'We were willing but president ... ': Did Donald Trump hold back strikes on Iran's nuclear sites? Here's what report says
The report by NBC News citing a US assessment of the impact of Operation Midnight Hammer further noted that only one of the three Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed, leading to a significant setback.
Trump has previously dismissed any suggestions that the recent US airstrikes on Iran fell short of their objectives, labeling such claims as "fake news".
A scaled-back operation?
US Central Command had developed a broader strike strategy that included hitting three additional nuclear-related sites over the course of several weeks.
The plan, according to officials familiar with its details, would have involved repeated bombardments, attacks on air defense systems, and likely a high number of Iranian and possibly US casualties.
But Trump, guided by his foreign policy instinct to avoid drawn-out conflicts, refused to authorize the broader operation.
'We were willing to go all the way in our options, but the president did not want to,' NBC News reported quoting a source having knowledge of the plan.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Many Are Watching Tariffs - Few Are Watching What Nvidia Just Launched
Seeking Alpha
Read More
Undo
Instead, the administration launched a single-night strike involving B-2 stealth bombers and the first-ever combat use of GBU-57 'bunker buster' bombs, aimed especially at the fortified Fordow facility.
Limited impact on Natanz, Isfahan
While Fordo was severely damaged, potentially setting back Iran's enrichment efforts there by up to two years, the other two sites did not fare as poorly. Intelligence suggests that Iran could resume enrichment at Natanz and Isfahan within months, as the damage inflicted was mostly limited to surface structures.
Officials acknowledged that US planners were aware in advance that deeply buried tunnels at those sites were beyond the reach of even the GBU-57 bombs. At Isfahan, Tomahawk missiles were used against surface targets, while Natanz was hit with bunker busters but still retained some functional infrastructure.
The latest assessment offers an initial view of the damage caused by the US strikes, as part of an intelligence-gathering effort that officials say will continue for several months. Evaluations of Iran's nuclear program are expected to evolve over time, and according to officials cited by NBC News, early findings now indicate the strikes may have caused more extensive damage than initially believed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
21 minutes ago
- First Post
Did money or politics cause Colbert cancellation? Either way, the economics are tough for TV
As recently as 2018, broadcast networks took in an estimated $439 million in advertising revenue for its late-night programs, according to the advertising firm Guidelines read more CBS says its decision to end Stephen Colbert's late-night comedy show is financial, not political. Yet even with the ample skepticism about that explanation, there's no denying the economics were not working in Colbert's favor. The network's bombshell announcement late Thursday that the 'Late Show' will end next May takes away President Donald Trump's most prominent TV critic and the most popular entertainment program in its genre. The television industry's declining economic health means similar hard calls are already being made with personalities and programming, with others to be faced in the future. For the late-night genre, there are unique factors to consider. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD As recently as 2018, broadcast networks took in an estimated $439 million in advertising revenue for its late-night programs, according to the advertising firm Guidelines. Last year, that number dwindled to $220 million. Once a draw for young men, now they've turned away Late-night TV was a particular draw for young men, considered the hardest-to-get and most valuable demographic for advertisers. Increasingly, these viewers are turning to streaming services, either to watch something else entirely or catch highlights of the late-night shows, which are more difficult for the networks to monetize. More broadly, the much-predicted takeover of viewers by streaming services is coming to pass. The Nielsen company reported that during the last two months, for the first time ever, more people consumed programming on services like YouTube and Netflix than on ABC, CBS and NBC or any cable network. Networks and streamers spent roughly $70 billion on entertainment shows and $30 billion for sports rights last year, said Brian Wieser, CEO of Madison & Wall, an advertising consultant and data services firm. Live sports is the most dependable magnet for viewers and costs for its rights are expected to increase 8% a year over the next decade. With television viewership declining in general, it's clear where savings will have to come from. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Wieser said he does not know whether Colbert's show is profitable or not for CBS and parent company Paramount Global, but he knows the direction in which it is headed. 'The economics of television are weak,' he said. In a statement announcing the cancellation, George Cheeks, Paramount Global's president and chief executive officer, said that 'This is purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night. It is not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.' Cheeks' problem is that not everyone believes him. Colbert is a relentless critic of Trump, and earlier this week pointedly criticized Paramount's decision to settle Trump's lawsuit against CBS over a '60 Minutes' interview with Kamala Harris. He called Paramount's $16 million payment to Trump a 'big fat bribe,' since the company is seeking the administration's approval of its merger with Skydance Media. On Friday, the Writers Guild of America called for an investigation by New York's attorney general into whether Colbert's cancellation is itself a bribe, 'sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump administration as the company looks for merger approval.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD CBS' decision made this a pivotal week for the future of television and radio programming. Congress stripped federal funding for PBS and NPR, threatening the future of shows on those outlets. Journey Gunderson, executive director of the National Comedy Center, called the decision to end Colbert's show the end of an era. 'Late-night television has historically been one of comedy's most audience-accessible platforms — a place where commentary meets community, night after night,' Gunderson said. 'This isn't just the end of a show. It's the quiet removal of one of the few remaining platforms for daily comedic commentary. Trump, who has called in the past for CBS to terminate Colbert's contract, celebrated the show's upcoming demise. 'I absolutely love that Colbert got fired,' the president wrote on Truth Social. 'His talent was even less than his ratings.' Some experts questioned whether CBS could have explored other ways to save money on Colbert. NBC, for example, has cut costs by eliminating the band on Seth Meyers' late-night show and curtailing Jimmy Fallon's 'Tonight' show to four nights a week. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Could CBS have saved more money by cutting off the show immediately, instead of letting it run until next May, which sets up an awkward 'lame duck' period? Then again, Colbert will keep working until his contract runs out; CBS would have had to keep paying him anyway. CBS recently cancelled the 'After Midnight' show that ran after Colbert. But the network had signaled earlier this year that it was prepared to continue that show until host Taylor Tomlinson decided that she wanted to leave, noted Bill Carter, author of 'The Late Shift.'
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
White House mulls inspection of Federal Reserve HQ as Trump vs Powell feud intensifies
The White House budget director, Russell Vought, told reporters that the administration wanted to have an on-site inspection of the Fed's troubled $2.5bn building renovations amid a feud between US President Donald Trump and Fed Chair Jerome Powell read more US President Donald Trump announces Jerome Powell as his nominee to become chairman of the US Federal Reserve in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, US, November 2, 2017. File Image/Reuters As the feud between US President Donald Trump and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell intensifies, reports are emerging that the White House is pushing for an inspection of the US Federal Reserve headquarters in Washington, DC. The move is coming at a time when Trump has suggested that the American central bank has mismanaged funds for building renovations. Ever since coming back to the White House, Trump has been pressuring Powell to quit, demanding that he and other officials lower the interest rates. Meanwhile, Powell has argued that lowering the rates prematurely could increase inflation since Trump tariffs have already contributed significantly to raising the prices of goods. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In response to the Fed Chair's resistance, Trump has threatened to fire Powell multiple times, with Powell stating that he will serve the post until his term ends. On Friday, Trump went on to float the idea of firing Powell to House Republicans. 'I don't rule out anything, but I think it's highly unlikely unless he has to leave for fraud," the president said at the dinner with Republican senators. Why is the White House interested in searching the Federal Reserve headquarters? On Thursday, the White House budget director, Russell Vought, told reporters that the administration wanted to have an on-site inspection of the Fed's troubled $2.5bn building renovations. 'I think the president was pretty clear yesterday: he's unlikely to fire the chairman, but he has substantial concerns about how he's managed the Fed,' Vought averred. However, firing the Federal Reserve Chair would not be an easy task. The Supreme Court in the spring went out of its way to say that, while Trump can fire certain officials, like those on national labour boards, the Fed is different. 'The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,' the court said in May. If Trump went ahead and fired Powell, he might have to undergo a complicated battle with the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Wall Street is also not taking Trump's ambition to fire Powell very well. 'The independence of the Fed is absolutely critical,' the JPMorgan Chase CEO, Jamie Dimon, said on Tuesday. 'Not just for the current Fed chairman, who I respect, but for the next Fed chairman.' It is pertinent to note that Powell's term is set to end in May 2026, but Trump appears to be hopeful that recent renovations at the Fed make Powell an easier target. According to The Guardian, renovations were initially slated to cost $1.9bn after it was budgeted in 2019, but costs have risen to $2.5bn. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Fed argued that the renovations cover two buildings that have 'not been comprehensively renovated since their construction in the 1930s'. On Wednesday, Trump said that 'there may be fraud involved with the $2.5bn'. Trump also said that Powell was a ' terrible Fed chair' and that he 'was surprised he was appointed'. Interestingly, it was Trump who appointed Powell to the job in 2018. Former US President Joe Biden eventually extended his term in 2022.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
3 Democrat-led US states roll back medicaid for undocumented immigrants
For nearly 20 years, Maria would call her sister — a nurse in Mexico — for advice on how to manage her asthma and control her husband's diabetes instead of going to the doctor in didn't have legal status, so she couldn't get health insurance and skipped routine exams, relying instead on home remedies and, at times, getting inhalers from Mexico. She insisted on using only her first name for fear of changed for Maria and many others in recent years when a handful of Democrat-led states opened up their health insurance programs to low-income immigrants regardless of their legal status. Maria and her husband signed up the day the program began last year. 'It changed immensely, like from Earth to the heavens,' Maria said in Spanish of Medi-Cal, California's Medicaid program. 'Having the peace of mind of getting insurance leads me to getting sick less.'At least seven states and the District of Columbia have offered coverage for immigrants since mostly 2020. But three of them have done an about-face, ending or limiting coverage for hundreds of thousands of immigrants who aren't in the U.S. legally in California, Illinois and programs cost way more than officials had projected at a time when the states are facing multibillion-dollar deficits now and in the future. In Illinois, adult immigrants ages 42-64 without legal status have lost their health care to save an estimated $404 million. All adult immigrants in Minnesota no longer have access to the state program, saving nearly $57 million. In California, no one will automatically lose coverage, but new enrollments for adults will stop in 2026 to save more than $3 billion over several in all three states were backed by Democratic governors who once championed expanding health coverage to Trump administration this week shared the home addresses, ethnicities and personal data of all Medicaid recipients with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. Twenty states, including California, Illinois and Minnesota, have care providers told The Associated Press that everything, especially the fear of being arrested or deported, is having a chilling effect on people seeking care. And states may have to spend more money down the road because immigrants will avoid preventive health care and end up needing to go to safety-net hospitals.'I feel like they continue to squeeze you more and more to the point where you'll burst,' Maria said, referencing all the uncertainties for people who are in the U.S. without legal permission.'People are going to die'People who run free and community health clinics in California and Minnesota said patients who got on state Medicaid programs received knee replacements and heart procedures, and were diagnosed for serious conditions like late-stage is one of the nation's largest free clinics, serving many uninsured and underinsured immigrants in the Chicago area who have no other options for treatment. That includes the people who lost coverage July 1 when Illinois ended its Health Benefits for Immigrants Adults Program, which served about 31,500 people ages of CommunityHealth's community outreach workers and care coordinator said Eastern European patients she works with started coming in with questions about what the change meant for them. She said many of the patients also don't speak English and don't have transportation to get to clinics that can treat them. The worker spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity to protect patients' Finders Collective in Minnesota's rural Rice and Steele counties south of Minneapolis serves low-income and underinsured patients, including large populations of Latino immigrants and Somali refugees. Executive director Charlie Mandile said they're seeing patients rushing to squeeze in appointments and procedures before 19,000 people age 18 and older are kicked off of insurance at the end of the and community health clinics in all three states say they will keep serving patients regardless of insurance coverage — but that might get harder after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services decided this month to restrict federally qualified health centers from treating people without legal CEO Stephanie Willding said she always worried about the stability of the program because it was fully state funded, 'but truthfully, we thought that day was much, much further away.''People are going to die. Some people are going to go untreated,' Alicia Hardy, chief executive officer of CommuniCARE+OLE clinics in California, said of the state's Medicaid changes. 'It's hard to see the humanity in the decision-making that's happening right now.'A spokesperson for the Minnesota Department of Health said ending the state's program will decrease MinnesotaCare spending in the short term, but she acknowledged health care costs would rise elsewhere, including uncompensated care at fees, federal policies create barriersState lawmakers said California's Medi-Cal changes stem from budget issues — a $12 billion deficit this year, with larger ones projected ahead. Democratic state leaders last month agreed to stop new enrollment starting in 2026 for all low-income adults without legal status. Those under 60 remaining on the program will have to pay a $30 monthly fee in are also bracing for impact from federal policies. Cuts to Medicaid and other programs in the recently signed massive tax and spending bill include a 10% cut to the federal share of Medicaid expansion costs to states that offer health benefits to immigrants starting October health officials estimate roughly 200,000 people will lose coverage after the first full year of restricted enrollment, though Gov. Gavin Newsom maintains that even with the rollbacks, California provides the most expansive health care coverage for poor new bill requires a shift in Maria's monthly calculations to make ends meet. She believes many people won't be able to afford the $30-a-month premiums and will instead go back to self-medication or skip treatment altogether.'It was a total triumph,' she said of Medi-Cal expansion. 'But now that all of this is coming our way, we're going backwards to a worse place.'Fear and tension about immigration raids are changing patient behavior, too. Providers told the AP that, as immigration raids ramped up, their patients were requesting more virtual appointments, not showing up to routine doctor's visits and not picking up prescriptions for their chronic has the option to keep her coverage. But she is weighing the health of her family against risking what they've built in the U.S.'It's going to be very difficult,' Maria said of her decision to remain on the program. 'If it comes to the point where my husband gets sick and his life is at risk, well then, obviously, we have to choose his life.'- Ends advertisement
