Latest news with #TrumpStrike
Fox News
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
CNN analyst suggests Trump could go down as 'hero' after Iran strike
CNN chief law enforcement analyst John Miller wrote in an op-ed Sunday that President Donald Trump could go down as the "hero" after launching a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. "[Trump] could come out as the hero—the hitman who delivered the kill shot to the Iran threat—or as a supporting player in the final scenes of [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's boldest act," Miller wrote in the Wall Street Journal. Trump revealed on Saturday that the U.S. had successfully carried out strikes against Iran's nuclear sites, in a move celebrated by Israel. "Mr. Netanyahu may go down in history not as the leader who missed the warnings of the Oct. 7 attack but as the leader who delivered Israel from its three greatest threats by crushing Hamas, breaking Hezbollah and eliminating the nuclear threat from Iran," Miller added. Miller pointed to the viral clip of Tulsi Gabbard from March, in which the Director of National Intelligence said "we have seen an erosion of a decades-long taboo in Iran of discussing nuclear weapons in public, likely emboldening nuclear-weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus." Gabbard insisted she was taken out of context. Miller wrote that Gabbard also said Iran's enriched-uranium stockpile was the highest it had ever been. Miller argued that Iran was likely getting ready to deliver a nuclear weapon quickly if Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, gave orders to construct an actual weapon. "Whether or not Mr. [Ali] Khamenei gave the order for development of an actual nuclear weapon, there seems to have been little disagreement in any intelligence estimate that the people working underground in places like Natanz and Fordow were getting Iran's nuclear program ready to deliver a weapon quickly if and when that call came," Miller wrote. The CNN analyst noted that reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran had "exceeded the agreed limits, quantity of uranium, enrichment levels, the number and types of centrifuges," as well as the continued expansion of metal compounds that are used to create missiles. "No country without a nuclear-weapons program operates facilities buried under remote mountains and strives for faster centrifuges and more-highly enriched uranium. None of that makes sense for civilian energy programs," Miller wrote. While Trump's decision earned derision from Democrats and isolationist MAGA figures, he also earned praise from some of his biggest critics. John Bolton, a former national security adviser for Trump who's become one of his staunchest foes, said Sunday that Trump made the right decision.
Fox News
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Scarborough defends Trump's decision to strike Iran, suggests other presidents would have done the same
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough defended President Donald Trump on Monday over his decision to strike Iran's nuclear program, suggesting other presidents might have made the same choice. "I said on Thursday or Friday, the president had no good options. What would Monday look like if he hadn't have moved? If Iran wasn't already at 60% and an ability to create nuclear weapons in a short matter of time, right?" Scarborough began. "I find it hard to believe that Bush 41, Bush 43, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, you know, go down the list, any presidents, wouldn't have felt compelled to take that strike." Scarborough, a former GOP congressman and longtime critic of the president, asked Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, about Trump's decision during "Morning Joe." "I'm not championing either side of this. Although I ask you, David, how difficult would it have been for any president to not take that shot if they knew that Iran was even being attacked by the United Nations?" Ignatius said that past presidents have also considered this scenario. "Three previous presidents have considered precisely this scenario. They're the ones who developed the weapons and the battle plan. This was something inherited by President Trump. And each of them pulled back because of the uncertainties associated with the action. They decided it just wasn't worth doing," he said. "If President Trump decided last Friday, there is no chance that the negotiated settlement that I want to resolve this is going to work, the Iranians are jamming me, they're just pushing me along, they're stonewalling, is the word that J.D. Vance used. He, in a sense, did have no choice but to move it on to a different terrain," Ignatius said. He warned that the U.S. just doesn't know what might come of the move. "The problem is on that different terrain. We just don't know what's ahead. But I take your point, right. It's his choices were debased at the moment he had to make the decision," Ignatius said. Scarborough noted that past presidents didn't have Iran in a degraded and "cornered" position. He said Iran was "even getting condemned by the United Nations for how quickly they were moving towards developing a nuclear weapon." MSNBC contributor Katty Kay agreed with Scarborough and said Iran had been weakened over the last year, putting Trump in a unique position. "You look at the situation with Hezbollah being degraded, the situation with Syria and Assad falling, Hamas being degraded in Gaza, all around the region, Iran has suffered blows over the past year, not just the past week, and so gave Donald Trump a different set of circumstances in than those three previous presidents have faced," she said. Trump earned praise from other prominent critics as well, including former National Security adviser John Bolton, who said on Sunday, "President Trump made the right decision for America." "It was a decisive action. It was the right thing to do. I thought somebody should do it for a long time. But better late than never," Bolton told CNN's Kasie Hunt.
Fox News
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Schiff condemns Trump's Iran strikes, suggests only positive is setback of nuclear program
Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., criticized President Donald Trump's decision to strike Iran's nuclear sites on Sunday, arguing that it shouldn't have happened without congressional approval, but said the only positive was that it set the regime's nuclear program back. "In terms of is there anything positive to come out of it? Yes. I mean, the destruction of these facilities is a positive in the sense that it will set back Iran's program. And look, this is a nefarious regime that is the preeminent state sponsor of terror, should have never been pursuing a nuclear program. But it is very possible, and I think we have to anticipate Iran now kicks out any inspectors. It leaves the nonproliferation treaty. And if it wasn't in a sprint for a bomb, it is now going to engage in a sprint for the bomb," he told CNN's Kasie Hunt during "State of the Union" on Sunday. Trump announced on Saturday that the U.S. had successfully bombed Iran's nuclear sites. Iran's military launched strikes against Israel as the president called for "peace." "So, a lot of uncertainty finally, this was not constitutional. It was not lawful, in the absence of a declaration by Congress. And so the administration should have come to Congress, we will have a vote on a war powers resolution. But there's a reason to bring this to Congress, and it is, you want the Congress bought in, you want the American people bought in on an action this substantial that could lead to a major outbreak of war," Schiff continued. Hunt asked Schiff if he believed the world was less safe this morning than yesterday. "I don't think, to be honest, Kasie, there's any way for us to know. Anyone who says they can see into the future and what the Iranian response will be, whether it will claim American lives or whether there will be some change in the Iranian regime or new, opening a new opportunity. We simply don't know. We simply don't know," Schiff said. "And I think because of that uncertainty, you don't want to take an action like this without a strong basis that is that Iran was imminently pursing a bomb," he continued. "We simply don't have that intelligence, or if we do, it hasn't been shared with the Congress." Schiff suggested Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth didn't know either, citing his Sunday morning press conference. Trump received bipartisan pushback over U.S. involvement with Iran following Trump's strike. Representatives Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and Thomas Massie, R-Ky., criticized the president for green-lighting attacks on the three nuclear sites in Iran on Saturday night. "This is not constitutional," Massie said, responding to Trump's Truth Social post announcing the strikes on Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan in Iran. "Trump struck Iran without any authorization of Congress. We need to immediately return to DC and vote on @RepThomasMassie and my War Powers Resolution to prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war," Khanna posted.
Fox News
22-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Top Democrats, media declare US at war after Iran strikes as White House pushes back on narrative
Prominent Democrats, some Republicans, and a few media personalities are insisting that America is now at war with Iran following President Donald Trump's strike on the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities — but the White House is pushing back firmly against those claims. The New York Times headlined their coverage of Trump's Iran strike in which B-2 bombers and other Air Force jets dropped "bunker buster" bombs at the Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow and Natanz as U.S. submarines fired tomahawk missiles at the enrichment site in Isfahan as "U.S. Enters War With Iran." The Trump administration has denied that the U.S. has entered a war with Iran, and insisted that these were limited strikes, but that has not stopped pundits and politicians from claiming that the country is now at war. "President Trump claims the US strike on Iran was a "spectacular military success." We'll see. What we do know is that Trump has pushed the US into a new war in the Middle East with considerable risks of escalation," New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff posted on X. NBC journalist Kristen Welker asked Vice President JD Vance during his appearance on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, "Is the United States now at war with Iran?" Vance swiftly denied that the U.S. is at war with anything except Iran's nuclear program. "No, Kristen, we're not at war with Iran, we're at war with Iran's nuclear program… what we've said to the Iranians is we do not want war with Iran. We actually want peace, but we want peace in the context of them not having a nuclear weapons program and that's exactly what the president accomplished last night," Vance said. On CBS' Face the Nation on Sunday, Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio urged Iran to "choose the route of peace" and that the United States was awaiting to see what their response, if any, would be. "We'll see what Iran decides to do. I think they should choose the route of peace. We have bent over backwards to create a deal with these people… We're prepared right now, if they call right now and say we want to meet, let's talk about this, we're prepared to do that. The president has made it clear from the very beginning… What happens next will depend on what Iran chooses to do next. If they choose the path of diplomacy, we're ready," Rubio said. The Trump administration launched a series of strikes targeted at Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan on Saturday. The attacks came after attempts to negotiate an agreement regarding Iran's nuclear activity failed to bear fruit. But the administration's vehement denials that the U.S. has entered a war with Iran has not stopped top Democrats — and even some Republicans — from claiming that the country is now at war or is heading toward one, or that the act should be considered "unconstitutional" or "impeachable." "Trump said he would end wars. Tonight, he dragged us into one. His decision violates the Constitution, endangers American lives and risks unleashing dangerous forces we can't control," Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said in a statement. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., slammed Trump's strike against the Islamic Republic a "horrific war of choice," and Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., called for a war powers resolution vote in the Senate regarding the "Trump war on Iran," during an interview on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., read from President Trump's Truth Social post announcing that the U.S. had completed its strikes against Iran at a rally in Oklahoma on Saturday, to a chorus of boos and chants of "No more war." "I agree, and I want to tell you something. Not only is this news that I've just heard this second alarming that all of you have just heard, but it's so grossly unconstitutional. All of you know that the only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress. The president does not have the right," Sanders said. Progressive champion Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Trump's decision was "grounds for impeachment." "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment," Ocasio-Cortez posted on X. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., released a statement after the strike, saying the danger of a "more devastating war" has now increased. "No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy," Schumer said. "Donald Trump has failed to bring peace to the Middle East. He has failed to deliver on that promise. The risk of war has now dramatically increased, and I pray for the safety of our troops in the region who have been put in harms way," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a statement on X. The Trump administration also fielded criticism from fellow Republicans. Reps. Thomas Massie, R-KY., and Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., both criticized the strike as a provocative act of war. "When two countries are bombing each other daily in a hot war, and a third country joins the bombing, that's an act of war. I'm amazed at the mental gymnastics being undertaken by neocons in DC (and their social media bots) to say we aren't at war… so they can make war," Massie posted on X. "Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war. There would not be bombs falling on the people of Israel if Netanyahu had not dropped bombs on the people of Iran first. Israel is a nuclear armed nation. This is not our fight. Peace is the answer," Greene posted on X. Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey also told MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace on Saturday that Trump's strike on Iran's nuclear program was, in many ways, a "bold and good move," and that we're "at war with Iran right now."
The Sun
22-06-2025
- Politics
- The Sun
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 9 9 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. 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 9 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 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." Iran's Nuclear Sites Arak plant - satellite pictures of this plant near the Iranian town of Arak surfaced over 20 years ago. It contains a heavy-water reactor with plutonium that can be used for nuclear bombs. Bushehr nuclear power station - this power plant is a combination of Russian and German engineering. It's nuclear reactor is operating at 100% power and the site is home to enriched uranium, used for nuclear bombs. Gachin uranium mine - home to uranium ore concentrate, or yellowcake, which can be transformed into enriched uranium ready for nuke bomb assembling. Isfahan conversion plant - yellowcake is converted here into three dangerous substances. Hexafluoride gase used in the enrichment process, uranium oxide used to fuel reactors and metal used in the cores of nuclear bombs. Natanz uranium enrichment plant - this is Iran's largest enrichment base. It's made up of three underground buildings and is closely watched by the international community. Parchin military site - south of Tehran, this site is focused on research and the production of ammo, rockets and explosives. Concerns have been raised that it is also used as part of Iran's nuclear weapon development. Qom uranium enrichment plant - a heavily fortified and initially secret facility where Iran carries out uranium enrichment.
