How US military could destroy Iran's Fordow nuclear site
President Trump will have one mission on his mind if he decides to join the war against Iran — destroying Fordow, its most heavily fortified nuclear site.
Buried deep beneath a mountain, only the Americans have the weapon capable of annihilating it.
The 13.6-tonne class GBU-57/B, otherwise known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb (Mop), has a thick steel outer casing that can penetrate fortifications up to 60m below ground.
It is delivered by the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, the only aircraft in the US air force inventory that is certified to carry the 'bunker-buster' bomb, which has never been fired in anger.
Without the bomb and the aircraft, Israel can inflict substantial damage on the Fordow uranium enrichment plant in central Iran — and might even render it inoperable by blocking entry points to the mountain — but it cannot destroy the facility, experts believe. Israel has GBU-28 bunker-busters that can penetrate 'only' 6m of concrete.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
32 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Ted Cruz gives even wilder justification for his Israel support in new Tucker Carlson clip
Senator Ted Cruz is backing Israel wholeheartedly in its war against Iran because of a passage in the Bible which tells Christians 'those who bless Israel will be blessed.' In a heated back-and-forth with former Fox firebrand Tucker Carlson, Cruz attempted to justify why he has been calling for Trump to help overthrow the Iranian regime amid increasing anxiety over America's involvement in conflict in the Middle East. 'Growing up in Sunday school I was taught from the Bible, those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed,' he told Carlson. Carlson had repeatedly humiliated Cruz with a series of 'gotcha' questions during the sit-down, which earlier culminated in a jaw dropping revelation from the politician that America was directly involved in 'carrying out military strikes' on Iran. And Carlson again capitalized when Cruz began addressing theology, asking Cruz exactly where in the Bible was the verse he referenced. 'I can find it,' Cruz said. 'I don't have the scripture off the tip of my...' he said, urging Carlson to 'pull out [his] phone' to search for it. 'It's in Genesis,' Carlson said. 'You're quoting a Bible phrase you don't have context for, you don't know where in the Bible it is... that's your theology?' Carlson continued, asking Cruz to clarify whether the Bible called for 'blessing the government of Israel.' 'I'm a Christian,' he said. 'I want to know what you're talking about... I'm confused.' Cruz doubled down, explaining: 'Where does my support for Israel come from? Number one, because biblically we are commanded to support Israel... It doesn't say the government of Israel, it says the nation of Israel. So that's in the Bible. As a Christian, I believe that.' Tensions escalated as the two men spoke over the top of one another and Carlson said: 'Hold on, you're a senator and now you're throwing out theology. I'm a Christian and I'm allowed to weigh in on this. 'We're commanded as Christians to support the government of Israel? Define Israel. This is important. Are you kidding? This is a majority Christian country.' Cruz hit back: 'Define Israel? Do you not know what Israel is? That would be the country you've asked like 49 questions about.' 'So that's what Genesis - that's what God is talking about?' Carlson said. 'Is that the current borders, the current leadership, he's talking about the political entity of Israel. 'Is the nation God is referring to in Genesis the same country Benjamin Netanyahu is running now?' Carlson has made no secret of his disdain for Trump 'abandoning his America First policies' amid the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran. His position on the conflict has put him at odds with the president, who is locked in tense crisis talks with his inner circle as he debates ramping up US involvement in the conflict. Cruz's statement that America has been 'carrying out military strikes' already was a major departure from everything the Trump administration had said about US involvement up until this stage - a point that was not lost on Carlson. 'You said Israel was [carrying out strikes],' Carlson said, to which Cruz responded: 'I've said we. Israel is leading them, but we're supporting them.' 'You're breaking news here,' Carlson said. 'The US government last night denied... on behalf of Trump, that we're acting on Israel's behalf in any offensive capacity.' Cruz appeared to backpedal on his statement, then telling Carlson: 'No, we're not bombing them. Israel is bombing them.' Carlson said: 'You just said we were. This is high stakes. You're a senator. If you're saying the United States is at war with Iran right now, people are listening.' The conservative commentator's earlier line of questioning had put Cruz under pressure and highlighted just how little he knows about the region. 'How many people live in Iran, by the way?' Carlson had asked. 'I don't know the population,' Cruz accepted, much to Carlson's horror as he quipped: 'At all?' 'You don't know the population of the people you're trying to topple?' Carlson added. Cruz tried to turn the tables back on Carlson, asking him for the number, to which the podcast host immediately responded: '92 million.' 'How could you not know that?' Carlson said. 'It's kind of relevant because you're calling for the overthrow of the government.' By this stage, the men were shouting over the top of one another as Cruz frantically tried to defend himself, first arguing 'I don't sit around memorizing population tables', before adding: 'Why is it relevant whether it's 90 million or 80 million.' Carlson, who appeared incredulous at the question, began to explain why he found it important 'if you don't know anything about the country', but was cut off by Cruz who said: 'I didn't say I don't know anything about Iran.' 'Okay,' Carlson countered, 'what is the ethnic mix of Iran?' Cruz stumbled over his answer, naming Persians and 'predominately Shia' before he was cut off by Carlson, who said again: 'What percent? You don't know anything on Iran.' Finally Cruz cracked, shouting: 'Okay, I'm not the Tucker Carlson expert on Iran.' Carlson said: 'You're the Senator who is calling for the overthrow of the government and you don't know anything about the country.' Both Israel and Iran launched fresh strikes at each other overnight, as Iran's Revolutionary Guard said it launched a 'more powerful' new wave of missiles at Israel. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned: 'The battle begins... We will show the Zionists no mercy.' Trump and Carlson have had a high-profile falling out amid Carlson's public criticism of the assault on Iran. Trump wrote Monday night on Truth social: 'Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that,' IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!' Earlier in the day, he said: 'I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network and say it so that people listen.'
Daily Mirror
35 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Trump privately 'approves attack plans' for Iran but withholds final order
Donald Trump has reportedly approved attack plans for Iran just hours after he issued a thinly-veiled threat at Iran, joking about joining Israel in attacking the Middle Eastern nation Donald Trump told senior aides late Tuesday that he approved attack plans for Iran. The development comes amid intensifying conflict between Iran and Israel,as both nations continue to exchange fire in what has become the region's most volatile standoff in years. The president has however withheld a final order to see if Tehran would abandon its nuclear program, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday, citing three people familiar with the deliberations. Trump recently issued a thinly-veiled threat at Iran, joking about joining Israel in attacking the Middle Eastern nation. The US president spoke to reporters at the White House and was asked by CNN reporter Alayna Treene whether he was moving closer - or believes the US is moving closer - to striking Iranian nuclear facilities. He said with a smirk: "Well, obviously I can't say that, right? You don't seriously think I am going to answer that question?" He then seemingly laughed the question off before saying: "I mean, you don't even know if I may do it. I may do it. I may not do it." He then issued an apparent threat, adding: "Nobody knows what I'm going to do." Trump initially distanced himself from Israel's surprise attack on Friday that triggered the conflict, but in recent days he has hinted at greater American involvement, saying he wants something "much bigger" than a ceasefire. The US has also sent more military aircraft and warships to the region. In a video address to Israelis, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed appreciation for Trump's support in the conflict. The Israeli leader called him "a great friend of Israel" and praising US help defending Israel's skies. "We speak constantly, including last night," he said on Wednesday. "We had a very warm conversation." Please check back regularly for updates on this developing story HERE. Get email updates on the day's biggest stories straight to your inbox by signing up for our newsletters. Get all the big headlines, pictures, analysis, opinion and video on the stories that matter to you by following The Mirror every time you see our name.
BBC News
35 minutes ago
- BBC News
Ghosts of Iraq War lurk behind Trump and Gabbard split
How close Iran has come to developing a nuclear weapon is the central question looming over Donald Trump's decision on whether to join Israel's military issue, tinged with concerns about imminent threats to America and regional stability, has created an apparent break between the president and one of his top advisers. It also mirrors arguments made dozens of years ago by another Republican White House during another Middle East Air Force One on his surprise early return from the Canadian G7 summit, Trump was asked whether he agreed with March testimony by his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, that Iran was not building a nuclear bomb."I don't care what she said," he said, adding that he believed that Iran was "very close" to a secretive nuclear site only US can hitUS moves 30 jets as Iran attack speculation grows During her congressional testimony, Gabbard had said that US intelligence agencies determined that Iran had not resumed its suspended 2003 nuclear weapons programme, even as the nation's stockpile of enriched uranium - a component of such weapons - was at an all-time Trump's Tuesday comments, Gabbard pointed to the level of uranium enrichment as evidence that she and the president "are on the same page" in sharing concerns. Gabbard was seen as a controversial pick for director of national intelligence, given her past criticism of US intelligence agencies, her willingness to meet with American adversaries like deposed Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and her outspoken anti-interventionist foreign policy former Democratic presidential candidate, who once endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders in his White House bid, broke with the Democratic Party in 2022 and endorsed Trump last Senate confirmation in February, by a 52-48 vote, was seen as evidence that Trump was giving isolationists a voice in his White are Trump's Iran options?Despite Gabbard's assertions to the contrary, the president's remarks represent a curt dismissal of his intelligence chief's sworn testimony - and could be an indication that Iran hawks are gaining the upper hand in the White Vice-President JD Vance, another non-interventionist, has defended Gabbard, he's also indicated his support for whatever Trump chooses to do in Iran."I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue," Vance wrote on X on Tuesday. "I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people's goals." The apparent Trump-Gabbard disagreement has also been swept into the increasingly acrimonious rift growing within Trump's "America First" movement over whether the US should enter the Israel-Iran who believe Iran is close to a bomb - including Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, Iran hawks in Congress and the Israeli government - cite last week's determination by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran was in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty for the first time in 20 of American non-intervention, like conservative commentator Tucker Carlson and Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, contend that evidence supporting an Iranian bomb is being overstated to justify Iranian regime change and military images show damage to Iran missile sites"The real divide isn't between people who support Israel and people who support Iran or the Palestinians," Carlson wrote on X last week. "The real divide is between those who casually encourage violence, and those who seek to prevent it."They also point to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq- and say a US attack on Iran, a nation three times as large with twice the population, would be a similarly disastrous foreign policy decision. The George W Bush administration justified its 2003 invasion by warnings of dire threats to the US from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, citing intelligence findings that ultimately proved to be unfounded."Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud," Bush said in an October 2002 televised is Israel's operation heading?The administration dispatched Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations, where he held up a small vial that he said represented just a small portion of the weaponised anthrax virus bacteria that Iraqi possessed."These are not assertions," Powell said. "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."Doubts about the veracity of those intelligence findings, as well as the unpopular, expensive and bloody US occupation of Iraq that produced no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, led to Democratic electoral gains in subsequent elections and growing internal dissent among Republicans. By 2016, Republican dissatisfaction with their political establishment paved the way for Trump, an Iraq War critic, to win his party's presidential nomination - and the White years later, Trump is contemplating a Middle East military intervention in spite of the conclusions of American intelligence services, rather than because of while conservatives like South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham say it is time for regime change, there appears to be little appetite at the White House for the kind of sweeping invasion and nation-building efforts of 2003 in operations can develop in unpredictable ways, however. And while Trump is under difference circumstances - and contemplating a different course of action - than his Republican predecessor, the consequences of his decisions to rely on, or dismiss, the findings of his intelligence advisers could be equally significant.
