
New satellite photos show secret activity at Iran nuclear site after US bombing
New satellite photos have revealed that Iran is trying to piece together its nuclear site after the US sensationally bombed it last week. Heavy machinery was seen at the Fordow site as it appeared Iran has intensified its construction and excavation of the nuclear site after US B-2 bombers struck it last Saturday in Operation Midnight Hammer. Activity was seen near the tunnel entrances and near the points where the American buster bombs struck in Trump's early-morning attack.
It is unclear how much uranium was left at the site during the bomb, but officials said there is no contamination after the strikes. Earthwork also showed signs tunnel entrances might have been sealed off before the attacks, Newsweek reported. Similar construction activity was seen at the Fordow site prior to the strikes, where Iranians were seen shipping contents from the nuclear site to another location a half a mile away.
Despite the extent of the damage being up to question, International Atomic Energy Agency - the UN's nuclear watchdog - said Fordow's centrifuges were 'no longer operational' and suffered 'enormous damage.' A leaked preliminary report from the Defense Intelligence Agency , a US government intelligence group, suggested there was 'low confidence' that that Middle Eastern country's program had been set back. Even Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said the United States hit Tehran's nuclear sites but achieved 'nothing significant.'
'Anyone who heard [Trump's] remarks could tell there was a different reality behind his words - they could do nothing,' the 86-year-old Iranian leader said. The Trump Administration - including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard - pushed back on the report. Hegseth slammed the media for diminishing the strikes, which Trump compared to Hiroshima.
'Your people are trying to leak and spin that it wasn't successful, it's irresponsible,' he said at a press conference. 'There's nothing that I've seen that suggests that what we didn't hit exactly what we wanted to hit in those locations,' he explained without offering further evidence that the uranium was destroyed. Trump has threatened to sue The New York Times and CNN for reporting on the preliminary report.
The Times reported Thursday that Trump's personal lawyer Alejandro Brito had reached out to the newspaper and said the article had damaged the president's reputation. The letter demanded The Times 'retract and apologize for' the story, calling it 'false,' 'defamatory' and 'unpatriotic.' The newspaper's lawyer responded by noting that Trump administration officials had confirmed the existence of the report after The Times published its findings.
'No retraction is needed,' The Times' lawyer David McCraw said in a letter. 'No apology will be forthcoming. We told the truth to the best of our ability. We will continue to do so.' A spokesperson for CNN told The Times that the cable news network had responded to Trump's lawyer in a similar fashion. Operation Midnight Hammer marked the end of a 45-year stand-off between the United States and Iran.
Trump warned Iran not to try and rebuild its nuclear program. 'I don't think they'll ever do it again,' he said while attending a NATO summit. 'They just went through hell. I think they've had it. The last thing they want to do is enrich.' But the president also didn't rule out another airstrike if necessary.
When asked whether the US would strike again if Iran built its nuclear enrichment program, he replied: 'Sure.' In total, the US launched 75 precision-guided munitions, including more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles, and more than 125 military aircraft in the operation against three nuclear sites.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Benjamin Netanyahu corruption trial delayed on diplomatic and security grounds
An Israeli court has cancelled this week's hearings in Benjamin Netanyahu's long-running corruption trial, accepting a request made by the prime minister on classified diplomatic and security grounds. 'Following the explanations given … we partially accept the request and cancel at this stage Mr Netanyahu's hearings scheduled' for this week, the Jerusalem district court said in its ruling, published online by Netanyahu's Likud party. The ruling said that new reasons provided by Netanyahu, the head of Israel's spy agency the Mossad and the military intelligence chief justified cancelling the hearings. It comes after Donald Trump last week called for the case to be thrown out. In remarks on social media, the US president suggested the trial could interfere with Netanyahu's ability to join negotiations with the Palestinian militant group Hamas and Iran, adding that the US was 'not going to stand' for the continued prosecution, prompting Netanyahu to thank him in a message on X. In a social media post, Trump described the case against the Israeli premier as a 'witch hunt', saying the trial 'should be CANCELLED, IMMEDIATELY, or a Pardon given to a Great Hero'. Netanyahu was indicted in 2019 on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust – all of which he denies. He has cast the trial against him as an orchestrated leftwing witch-hunt meant to topple a democratically elected rightwing leader. In one of the cases, he and his wife, Sara, are accused of accepting more than $260,000 worth of luxury goods such as cigars, jewellery and champagne from billionaires in exchange for political favours. In two others, Netanyahu is accused of attempting to negotiate more favourable coverage from two Israeli media outlets. The prime minister has requested multiple postponements to the trial since it began in May 2020. Netanyahu's lawyers had asked the court to excuse him from testifying over the next two weeks so he could focus on security issues after a ceasefire with Iran and amid ongoing fighting in Gaza where Israeli hostages are held. They submitted the prime minister's schedule to the court to demonstrate 'the national need for the prime minister to devote all his time and energy to the political, national and security issues at hand'. The court initially rejected the lawyers' request, but said in its ruling on Sunday that it had changed its judgment after hearing arguments from the prime minister and other senior officials. A spokesperson for the Israeli prosecution declined to comment on Trump's post. Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid said last week that Trump 'should not interfere in a judicial trial in an independent country'. Trump said Netanyahu was 'right now' negotiating a deal with Hamas, though neither leader provided details, and officials from both sides have voiced scepticism over prospects for a ceasefire soon. On Friday, the Republican president told reporters he believed a ceasefire was close. With Reuters and Agence France-Presse


Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Is Trump's America chaos? Or are memories just short?
👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈 Mark Stone sits down with retired US Army General Mark Kimmitt to discuss Trump's presidency. Kimmitt was the assistant secretary of state for political and military affairs under president George W Bush. Mark knew him back in 2003, when he was the deputy director of operations for coalition military forces in Iraq. If you've got a question you'd like the Trump100 team to answer, you can email it to trump100@ You can also watch all episodes on our YouTube channel.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Judges to rule on Palestinian group's legal action over Israel military exports
A Palestinian human rights group will discover on Monday whether it has won a legal challenge against the Government over decisions related to exports of military equipment to Israel amid the conflict in Gaza. Al-Haq is taking legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets. In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict. But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, with lawyers for Al-Haq telling the High Court in May that this 'carve-out' was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. The DBT is defending the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law' and that suspending the licences would negatively impact a wider international programme. Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn are due to hand down their ruling at 10.30am on Monday. At the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, Raza Husain KC, for Al-Haq, said the case came 'against the backdrop of human calamity' in Gaza, describing the conflict as a 'live-streamed genocide'. In written submissions, he said that the Government misunderstood relevant parts of the Geneva Conventions when there was a clear risk that the parts might be used to commit or facilitate violations of international humanitarian law by Israel. F-35s are part of an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool. An earlier hearing in the case was told that the decision to 'carve out' licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' and have a 'profound impact on international peace and security'. In written submissions for the May hearing, Sir James Eadie KC, for the Government, said that this 'provided justification to take exceptional measures to avoid these impacts and was consistent with the UK's domestic and international legal obligations'. He continued that some of Al-Haq's criticisms 'are not based on a balanced appreciation of the facts' and did not consider 'the true depth and range of the information-gathering and analysis' by the Government when it made the decision. Charities Oxfam and Amnesty International, as well as Human Rights Watch, all intervened in the case.