Latest news with #IranNuclearProgram
CNA
3 days ago
- Politics
- CNA
Trump insists Iran nuclear sites destroyed amid reports some survived
WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump on Saturday (Jul 19) insisted that the US bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities "completely destroyed" the sites after a report said that some had largely survived. On his Truth Social platform, Trump reiterated his frequent claim that "all three nuclear sites in Iran were completely destroyed and/or OBLITERATED." He said it would "take years to bring them back into service and, if Iran wanted to do so, they would be much better off starting anew, in three different locations." US HIT IRAN'S NUCLEAR SITES IN JUNE US bomb and missile attacks struck Iran's controversial nuclear program on June 22, hitting the uranium enrichment facility at Fordo, south of Tehran, as well as nuclear sites in Isfahan and Natanz. The bombings, carried out at the same time as an Israeli campaign against Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure, were billed by Washington as a knockout blow to a years-long covert effort to build nuclear weapons. Iran insists it has not tried to weaponise its civilian nuclear power program. LEAKED INTEL SAYS ONLY 1 OF 3 SITES DESTROYED Despite Trump's claims of total success, several US media outlets have reported leaked intelligence suggesting a hazier picture. The latest to cast doubt was an NBC News report Friday, quoting a military damage assessment that only one of the three sites was mostly destroyed. Two other sites were deemed to be repairable and potentially able to resume uranium enrichment activities within "the next several months," NBC reported, citing five current and former US officials aware of the assessment. NBC also reported that the Pentagon had prepared an option to inflict far greater damage on Iran's facilities through a bombing campaign that would have lasted several weeks -- not the one-night operation chosen by Trump.
Japan Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Japan Times
The 'Trump Doctrine' is wishful thinking
U.S. Vice President JD Vance recently tried to cast President Donald Trump's strikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure as a wildly successful example of the 'Trump Doctrine.' According to Vance, the doctrine is simple: you identify a problem that threatens U.S. interests, which 'you try to aggressively diplomatically solve.' If diplomacy fails, 'you use overwhelming military power to solve it and then you get the hell out of there before it ever becomes a protracted conflict.' If only it were that easy. What Vance describes is neither a doctrine nor unique to Trump. It is the same wishful thinking that produced many of the long, costly and unsuccessful U.S. military interventions that Vance himself has often decried. If Vance thinks that the strikes 'solved' the problem of Iran's nuclear program, then he must believe that they fully destroyed Iran's nuclear capabilities: its centrifuges, its stocks of enriched uranium and any other materials used for weaponization. Either that, or he views this display of America's military might as powerful enough to persuade the Islamic Republic to abandon its nuclear program and not reconstitute it in the future. There is no question that the U.S. strike severely damaged the Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities. But it is far from clear that the bombing of these sites, coupled with Israel's assassination of senior Iranian nuclear scientists, has set Iran back to zero. It appears more likely that Iran's program has only been delayed, though estimates of the setback vary from months to years. Unless and until there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that Iran's nuclear program was completely obliterated, then Vance must rely on the belief that, as U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth put it, 'American deterrence is back.' The Trump administration is not the first to be tempted by the idea that short, sharp displays of military strength can convince other countries to capitulate to U.S. demands. Since achieving its unquestioned military primacy in 1990, the United States has compiled a long record of such attempts, many of which failed. Some targets of U.S. military coercion proved willing to tolerate more pain than American officials anticipated. Throughout the 1990s, Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq endured multiple U.S.-led bombing campaigns for repeatedly obstructing International Atomic Energy Agency and United Nations weapons inspectors. This cycle, as Vance knows well, culminated in 2003 with America's 'shock and awe' campaign, which set off a grinding eight-year war that killed thousands of U.S. service members and roughly a half-million Iraqis. Similarly, in the 1990s, NATO's threats, blockades and shows of force did not deter Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic from waging brutal wars in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. In particular, Milosevic was unmoved by NATO's early bombing campaign in Kosovo, which was restricted to military targets and did not threaten his hold on power. The air strikes that were supposed to last a matter of days ended up continuing for months without success. The presumption, in other words, that simply bringing superior force to bear would convince Milosevic to abandon a cause he was deeply committed to was dead wrong. It was only when NATO shifted from targeting Serbian forces to targeting infrastructure in and around Belgrade — which threatened to undermine the Serbian elite's support for Milosevic — that he agreed to leave Kosovo. Other targets have played possum when faced with U.S. military threats, seeming to concede in the moment before resuming their unwanted behaviors weeks, months, or even years later. North Korea has long taken this approach. Despite repeated reminders of the U.S. military's overwhelming strength, the country eventually resorts to its old ways, issuing nuclear threats, conducting missile tests, launching satellites and engaging in other provocations. China's behavior follows a similar pattern. In 2016, America successfully used an ostentatious joint military exercise to deter Chinese island building and claims around the Philippines. But just a few months ago, the Chinese Coast Guard landed on an island that the Philippines claims as its own. Still others have responded by inflicting pain on the U.S. The Somali warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid found that killing a few Americans is all it takes for the world's most powerful military to back down. Iran seems willing to do all three. The Islamic Republic has displayed an ability to absorb both economic and military blows. Its military provocations and nuclear activities have ebbed and flowed, sometimes in sync with — and other times irrespective of — the intensity of U.S. responses. And as Iran expert Vali Nasr recently recounted, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei apparently shares Aidid's assessment, having told his advisers that 'America is like a dog. If you back off, it will lunge at you, but if you lunge at it, it will recoil and back off.' It is understandable that Vance wants to believe — and wants Trump's anti-interventionist constituency to believe — that impressive demonstrations of the U.S. military's reach and power are uniquely persuasive. But if short-of-war displays of military power were sufficient to achieve U.S. political objectives — especially ones as difficult to achieve as convincing Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions — then they would be a pillar of every president's doctrine. Melanie W. Sisson, senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, is co-editor of "Military Coercion and U.S. Foreign Policy: The Use of Force Short of War" (Routledge, 2020) and author of "The United States, China, and the Competition for Control" (Routledge, 2024). © Project Syndicate, 2025
CNA
10-07-2025
- Politics
- CNA
Iran urges US nuclear watchdog to drop 'double standards'
DUBAI: Iran's president said on Thursday (Jul 10) the UN nuclear watchdog should drop its "double standards" if Tehran is to resume cooperation with it over the Islamic Republic's nuclear programme, Iranian state media reported. President Masoud Pezeshkian last week enacted a law suspending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the IAEA said it had pulled its last remaining inspectors out of Iran. Relations between Iran and the IAEA have worsened since the United States and Israel bombed Iranian nuclear facilities in June, saying they wanted to prevent Tehran developing an atomic weapon. Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only and denies seeking atomic weapons. "The continuation of Iran's cooperation with the agency (IAEA) depends of the latter correcting its double standards regarding the nuclear file," state media quoted Pezeshkian as telling European Council President Antonio Costa by phone. "Any repeated aggression (against Iran) will be met with a more decisive and regrettable response," he said. Tehran accuses the IAEA of failing to condemn the attacks by the United States and Israel, and says the nuclear watchdog paved the way for the bombing by issuing a resolution declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations. The bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities led to a 12-day war, during which Iran launched drones and missiles at Israel.
Asharq Al-Awsat
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Asharq Al-Awsat
European Powers May Restore UN Sanctions on Iran
The European troika, known as the E3, may restore UN sanctions on Iran under the snapback mechanism, British Foreign Secretary David Lammy said on Tuesday, warning that the move could increase Tehran's suffering unless it takes a serious stance on stepping back from its nuclear program. Speaking to the UK parliament's foreign affairs select committee, Lammy said: 'Iran faces even more pressure in the coming weeks because the E3 can snap back on our sanctions, and it's not just our sanctions, it's actually a UN mechanism that would impose dramatic sanctions on Iran across nearly every single front in its economy.' 'So they have a choice to make. It's a choice for them to make. I'm very clear about the choice they should make, but I'm also clear that the UK has a decision to make that could lead to far greater pain for the Iranian regime unless they get serious about the international desire to see them step back from their nuclear ambitions,' he added. Meanwhile, a French diplomatic source told Reuters on Tuesday that European powers would have to restore UN sanctions on Iran if there were no nuclear deal that guaranteed European security interests. The source spoke after a call between French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot and Lammy ahead of a Franco-British summit. Last Thursday, France threatened 'retaliatory measures' against Tehran if it persisted with new charges against a French couple held in Iran, including accusations that they spied for Israel. Snapback Mechanism France, Britain and Germany - the E3 – are threatening to activate the snapback mechanism that would reinstate all United Nations Security Council sanctions previously levied on Iran. According to diplomats, the E3 countries may trigger the snapback by August if no substantial deal can be found by then. The window closes on October 18. UN resolution 2231 allows a State Party to the agreement to address a complaint to the Security Council about significant non-performance by another JCPOA participant. Within 30 days of receiving such a notification, the UN Security Council shall vote on a draft resolution to either maintain the termination of previous sanctions or allow them to be reimposed. European powers are considering triggering the snapback mechanism after Iran's decision to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Asharq Al-Awsat
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Asharq Al-Awsat
French Intelligence Chief: No Certainty on Whereabouts of Iran's Uranium Stocks
France's intelligence chief said on Tuesday that all aspects of Iran's nuclear program have been pushed back several months after American and Israeli air strikes, but there is uncertainty over where its highly-enriched uranium stocks are. "The Iranian nuclear program is the material, it is highly-enriched uranium, it is a capacity to convert this uranium from the gaseous phase to the solid phase. It is the manufacturing of the core and it is the delivery," Nicolas Lerner, who heads the DGSE intelligence service, told LCI television. "Our assessment today is that each of these stages has been very seriously affected, very seriously damaged and that the nuclear program, as we knew it, has been extremely delayed, probably many months." Lerner, who was speaking for the first time on national television, said a small part of Iran's highly-enriched uranium stockpile had been destroyed, but the rest remained in the hands of the authorities. "Today we have indications (on where it is), but we cannot say with certainty as long as the IAEA does not restart its work. It's very important. We won't have the capacity to trace it (the stocks)," Lerner said. Other intelligence assessments have also suggested that Iran retains a hidden stockpile of enriched uranium and the technical capacity to rebuild. Lerner echoed those comments saying there was a possibility Iran could press ahead with a clandestine program with smaller enrichment capacities. "That's why France is so attached to finding a diplomatic solution to this nuclear crisis," he said.
