How Donald Trump hammered Iran's nuke bases with bunker buster bombs and missiles fired from submarines
DONALD Trump has blitzed Iran's nuclear bases to stop the Ayatollah's doomsday project in a complex operation from air and sea.
The president has declared the strike a "spectacular success" that "obliterated" the mad mullahs' atomic program.
9
Donald Trump in the Situation Room during the strike
Credit: Reuters
9
Tomahawk missiles fired from submarines were used to strike two bases (stock image)
Credit: AFP
9
The B-2A Spirit was used to carry the bunker busting bombs
Credit: Getty
9
To do that, Trump used some of the US military's most advanced weapons.
Six 30,000lb bunker busting bombs - officially called the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) - were used to hit the most difficult target, Trump told Fox News.
They were dropped from B-2 bombers flying high in the atmosphere for 37 hours all the way from Missouri, the New York Times reported.
The lethal bombers even refuelled several times in the air so they didn't have to land.
Read more on world news
BOMB BLITZ Trump launches strikes on Iran as three nuke bases blitzed in historic attack
B-2 bombers were the only weapon which could do the job - because the Ayatollah's prized Fordow nuclear enrichment plant is 300ft deep underground and encased in steel.
Israel has been unable to destroy the site by itself - with Trump declaring on Saturday that only America could destroy it from above.
Now, Trump claims he has done so - with six bunker busters able to bury deep through the rock and hit the base.
The missiles - 20ft long and carrying a 5,000lb warhead - were dropped by the B-2s, hit the earth, and buried themselves deep into the rock before they exploded.
Iran claims that it knew the attack was coming and evacuated anything of value from the base.
But two other of Iran's nuclear facilities were also hit - Natanz and Isfahan.
How Trump COULD destroy Iran's prize nuclear bunker
They were blitzed by 30 Tomahawk missiles fired from submarines 400miles away.
Tomahawk missiles are a long-range weapon which can be fired from land or sea and can travel at least 1,000miles.
The US keeps a naval base across the Persian Gulf from Iran in Bahrain.
The complex at Natanz holds Iran's largest uranium enrichment plant - crucial for getting the material to weapons grade.
9
A US submarine - capable of carrying up to 154 Tomahawk missiles
Credit: AP
9
Isfahan nuclear power plant
Credit: AFP
9
One B-2 also dropped two bunker busters on Natanz, according to the New York Times.
Isfahan is thought to hold a repository of near bomb-grade nuclear material.
Both Natanz and Isfahan had previously been hit by Israel.
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, previously said Iran's biggest atomic plant at Natanz was knocked out by the first waves of the Israeli offensive.
Mr Grossi said: "The above-ground part of the pilot fuel enrichment plant, where Iran was producing uranium enriched up to 60% U-235, has been destroyed".
Uranium-235 is essential both for nuclear power stations and also for nuclear weapons.
9
Trump addressing the nation revealed America had 'obliterated' Fordow
Credit: Alamy
9
Posting on Truth Social, President Donald Trump announced that US bombers targeted Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan enrichment sites.
The bombings come just two days after Trump said he would decide "within two weeks" whether to join key ally Israel in attacking Iran.
In a nationally televised speech at the White House, Trump said: "Tonight I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.
'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.
"There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
5 minutes ago
- Sky News
What happens next after US strikes is largely in Iran's control - but there are no good choices
As the sun rises above Jerusalem this morning, Israelis will be waking to the news that America has joined their war and attacked Iran. It will be met with mixed feelings. While the new day brings a comfort in US military support there will also be deep trepidation that this war has entered a dangerous and potentially uncontrollable phase. Benjamin Netanyahu released a video statement praising the US president and saying peace comes through strength; Donald Trump addressed the American nation and warned Iran he would not hesitate to order further action if it retaliates. What happens next is largely in Iran's control. What they choose to do, will determine the future of this region. The question is now not whether they will respond, but how? 1:45 Iran has faced a humiliating pounding from Israeli jets over nine days and now suffered massive attacks on their celebrated nuclear facilities by a country they call "The Great Satan"; there will be a feeling of national humiliation and anger, and the government will need to show its people it remains strong. Developing a nuclear programme has taken many decades and comes at vast cost: billions and billions of dollars and heavy international sanctions. That all now lies in tatters. How does the government explain that to its people, many of whom have suffered at the expense of these grand ambitions and are opposed to the draconian leadership they live under? Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is often described as the world's longest-serving dictator. He hasn't survived by being reckless but even though the US strikes weren't aimed at regime change, Khamanei's future is now more precarious than ever. The government rhetoric and state television channels will promise fire and victory, but the reality isn't simple. There will be voices close to the Supreme Leader, especially in the Revolutionary Guard, encouraging a strong response. The moderates will likely urge caution, wary of dragging the US into a wider, more sustained conflict that Iran couldn't win. It's unclear how much more Iran can throw at Israel. Ballistic missiles have been fired at the country every day since the war began, but in decreasing numbers as Israel has systematically targeted launch sites and stockpiles. Iran's proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, are severely degraded and the Assad regime in Syria is no more. This was all supposed to be the first line of defence, a deterrence against an Israel attack. That shield has collapsed. The Houthis remain defiant but their firepower is limited. 1:44 The US attacks were against Iran's nuclear sites, not senior Iranian officials. Strikes on US bases in the region would therefore be the most logical 'like-for-like' response. If they choose to widen the conflict, Iran could now target oil facilities in the Gulf or try to close off the globally important Strait of Hormuz. Either of those options would have international consequences. 2:48 Shia militia in Iraq could be hard to control if they decide to act unilaterally. Iraqi security forces have reportedly surrounded the US Embassy in Baghdad in anticipation of violence. There is a possibility Iran could do something smaller and symbolic as a way of saving face, having the final word and giving the region an off-ramp. That will be the hope in Washington. But even in that best-case scenario, it will surely have to be something more than a token response; Iran is reeling, severely weakened internally and externally. If they escalate, they risk a severe US response that could be a death blow. If they capitulate, the government faces major domestic dissent and reputational damage from which it might never recover.
Spectator
25 minutes ago
- Spectator
Prepare for Iran to retaliate
On Thursday, President Trump gave Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the regime he has led for more than 35 years an ultimatum: start negotiating over your nuclear programme, or face the full consequences. He would allow another two weeks, at most, for Tehran to prove its willingness to negotiate sincerely. The armchair warriors on cable TV news are gloating about how great the operation turned and how resolute Trump proved to be, but none appear particularly interested in the first, second and third order effects of the decision The two weeks, however, was only two days. Trump's decision to drop 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs on Fordow, Iran's deeply-buried underground uranium enrichment facility, as well as on facilities at Natanz and Isfahan, was the culmination of eight days of deliberations within the Trump administration. It was a long eight days for Trump, no doubt, with Senator Lindsey Graham on one side urging him to take care of Iran's nuclear programme militarily; former Fox News host Tucker Carlson was on the other, counselling the president to stick with his 'America First' principles of non-interventionism. Ultimately, Trump split the baby – or at least tried to. The way the White House describes it, Trump is taking decisive military action on Iran without getting bogged down in another long, drawn-out, convoluted mess in the Middle East. There will be no regime change as Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants, nor will there be US boots on Iranian soil. Trump shared these details with Fox host Sean Hannity, and added that all of the Iranian nuclear sites targeted were completely destroyed. But let's face it: America's capabilities were never in dispute. The question wasn't whether the United States could bomb buildings both above and below ground, but whether bombing was the right way to address the Iranian nuclear issue. The armchair warriors on cable TV news are gloating about how great the operation turned and how resolute Trump proved to be, but none appear particularly interested in the first, second and third order effects of the decision. And there are plenty to mention. The most immediate consequence will be Iranian retaliation. Khamenei has virtually assured that some kind of military retaliation against US bases in the region will occur. There are plenty of those bases around, and Tehran has quite a few options at its disposal. By entering a war Israel started, Trump has now opened up the possibility of US troops having targets on their backs. While the Iranians have used perhaps as many as half of their ballistic missile inventory against Israel over the past eight days, there are still hundreds upon hundreds of them available to sail across the Persian Gulf into an American military installation. Some pundits will dismiss the Iranians as a fairly weak conventional power – not worthy of our concern. Yet even a weak power has some arrows in its quiver. If one of those quivers kills an American, Trump will feel an even greater amount of pressure to plunge further into the muck. Zooming out, another potential consequence: will Khamenei react to this US strike by throwing up his hands and begging for forgiveness – or by rebuilding what was destroyed? You won't find many analysts who know Iranian history and how the Islamic Republic operates betting on the former scenario. The only thing more dangerous to Khamenei than US military force is submitting to American demands. Indeed, it's one of the reasons why the Iranians refused to meet the Trump administration's nuclear demands when Washington imposed maximum pressure sanctions on the regime. Doing so would have been viewed as an embarrassment on the international stage – and from the regime's perspective, it would have served as a stepping-stone for America issuing even stronger demands in the future. In sum, don't expect the Iranians to wave the white flag. Instead, the regime is more likely to use the US strikes as a rationale to boot all international inspectors out of the country, suspend or withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and redouble their efforts to reconstruct the nuclear infrastructure the Americans and Israelis just wiped out. Those within the regime who were arguing that a nuclear weapon was absolutely essential to keep foreign powers at bay will be further empowered. And the Supreme Leader, who the US intelligence community assessed had yet to give the order to actually build a bomb, will have more reason to change his strategic calculations. Trump claims he's a master negotiator. On Iran, he claimed diplomacy was his preferred choice and authorised his old pal Steve Witkoff to get a deal done. But in the end, he opted for bombing and tweeting over negotiating.
Times
28 minutes ago
- Times
Trump is taking fire over ‘forever wars', but Maga's real battle awaits
'I'm the one that decides,' declared President Trump last week when asked by a reporter who gets to say what 'America First' really means. Faced with a backlash from parts of his base over the prospect of the US supporting Israel in military action in Iran, the president said his word is final — 'after all, I'm the one that developed America First' — adding that 'the term wasn't used until I came along'. In fact, the phrase dates back to the First World War when Woodrow Wilson used the slogan to appeal to voters who wanted America to stay out of the conflict. (They didn't get their wish.) The America First Committee was founded in 1940 to protest against US involvement in the Second World War, but gained notoriety after high-profile members such as the aviator Charles Lindbergh and the automotive tycoon Henry Ford led to a perception that it had antisemitic and pro-fascist sympathies. However, since Trump launched his first bid for president ten years ago, it has taken on a new meaning. 'He has driven the term back into usage,' says Julian Zelizer, the Princeton University historian and author of The Presidency of Donald J Trump: A First Historical Assessment. 'He has the most power to shape what it actually includes.' • US bombs Iran: follow live reaction Now it represents a whole movement, extending from foreign policy to trade to immigration. No more forever wars. No more favours for other countries out of the goodness of Uncle Sam's heart. But after Trump authorised US forces to bomb three nuclear sites in Iran on Saturday, bringing America into Israel's war, the question being asked in Washington: is Trump still America First? Is the president in control of the agenda — or is it the base that now owns it? There are certainly plenty of figures in Washington who have distinct views on what America First ought to mean in practice. The row over Iran has brought a US version of blue on blue: Maga on Maga. As the alt-right influencer Jack Posobiec put it: 'I'm just thankful the neocons are here to tell us who is REAL MAGA.' Cabinet unease Trump has distanced himself from certain members of his cabinet, saying that his head of intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is 'wrong' on her intelligence assessment of Iran. She in turn changed tack, saying Iran could produce nuclear weapons 'within weeks' and blaming the 'dishonest media' for the confusion. But in his second term, Trump has had ultimate authority over his cabinet. Learning from the first term, he picked them for loyalty and deference. As a figure with close ties to the administration says: 'It's a football team. He's the manager, they're the players, they listen to the manager and that's all there is to it.' It is why the voices he needs to worry more about may be the ones on the outside. Enter the Maga-verse — the network of former advisers, informal advisers and influencers free to speak, exerting varying degrees of influence on the president. One figure close to the White House says: 'There are a bunch of people that we look to to see how things are landing.' Indeed, the administration last week reached out to key figures as they tried to control the narrative. Now such efforts are required to contain the fallout. There are different spheres of influence. Steve Bannon, Trump's former adviser, is widely regarded as the godfather of Maga. While he no longer has a place in the White House, he is seen as a temperature check on the movement by keeping the government in touch with the grassroots through his media and bringing up the next generation of Maga — several of whom have gone on to take jobs in the administration. 'Everybody just folds to whatever big corporate interest there is and this administration is only slightly different to that,' explains an insider. 'Steve keeps a check on it.' Bannon's War Room podcast regularly ranks among the top ten in the US, and has more than 200,000 followers on X. The former executive chairman of the alt-right news website Breitbart had lunch with the president last week — just before Trump's spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt announced a two-week window to make a decision on his next steps in Iran. In response to Trump's decision to strike Iran, Bannon has already sounded the alarm, saying he can get Maga on board but Trump needs to explain to the base why he is doing this. In a War Room broadcast on Saturday night, he said: 'There's a lot of Maga who are not happy about this. I'll just be blunt … We can tell this in the chats right now. A lot of the chats are saying, 'I hear you but you promised that you wouldn't do this'.' Next, consider Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host who last week accused Trump of taking America on the wrong path. This led to Trump saying: 'I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network and say it so that people listen.' 'He's definitely relevant,' says one Maga figure. 'But it's a much younger, less-likely-to-vote demographic that he now appeals to. It's a much lower propensity voter. I don't think he would take that as an insult. He lives in a cabin in the woods in Maine.' After the barrage of words, Trump later said he shared a phone call with Carlson who apologised for going too far. Then there's Laura Loomer — the right-wing conspiracy theorist — who regularly leads the news in DC with her social media and investigations. Loomer has become one of Trump's biggest backers on intervention in Iran. After Trump announced the US action, she told her followers: 'Rule number 1: Never bet against Donald Trump' — before turning her fire on those in the movement who are not being sufficiently supportive. A Republican insider says: 'She's probably the best opposition researcher in Republican politics nationwide and she's devastatingly destructive to people. Some people might walk around with their chest puffed out and go, 'Oh, I'm not scared of Laura Loomer.' They're all scared of Laura Loomer.' The changing media landscape is giving these figures greater prominence. Matt Boyle, the Washington bureau chief at Breitbart, says: 'We live in impassioned times, especially in the podcast era and new media.' It's not gone unnoticed in Maga world that last week streaming overtook cable and broadcast as the most-watched form of TV in the US. Yet the base is insistent there is no civil war. 'We're not a monolith, we're not the left, they don't tolerate dissent, right?' says one Maga figure. 'One part of the coalition is holding the other part of the coalition accountable.' Speaking ahead of the strikes, Boyle, who was recently spotted dining with both Bannon and the Democrat senator John Fetterman, said the movement would adjust to whatever the president decided: 'I do think that when the president makes his decision that the movement is gonna fall in line very quickly. He is the leader of the America First movement. He built this movement.' Yet Trump has never been a perfect fit for some of the views within it. In 2016, he said of America First that he wanted to make decision-making more 'unpredictable'. 'We won't be isolationists — I don't want to go there because I don't believe in that,' Trump said. 'But we're not going to be ripped off any more by all of these countries.' The historian Victor Davis Hanson, of the Hoover Institution think tank at Stanford University, says: 'Trump is neither an isolationist nor an interventionist, but rather transactional. The media fails to grasp that, so it is confused why tough-guy Trump is hesitant to jump into Iran, or contrarily why a noninterventionist Trump would even consider using bunker busters against Iran. 'The common thread again is his perception of what benefits the US middle class — economically, militarily, politically and culturally.' But internal debates go beyond foreign affairs. The other main Maga priorities are bringing jobs back to the US — through tariffs — and cracking down on immigration. Tensions have bubbled on all of these: last week Trump exempted the farm and hospitality industries from the immigration raids, only for Maga activists to raise alarm. The president then changed it back. Raheem Kassam, who is a close ally of Bannon, a co-owner of the Butterworths restaurant in Washington — a Maga hotspot — and a former adviser to Nigel Farage, says: 'It's definitely become more complex and thoughtful and flexible. 'There's now a depth where you can't necessarily fit all of Maga policy on a banner held up at a rally. You used to be able to say it was 'build the wall', 'drain the swamp'. It's developed more, it's deeper, it's denser and that's kind of what the establishment is really upset about this time. It's like, 'Oh, these guys have actually developed an element of political sophistication.'' For now, most agree — at least publicly — that Trump is king. Yet privately what is making the base so jumpy is this idea that Trump is being forced by the deep state into the default establishment policy position. If it happens to Trump, what chance does his successor have? Hanson says: 'Trump decides — in the sense of le Maga état, c'est moi. Almost everyone who tried to redefine Maga or take on Trump has mostly lost rather than gained influence. 'The key question is whether Maga continues after 2029, given Trump's unique willingness to take on the left rhetorically and concretely in a way that far exceeds the Reagan revolution, and in truth, any prior Republican. Trump's bellicosity, volatility, and resilience — his willingness to win ugly rather than lose nobly — ensure him credibility and goodwill among the base that in turn allows him greater latitude and patience.' Or as a recent visitor to the White House puts it: 'A lot of them want a Maga ideology whereas Trump is happy with it just being about him.' Kassam adds: 'Trump does largely get to decide what America First means. But the point is, there's a whole movement behind it that will want to keep the America First agenda even after Trump.' If the president now finds himself dragged into a longer conflict in the Middle East, his authority will be tested. Yet the the real fight to define America First is likely to come when Trump exits the stage.
