever by the US on Iran - is a response that will make the regime seem weak. 2:38 But escalation could draw the UK into a wider conflict it does not want. If Iran struck US assets, it could trigger article five of NATO (an attack on one is an attack on all) and draw the UK into military action. If Iran chose to attack the US via proxies, then UK bases and assets could be under threat. The prime minister was at pains to stress on Sunday that the UK had not been involved in these strikes. Meanwhile, the UK-controlled airbase on Diego Garcia was not used to launch the US attacks, with B-2 bombers deployed from Guam instead. There was no request to use the Diego Garcia base, the president moving unilaterally, underlining his disinterest in what the UK has to say. The world is waiting nervously to see how Iran might respond, as the PM moves more military assets to the region while simultaneously hitting the phones.
Sky News
37 minutes ago
- Sky News
The Americans want the attack on Iran's nuclear sites to be a 'one-and-done'
The Pentagon briefing was big on what happened but short on detail of what happens next. Neither defence secretary Pete Hegseth nor General Dan "Raisin" Caine, chair of the joint chiefs of staff, can answer that. Mr Hegseth called the bombing an "incredible and overwhelming success" with "focused and clear" instructions from President Trump. The focus now is on what follows and that's not so clear. The briefing laid out the details of the military deception plan behind Operation Midnight Hammer. B-2 stealth aircraft were flown west towards the Pacific on Saturday as a decoy, while the B-2s with bunker-busting bombs on board flew east towards Iran. 1:15 Mr Hegseth called it a plan that took months and weeks of positioning and came down, in the end, to "precision, misdirection and operational security". Gen Caine, Mr Trump's top military man, offered a measured assessment. While Mr Trump had spoken of Iran's nuclear sites being "obliterated", Gen Caine revised that downwards when he spoke of "extremely severe damage". Full battle damage assessment will reveal the complete picture - only then can the mission's success be measured in full, mindful that Iran had shifted at least some of its enriched uranium in the days before the strike. On the politics of it, Mr Hegseth said this wasn't about regime change in Iran. It might offer precious little reassurance to Tehran, particularly as he also said part of the operation was to defend Israel and the ongoing defence of Israel. 2:38 If the US is tethered to Israel's interests to the extent of an unprecedented attack on Iran, where does its influence end? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared almost giddy in response to the US attack. He is a PM strengthened by Mr Trump's spectacular response to his rhetoric around Iran. Suspicions weren't softened around Netanyahu's influence over Mr Trump when Mr Hegseth was asked about the basis for the attack. He has long lobbied the US president on Iran being close to building a nuclear bomb, contrary to American intelligence which indicates otherwise. Mr Hegseth was asked what was the new intelligence, was it American or from other countries? He avoided a direct answer, saying only that Mr Trump had looked at all the intelligence information and concluded Iran was a threat. There were a number of questions about what comes next, with an assortment of non-answers in response from Mr Hegseth. 4:00 A consistent line was that the US wanted Iran to negotiate peace, coupled with the threat of further aggression if it doesn't. The US defence secretary said Washington was in touch with Tehran privately and publicly, giving it every opportunity to come to the table, every opportunity for peace. He made the point that America hadn't targeted Iranian troops or civilians - clearly, a measure by the US to limit response and leave open a door. The Americans want this attack to have been a "one-and-done". The scenario it's left with, however, is an Iran talking of a diplomatic door closed and sending its foreign minister travelling to Moscow to meet Vladimir Putin. Iran is wounded, no doubt. Combined attacks have left it degraded and, without a network of support in the Middle East, its ability to strike back is limited. For now, if not necessarily forever. Donald Trump clearly enjoyed the sugar rush of military success but he will be wary of the come-down and all of its uncertainties.
