logo
Israel's Netanyahu implies Jewish state can attack Fordow without US help

Israel's Netanyahu implies Jewish state can attack Fordow without US help

New York Post5 hours ago

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strongly implied that his country is capable of attacking all of Iran's nuclear facilities — even the secretive Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, which is believed to be buried half a mile under a mountain.
Netanyahu insisted the Jewish state 'will achieve all our objectives' despite many military experts doubting that the Jewish state has the capabilities of taking out the underground nuclear facility site.
'We will achieve all our objectives and hit all of their nuclear facilities. We have the capability to do that,' Netanyahu said when asked by a reporter about Fordow specifically.
Israel has struck several Iranian nuclear sites since launching its 'Operation Rising Lion' airstrikes on the Islamic Republic, including a primary facility in Natanz, as well as ones near Tehran and Isfahan.
The Israelis have also taken out over a dozen top Iranian scientists and key military brass as well.
Fordow, meanwhile, has loomed large over President Trump's decision on whether or not the US should enter the Israel-Iran conflict.
5 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that his country can hit all of Iran's nuclear facilities.
via REUTERS
5 Israel has bunker buster bombs, but is believed to lack the heavy-duty type that could destroy Fordow.
Merrill Sherman / NY Post Design
Many military analysts have said that the US is Israel's only ally with advanced bombers within range that could carry heavy bunker-buster bombs to take the secretive site out.
However, there is some debate among analysts about whether the US can even successfully destroy Fordow with those high-powered bombs.
The president said Thursday he would make his final decision on whether to strike Iran in the 'next two weeks,' because he's still hoping for negotiations.
'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,' Trump said in a statement read aloud by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt Thursday.
The commander in chief has faced a MAGA revolt among his base over the conflict, with prominent allies such as Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson demanding the US stay out of the rapidly escalating situation.
5 Fordow is widely seen as one of the most complicated Iranian nuclear facilities to penetrate.
Merrill Sherman / NY Post Design
Netanyahu said that the decision of whether the US should enter the conflict is 'entirely' up to Trump.
'He'll do what's good for the United States, and I'll do what's good for the State of Israel,' the prime minister said, adding, 'as the saying goes — every contribution is welcome.'
Over the weekend, Netanyahu defended Israel's decision to attack Iran and brushed aside questions about Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's testimony earlier this year that the intelligence community has assessed that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.'
'The intel we got and we shared with the United States was absolutely clear — was absolutely clear — that they were working in a secret plan to weaponize the uranium,' Netanyahu said on a special edition of Fox News' 'Special Report with Bret Baier' Sunday.
5 The Israel-Iran conflict has been rapidly escalating since Israel launched its preemptive strikes last week.
IRANIAN SUPREME LEADER'S WEBSITE/AFP/POOL/AFP via Getty Images
'They were marching very quickly. They would achieve a test device and possibly an initial device within months and certainly less than a year,' he added. 'I think we have excellent intel in Iran.'
Trump has since told reporters he believes Iran is close to a nuke in a rebuke of Gabbard. Gabbard later downplayed murmurs of daylight between her and Trump on that assessment.
For years, Netanyahu has warned that Iran was close to finishing a nuclear weapon.
Iran had been enriching uranium up to 60% purity before Israel's attack. Typically, 90% enrichment is seen as the weapons-level threshold, but scientists at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have noted that it's easier to get from 60% to 90% enrichment than it is to get to 60%.
Iran has denied that it is pursuing a nuke, insisting it was only enriching uranium for peaceful means. However, 60% enrichment is not needed to achieve nuclear power for peaceful means.
Last week, the IAEA disclosed a 22-page unclassified report about Iran's nuclear program that did not provide evidence that the regime was after a nuke, but raised concerns about its enrichment levels.
'The Agency has no credible indications of an ongoing, undeclared structured nuclear programme
of the type described above in Iran and notes the statements of the highest officials in Iran that the use
of nuclear weapons is incompatible with Islamic Law,' the report said.
Skeptics have argued that Israel's attack came in the middle of US negotiations with Iran over the theocratic regime's nuclear program and have speculated that Israel is taking advantage of Tehran's weaknesses after its proxies have been battered since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Don't fall for ‘regime change' myths — US power is a force for good
Don't fall for ‘regime change' myths — US power is a force for good

New York Post

time28 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Don't fall for ‘regime change' myths — US power is a force for good

MAGA celebrity Charlie Kirk, attempting to balance support for the administration and appeal to online isolationists, maintains that the 'regime change war machine in DC' is pushing President Donald Trump into 'an all-out blitz on Iran.' He's not alone. The question is, what does 'regime change war' mean in simple language? Does it mean, as 'non-interventionists' suggest, invading Iran and imposing American democracy on its people? Because, if so, there's virtually no one pushing for that. And I only add 'virtually' in case I somehow missed a person of consequence, though it is highly unlikely. Trump, from all indications, is using the threat of the US joining the war to push Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei into surrender. Though taking out Iran's nuclear program would end the war quicker. Or does opposing 'regime change' mean actively thwarting the Iranian opposition from overthrowing the fundamentalists who took power via a violent revolution in 1979? Does it mean ensuring that Khamenei survives, because a resulting messy post-war fight for power is worse? It seems the latter. Kirk says, 'There is a vast difference between a popular revolution and foreign-imposed, abrupt, violent regime change.' Surely, he doesn't believe the mullahs will gradually propose liberal reforms for the people and become peaceful neighbors on their own? If Iranians revolt, it's because of the violence now being imposed on the regime. The ideological overcorrection due to the failures of Iraq's rebuild now has non-interventionists accusing anyone who proposes that it's better if anti-American dictatorships fall of being 'neocons,' perhaps the most useless phrase in our political lexicon. Forget for a moment that Iran has been an enemy of the United States for 45 years. Not an existential threat, no, but a deadly one, nonetheless. The non-interventionist is not bothered by the Islamic Republic's murder of American citizens, or its crusade for nuclear weapons — until Khamenei drops Revolutionary Guard paratroopers into San Diego, they don't think it's any of our business. Because of this overcorrection, non-interventionists, both left and right, simply can't fathom that exertion of American power could ever be a good thing. They now create revisionist histories blaming the United States for virtually all the world's ills. 'It was Britain, and (funded by) the United States that overthrew a democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mossedegh in 1953 by using hired mobs in a coup that lead [sic] to the installation of the Shah Pahlavi's 27 year reign of authoritarianism and human rights abuses,' wrote Trump-supporting comedian Rob Schneider in a viral post. 'All in the name of Iranian Oil.' 'Remember,' Kirk told his followers, 'Iran is partially controlled by mullahs today because we designed regime change to put the shah back in power.' Boy, I wish people would stay off Wikipedia for a while, because this fantasy, spread by blame-America leftists for decades, is now being picked up by the right. The notion that Iran would have been a thriving democracy in 1954 had the US not gotten involved — and our involvement is way overstated — is more ridiculous than blaming us for the 1979 revolution nearly 30 years later. It is far more likely Iran would have emerged as a Soviet client state, destined to fall anyway when fundamentalists swept the Islamic world in the 1970s. Realpolitik is ugly. Non-interventionists love to harp on the deadly byproducts of our intrusions into world affairs — and there have been many — without ever grappling with the counterfactual outcome. For instance, the contention that 'regime change' never works is incredibly simplistic. Regime change was a success in Germany and Japan. And I bet the Hungarians, Czechs, Slovenians, Estonians and many others were all on board for regime change, as well. None of that happens without US intervention in conflicts, cold and hot, around the world. People will rightly point out that Europe is not the Middle East. In that regard, Iran is not Iraq or Syria. Schneider contends that '90 million people will fight for their survival again,' as they did in Iraq. Sure, some Iranians might fight to preserve the brutal Islamic regime. Many would not. The real fear should be that a civil war would break out if Iran's regime collapses. There are numerous minorities in Iran, but Persian national consciousness goes back to antiquity. If the mullahs fall, a majority of Iranians may turn out to fight for a better life free of needless conflicts with the West. It may go south. It may not. I have no idea how that turns out, and neither do you. Except for one thing: Whoever wins won't have nuclear weapons. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner.

Satellite Images Show Damage to Iranian Nuclear Site After Israeli Strikes
Satellite Images Show Damage to Iranian Nuclear Site After Israeli Strikes

Newsweek

time44 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Satellite Images Show Damage to Iranian Nuclear Site After Israeli Strikes

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Israeli jets have bombed a nuclear reactor under construction in central Iran during a wave of air strikes on the seventh day of the conflict between the two countries. Satellite images show a hole in the domed roof of the facility caused by a blast. The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed the damage and said no nuclear material was present during the strike. Why It Matters The airstrike targeted the Arak heavy water reactor, known officially as the Khondab Heavy Water Research Reactor, located about 240 kilometers southwest of Tehran. The Israeli military said the attack was designed to disable the core seal of the unfinished reactor and prevent it from being used to produce weapons-grade plutonium. What To Know The Arak facility, though still under construction, has long been viewed by Western powers as a potential component of a nuclear weapons program. Heavy water reactors like Arak produce plutonium as a byproduct, which can be used in nuclear weapons. Under the 2015 nuclear agreement, Iran was required to disable the Arak reactor by removing its core and filling it with concrete. However, in 2019, Ali Akbar Salehi, then head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, revealed in a televised interview that Iran had secretly obtained duplicate piping to rebuild the core. Israel released black-and-white footage of the strike, showing a bomb hitting the reactor's domed roof, followed by a large explosion. Iranian state TV aired daytime footage of smoke rising from the site and reported the area had been secured and evacuated prior to the attack. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which last inspected the site in May, confirmed there was no radioactive material at the facility and noted that key structures, including the distillation units of the adjacent heavy water plant, were damaged. The agency also acknowledged it had lost "continuity of knowledge" regarding Iran's heavy water production due to restricted access. Israel has previously struck other nuclear sites, including Natanz and Isfahan, in what it describes as a campaign to neutralize Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the attack, saying Israel had "crossed a new red line in international law." Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that the strikes are necessary to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. What People Are Saying IDF spokesperson Brigadier General Effie Defrin said: "We continue to dismantle Iran's strategic capabilities—each strike reinforces our air superiority." President Donald Trump, during a bilateral meeting with the Canadian prime minister at the G7 summit, said: "They should talk, and they should talk immediately. I'd say Iran is not winning this war." Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, wrote in a post on X: "If Trump is genuine about diplomacy and interested in stopping this war, next steps are consequential. It takes one phone call from Washington to muzzle someone like Netanyahu," Iran's top diplomat continued. "That may pave the way for a return to diplomacy." What Happens Next White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump will make a decision on whether or not to have the United States join Israel's war with Iran "within the next two weeks."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store