Latest news with #MOAB
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump focused on avoiding wider conflict as he nears decision on US strikes in Iran, sources say
As President Donald Trump weighs whether to join Israel's strikes on Iran — including using bunker-busting bombs to target nuclear facilities deep underground — a discussion is underway among his top officials over how the US can strike those targets without becoming embroiled in a full-scale war, sources familiar with the matter said. For Trump, trying to avoid prolonging the conflict that began last Thursday has become a top imperative. While he is receptive to arguments, including from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that only the US can decisively end Iran's nuclear ambitions, he is deeply wary of becoming bogged down in the type of foreign conflict he vowed to avoid, the sources said. Over the weekend, some US allies received word that the Trump administration was planning to wait and see what the Israelis accomplished during the first week of their operation against Iran's nuclear program before making a decision on getting involved with US military assets, two European diplomats said. A day ahead of that deadline, Trump said he had not made a final decision on how to proceed, and in conversations with US allies on Wednesday, administration officials did not definitively lean in one direction or the other, the diplomats said. Trump has reviewed attack plans for Iran but is holding off to see if Tehran steps back from its nuclear program, a person familiar with the matter told CNN. 'I like to make the final decision one second before it's due,' Trump said in the Oval Office. 'Especially with war, things change with war. It can go from one extreme to the other.' As the president mulls his options, he has said he does not believe a US strike necessarily means a complete US intervention in a foreign war, a source familiar with the matter said. And people close to Trump have argued that decisive strikes are different from broader action that could prolong the conflict. 'America might just drop a few MOAB's on Fordow, destroy the last nuclear asset, and then leave,' David Friedman, Trump's ambassador to Israel during his first term, wrote on social media. MOAB refers to a Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, nicknamed the 'mother of all bombs.' 'The air space already is clear,' Friedman went on. 'How is that being dragged into anything?' As Trump keeps his options open, the administration continues to hear from allies who are urging against offensive US involvement. The range of reasons include the possibility of Iran seeking to block the Strait of Hormuz, potentially upending the global flow of oil, and Iran potentially choosing to race toward developing a nuclear weapon after any US strike, two sources familiar with the discussions said. Iran has vowed to retaliate if US forces join Israel in attacking. 'If the Americans decide to get involved militarily, we have no choice but to retaliate wherever we find the targets necessary to be acted upon,' Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht-Ravanchi said in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour. 'That is clear and simple. Because we are acting in self-defense.' One model for action that Trump's allies have discussed privately in recent weeks is his 2020 decision to assassinate top Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani near Baghdad International Airport using a MQ-9 Reaper drone. The strike, while still a serious escalation that drew reprisals from Iran, did not cause all-out war. Trump administration officials have discussed the Soleimani strike as a counter to theories arguing that a US strike would lead to 'uncontrollable escalation,' said sources familiar with the conversations. Trump has publicly ruled out, for now, killing Iran's supreme leader. Trump's top national security officials have made a conscious effort to try to get on the same page as they present options for the president. 'My job, our job, chairman and I, at all times is to make sure we, the president, has options and is informed of what those options might be and what the ramifications of what those options might be,' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told a Senate panel Wednesday. Trump's CIA director, John Ratcliffe, has been among those who Trump has leaned on in recent days, both ahead of the Israeli strikes and as the president has considered his next steps. Ratcliffe was present at a Camp David retreat on June 8, shortly before Israel's first attack, where he briefed Trump on the latest intelligence related to Iran's nuclear program and Israel's likely next move, according to a source familiar with the discussion. The retreat at Camp David was not originally intended as a meeting focused on intelligence, as evident by fact that Ratcliffe and Trump's Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard were not initially invited, according to a senior administration official. Ratcliffe made the trip at the last minute, the official said, and briefed the president on the rapidly evolving situation. Another key voice in Trump's ear has been Gen. Michael Kurilla, commander of US Central Command. In recent weeks, some US military leaders, including Kurilla, have requested more resources to defend and support Israel as it continues to trade fire with Iran, according to two sources familiar with the matter. '[Kurilla] would want to be prepared for the most challenging contingency,' said one of the sources familiar with the matter, referring to his push for positioning US assets in the Middle East in support of Israel. Kurilla, a staunch supporter of Israel, has for months been pushing Hegseth and Trump to move a growing number of military assets into the Middle East in preparation for a conflict with the potential to metastasize – either between the US and Iran's proxies, including the Houthi rebel group in Yemen, or between Israel and Iran. Whether Trump can strike Iran while avoiding becoming drawn into a quagmire is a matter of debate. Some Iran experts warn a drawn-out confrontation could last the duration of Trump's presidency and exact a heavy toll on American lives and resources at Israel's behest. 'Any attack by the US will lead to full-scale attack by the Iranians against US bases in the region, and a full-scale war between the US and Iran,' Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute in Washington, DC, told CNN. Tehran may not be able to sustain a long fight with the US, but it won't be an easy war for Washington either, he said. Many of Trump's otherwise-staunch supporters have also questioned whether it is possible to launch strikes in Iran without getting ensnared in a generational conflict. 'First and foremost, this is not our war. This is Iran's war. The president of the United States is commander-in-chief of our forces. He listens to all of us that work in the national security lane,' said Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho, the Senate Foreign Relations chairman who met with Trump at the White House on Wednesday. 'I think he has done a masterful job of threading a very, very difficult needle,' Risch said a day before his meeting with the president. Another Senate Republican who spoke to Trump this week, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, said he 'would not' be comfortable if the US took offensive action against Iran. 'I don't want us fighting a war. I don't want another Mideast war…I'm a little concerned about our sudden military buildup in the region,' Hawley said a day after his conversation with Trump. The risk of retaliation from Iran is strong enough that even before Trump makes a decision, the US military began making contingency preparations that account for the possibility of Iranian retaliation against US forces if Trump does move forward with a strike, according to a source familiar with the planning. After frequent conversations with Netanyahu, during which the Israeli leader has made clear Israel needs US aid to complete its ultimate goal of wiping out Iran's nuclear capabilities, the president acknowledged Wednesday that US involvement would help speed up the process for Israel's success. 'We're the only ones that have the capability to do it, but that doesn't mean we're going to do it at all,' Trump said. But he also affirmed his pledge to avoid a 'long-term war.' 'I only want one thing: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,' he said. 'That's it. I'm not looking long term, short term. And I've been saying that for 20 years.' CNN's Alejandra Jaramillo contributed to this report.
Saudi Gazette
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Saudi Gazette
Trump focused on avoiding wider conflict as he nears decision on US strikes in Iran
WASHINGTON — As President Donald Trump weighs whether to join Israel's strikes on Iran — including using bunker-busting bombs to target nuclear facilities deep underground — a discussion is underway among his top officials over how the US can strike those targets without becoming embroiled in a full-scale war, sources familiar with the matter said. For Trump, trying to avoid prolonging the conflict that began last Thursday has become a top imperative. While he is receptive to arguments, including from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that only the US can decisively end Iran's nuclear ambitions, he is deeply wary of becoming bogged down in the type of foreign conflict he vowed to avoid, the sources said. Over the weekend, some US allies received word that the Trump administration was planning to wait and see what the Israelis accomplished during the first week of their operation against Iran's nuclear program before making a decision on getting involved with US military assets, two European diplomats said. A day ahead of that deadline, Trump said he had not made a final decision on how to proceed, and in conversations with US allies on Wednesday, administration officials did not definitively lean in one direction or the other, the diplomats said. Trump has reviewed attack plans for Iran but is holding off to see if Tehran steps back from its nuclear program, a person familiar with the matter told CNN. 'I like to make the final decision one second before it's due,' Trump said in the Oval Office. 'Especially with war, things change with war. It can go from one extreme to the other.' As the president mulls his options, he has said he does not believe a US strike necessarily means a complete US intervention in a foreign war, a source familiar with the matter said. And people close to Trump have argued that decisive strikes are different from broader action that could prolong the conflict. 'America might just drop a few MOAB's on Fordow, destroy the last nuclear asset, and then leave,' David Friedman, Trump's ambassador to Israel during his first term, wrote on social media. MOAB refers to a Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, nicknamed the 'mother of all bombs.' 'The air space already is clear,' Friedman went on. 'How is that being dragged into anything?' As Trump keeps his options open, the administration continues to hear from allies who are urging against offensive US involvement. The range of reasons include the possibility of Iran seeking to block the Strait of Hormuz, potentially upending the global flow of oil, and Iran potentially choosing to race toward developing a nuclear weapon after any US strike, two sources familiar with the discussions said. Iran has vowed to retaliate if US forces join Israel in attacking. 'If the Americans decide to get involved militarily, we have no choice but to retaliate wherever we find the targets necessary to be acted upon,' Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht-Ravanchi said in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour. 'That is clear and simple. Because we are acting in self-defense.' One model for action that Trump's allies have discussed privately in recent weeks is his 2020 decision to assassinate top Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani near Baghdad International Airport using a MQ-9 Reaper drone. The strike, while still a serious escalation that drew reprisals from Iran, did not cause all-out war. Trump administration officials have discussed the Soleimani strike as a counter to theories arguing that a US strike would lead to 'uncontrollable escalation,' said sources familiar with the conversations. Trump has publicly ruled out, for now, killing Iran's supreme leader. Trump's top national security officials have made a conscious effort to try to get on the same page as they present options for the president. 'My job, our job, chairman and I, at all times is to make sure we, the president, has options and is informed of what those options might be and what the ramifications of what those options might be,' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told a Senate panel Wednesday. Trump's CIA director, John Ratcliffe, has been among those who Trump has leaned on in recent days, both ahead of the Israeli strikes and as the president has considered his next steps. Ratcliffe was present at a Camp David retreat on June 8, shortly before Israel's first attack, where he briefed Trump on the latest intelligence related to Iran's nuclear program and Israel's likely next move, according to a source familiar with the discussion. The retreat at Camp David was not originally intended as a meeting focused on intelligence, as evident by fact that Ratcliffe and Trump's Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard were not initially invited, according to a senior administration official. Ratcliffe made the trip at the last minute, the official said, and briefed the president on the rapidly evolving situation. Another key voice in Trump's ear has been Gen. Michael Kurilla, commander of US Central Command. In recent weeks, some US military leaders, including Kurilla, have requested more resources to defend and support Israel as it continues to trade fire with Iran, according to two sources familiar with the matter. '[Kurilla] would want to be prepared for the most challenging contingency,' said one of the sources familiar with the matter, referring to his push for positioning US assets in the Middle East in support of Israel. Kurilla, a staunch supporter of Israel, has for months been pushing Hegseth and Trump to move a growing number of military assets into the Middle East in preparation for a conflict with the potential to metastasize – either between the US and Iran's proxies, including the Houthi rebel group in Yemen, or between Israel and Iran. Whether Trump can strike Iran while avoiding becoming drawn into a quagmire is a matter of debate. Some Iran experts warn a drawn-out confrontation could last the duration of Trump's presidency and exact a heavy toll on American lives and resources at Israel's behest. 'Any attack by the US will lead to full-scale attack by the Iranians against US bases in the region, and a full-scale war between the US and Iran,' Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute in Washington, DC, told CNN. Tehran may not be able to sustain a long fight with the US, but it won't be an easy war for Washington either, he said. Many of Trump's otherwise-staunch supporters have also questioned whether it is possible to launch strikes in Iran without getting ensnared in a generational conflict. 'First and foremost, this is not our war. This is Iran's war. The president of the United States is commander-in-chief of our forces. He listens to all of us that work in the national security lane,' said Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho, the Senate Foreign Relations chairman who met with Trump at the White House on Wednesday. 'I think he has done a masterful job of threading a very, very difficult needle,' Risch said a day before his meeting with the president. Another Senate Republican who spoke to Trump this week, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, said he 'would not' be comfortable if the US took offensive action against Iran. 'I don't want us fighting a war. I don't want another Mideast war...I'm a little concerned about our sudden military buildup in the region,' Hawley said a day after his conversation with Trump. The risk of retaliation from Iran is strong enough that even before Trump makes a decision, the US military began making contingency preparations that account for the possibility of Iranian retaliation against US forces if Trump does move forward with a strike, according to a source familiar with the planning. After frequent conversations with Netanyahu, during which the Israeli leader has made clear Israel needs US aid to complete its ultimate goal of wiping out Iran's nuclear capabilities, the president acknowledged Wednesday that US involvement would help speed up the process for Israel's success. 'We're the only ones that have the capability to do it, but that doesn't mean we're going to do it at all,' Trump said. But he also affirmed his pledge to avoid a 'long-term war.' 'I only want one thing: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,' he said. 'That's it. I'm not looking long term, short term. And I've been saying that for 20 years.' — CNN
ITV News
2 days ago
- Politics
- ITV News
Will Trump decide to drop a bomb on Iran?
President Trump left the G7 early in the middle of the night, rushing back to Washington where he will attend a meeting of his National Security Council in the White House Situation Room. This secure crisis centre below the President's official residence has been the scene of countless high stakes meetings, but today's promises to be one of the most consequential in recent years. Israel's Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu has long wanted to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, particularly the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, buried around 90 metres beneath a mountain towards the north-west of the country. But Israel doesn't possess the B2 bombers which are the only aircraft capable of carrying the MOAB bombs needed to penetrate deep into the earth. The abbreviation stands for Massive Ordnance Air Blast and is also colloquially referred to as Mother Of All Bombs. Now Donald Trump faces the 'mother of all decisions' on whether to drop a 15-tonne bomb on Iran in an attempt to end its nuclear programme, or whether he will give a diplomatic push one last try. There is a significant part of his Republican Party which hates the idea of the US getting involved in another Middle East war. Donald Trump himself has boasted how no conflicts have started under his Presidency. But his social media posts today are bellicose. When he wrote today on Truth & Social, 'We have complete and total control of the skies over Iran' and 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding' many inside his own MAGA movement were alarmed. This feels like the US is not just defending Israel but is actively preparing to go on the offensive against Iran, with all the unintended consequences that may follow.
India.com
19-05-2025
- India.com
Top 5 most expensive weapons in the world, top position goes to...,not S-400 or Brahmos missiles, it is owned by...
Top 5 most expensive weapons in the world- Image of a Trident missile launch Top 5 e xpensive w eapons in the w orld: You must heard about many fancy weapons like Mother of All Bombs, hypersonic missiles and S-400 missile defence systems but do you know which are the most expensive weapons that humankind has ever seen. In this article at we will share you the details about some of the most expensive weapons and their reported prices. 1. Trident Missiles: Developed by US defense company Lockheed Martin, the Trident missile is often the recognised as world's most expensive weapon with an estimated cost of Rs 5,45,81,37,300, as per a report by Navbharat Times. 2. Mother of All Bombs (MOAB): The Mother of All Bombs is seen as one of the most powerful non-nuclear weapons in the arsenal of US army. As per a BBC report, GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB), known as 'the mother of all bombs', is the largest non-nuclear bomb ever used by the US in a conflict. It has an estimated cost in several crores. 3. B- 2 Spirit Stealth Bomber: B-2 Spirit Stealth Bombers are l ong- range stealth bomber. Owned by the US army, the cost of the B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber is estimated to be $ 2.1 billion per unit. 3. Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II): The Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II is a laser-guided missile system, which has reported estimated cost of Rs 23,21,389 per missile. 4. Stinger Missile: Stinger missile is a man-portable surface-to-air missile also developed by the US. The missile is used to provide short-range air defense for ground troops. The per unit of the Stinger missile is reportedly Rs 31,50,456. 5. SIG-716 Assault Rifle: SIG-716 Assault Rifle is an automatic assault rifle manufactured in the US and Switzerland. The estimated cost of the SIG-716 Assault Rifle is about Rs 1,14,286 per rifle. Notably, India recently placed an order for SIG-716 Assault Rifles, where it is buying 70,000 Sig Sauer SiG 716 assault rifles at a reported cost of around 800 crore Indian rupee ($96 million). Readers must note that the prices of these weapons vary with time and deals done with countries with specific modifications. More notably, their may be some weapons which are more expensive than the above-mentioned once.
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Competitive eaters to tackle burger challenge at Forsyth diner
FORSYTH, Mo. — Two popular YouTubers will pay a visit to Chappy's Diner in Forsyth to take on the eatery's 'MOAB' (Mother of All Burgers) challenge. According to a post from Chappy's, competitive eaters Randy Santel and Katina Eats Kilos will attempt the challenge on Friday, March 7. Santel and Katina will have 30 minutes to finish a burger that features grilled cheese sandwich buns, a hamburger patty, fried chicken, pork tenderloin, cheese, and bacon, along with a pound of fries and a four-ounce cookie. The YouTubers will be at the restaurant at around 12 p.m. on Friday to meet and greet with viewers, with the challenge set to start at 1 p.m. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
