Iran threatens US bases in response to strikes on nuclear sites
WASHINGTON: Iran on Sunday (Jun 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.
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."
US 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 Trump 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,' 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!!!"
Defense 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 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.
TEHRAN PROTESTS
As Iran's leaders struck defiant tones, President Masoud Pezeshkian also vowed that the US would "receive a response" to the attacks.
People gathered on Sunday 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, Trump claimed success for the operation, and US Vice President JD Vance followed up on Sunday morning.
"We know that we set the Iranian nuclear programme back substantially last night," 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, 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".
Rafael Grossi, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council 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 Fordow, 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. Trump said on Sunday 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 Sunday, local media reported, while three people were killed after an ambulance was also struck in Israeli attacks on central Iran.
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 Sunday 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".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
17 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Around military bases in the US, unease over what comes next
The past few days have served as a solemn reminder of the unsettling emotions military service can bring. PHOTO: AFP Around military bases in the US, unease over what comes next Follow our live coverage here. WASHINGTON – For some families who gathered this weekend at Fort Benning in Georgia, the past few days have served as a solemn reminder of the unsettling emotions military service can bring. On June 20 , a group of Army enlistees graduated from basic training. On J une 21 , President Donald Trump bombed Iran. On June 22 , service members and their loved ones pondered an uncertain future. 'People can lose their life, so I'm worried,' said Ms Michele Bixby, 24, of upstate New York, whose brother had just graduated. 'But it's what he wanted to do; it's what he loves to do. He's going to move forward with it no matter what.' One day after the administration announced it had carried out airstrikes at three nuclear sites in Iran, the mood in some communities around military bases on US soil varied from firm support to bitter disagreement. But one sentiment stood out among those interviewed: concern for the safety of America's troops everywhere. No one knows how the strikes on Iran could affect service members. Mr Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, emphasised on June 22 that the administration did not want an open-ended war. But Iranian leaders have vowed to retaliate, and US military installations in the Middle East, with more than 40,000 active-duty troops and civilians employed by the Pentagon, are already potential targets. That reality, along with the potential repercussions for the entire military, was on the minds of many people around US bases at home, even as service members accepted that reality as part of the job. 'A lot of the families around here are quickly realizing this is a real threat; this is something we need to be worried about,' said Ms Meghan Gilles, 37, a self-described military brat who works in the Army Reserve's human resources division at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, a training site and home to the 101st Airborne Division. At Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, Blake Carlson, a 23-year-old Army National Guard combat medic who was visiting from Austin, Texas, said that he could be deployed. 'It's what I signed up for,' he said. 'If I have to, I'll do it.' But his mother and brother hoped the country would not be dragged into the escalating conflict in the Middle East. Some people who were interviewed stood by Mr Trump and agreed with his assertions that the targeted bombings were unlikely to lead to a wider conflict. Mr Carlson's mother, Ms Tonya Carlson, said she hoped the attack would force Iran to negotiate with the United States. Others stood by Mr Trump's statement that Iran posed an imminent threat – a point that contradicts recent national security assessments. 'Iran doesn't need to have nuclear weapons, for sure,' said Mr Tony Saluzzo, 72, a former combat engineer who served in the US offensive against Iraq and lives near Fort Campbell. Mr James Arthur, a 42-year-old retired Coast Guard captain who lives north of Tampa, Florida, and was visiting the Air Force Armament Museum at the Eglin base, said that the Iran airstrikes happened 'about two decades too late'. Other former service members castigated Trump for bombing Iran without congressional approval. The Constitution's framers included language to ensure that wars would not be entered rashly, said Mr Paul Oyler, a Navy veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and who lives near the Naval Air Station Lemoore in California, where he was based while on active duty. He said he would have agreed with the airstrikes if there were a proven, credible threat to the region, but 'I don't have any reason to believe that Iran was in possession of actual nuclear weapons.' Mr Denver Thiery, 30, who works on military maintenance contracts and lives in Trenton, Kentucky, near Fort Campbell, said he would remain firmly behind Trump. But he also acknowledged that it was difficult to know exactly what capabilities Iran possessed. 'I don't know the truth of what's going on,' he said. 'I don't know if they really have nuclear warheads or not. I don't know what I can support anymore.' Ms Meghan Gilles , the reservist, whose father is a veteran and whose husband is an active-duty serviceman, was troubled by the decision to edge the country to war at the very moment the government was cutting funding for Veterans Affairs. The administration is taking away a lot of benefits for veterans and 'then just sending them off again to be the world police,' Ms Gilles said. If the current conflict worsens, military members and veterans said, they would put aside their disagreements over Mr Trump and support one another. But one veteran lamented what he said such a scenario would ultimately mean. 'I learned from my time on active duty that war is devastating,' Navy veteran Oyler said. NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
AsiaOne
23 minutes ago
- AsiaOne
China says US attack on Iran has damaged its credibility, World News
HONG KONG — China said the US attack on Iran's nuclear facilities has damaged Washington's credibility and Beijing was concerned that the situation "may go out of control", its state broadcaster reported, following a UN Security Council meeting on Sunday (June 22). 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. The UN Security Council met on Sunday 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. China's UN Ambassador Fu Cong said parties should restrain the "impulse of force, avoid exacerbating conflicts and adding fuel to the fire," according to the state broadcaster CCTV. Fu said parties, especially Israel, "should immediately cease fire to prevent the situation from escalating and avoid the spillover of war." Iran was hurt "but the United States credibility was also damaged- both as a country and as a participant in any international negotiations," Fu said. State media commentary late on Sunday said the US move was extremely dangerous and provocative. The Global Times newspaper in an opinion piece, said external military interference would never bring peace, and only "deepen regional hatred and trauma." Separately China's embassy in Iran said late on Sunday that most Chinese citizens in Iran had been evacuated safely, and those remaining were not in high-risk areas. [[nid:719366]]
CNA
an hour 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.
