Category: Trump

  • MIL-OSI USA News: WHAT THEY ARE SAYING: President Trump’s Display of Peace Through Strength

    Source: US Whitehouse

    President Donald J. Trump’s bold, decisive action against Iran — the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism — and its key nuclear facilities was met with bipartisan praise from lawmakers across Capitol Hill.

    Here’s what they’re saying:

    Speaker Mike Johnson: “The President made the right call, and did what he needed to do. Leaders in Congress were aware of the urgency of this situation and the Commander-in-Chief evaluated that the imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act. The world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, which chants ‘Death to America,’ simply could not be allowed the opportunity to obtain and use nuclear weapons. The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight’s necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties.”

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune: “The regime in Iran, which has committed itself to bringing ‘death to America’ and wiping Israel off the map, has rejected all diplomatic pathways to peace. The mullahs’ misguided pursuit of nuclear weapons must be stopped. As we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm’s way.”

    Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso: “President @realDonaldTrump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear program is the right one. The greatest threat to the safety of the United States and the world is Iran with a nuclear weapon. God Bless our troops”

    Senate Republican Conference Chair Tom Cotton: “Iran has waged a war of terror against the United States for 46 years. We could never allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. God bless our brave troops. President Trump made the right call and the ayatollahs should recall his warning not to target Americans.”

    Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Jim Risch: “As President Trump has said over and over again – as have I – Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. Why? A nuclear-armed Iran would without doubt spark a nuclear arms race that would take off around the world. This is a direct threat to American national security if left unchecked. This war is Israel’s war not our war, but Israel is one of our strongest allies and is disarming Iran for the good of the world. I’ve also always said that Israel would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. For Israel this is existential. The Iranians literally want to wipe Israel and all Jews off the face of the earth. This strike will put an end to those ambitions. President Trump took decisive action today to assist the Israelis in their efforts to stop the Iranian nuclear program. Only American weapons could do what has been done. This has made America safer, in addition to the Israelis, and the world more broadly. This is not the start of a forever war. There will not be American boots on the ground in Iran. This was a precise, limited strike, which was necessary and by all accounts was very successful. As President Trump has stated, now is the time for peace.”

    Sen. Jim Banks: “I trust President Trump!”

    Sen. Marsha Blackburn: “@realDonaldTrump knows peace can only be achieved through strength. This is a victory for the United States.”

    Sen. Katie Britt: “I stand by President Trump. Strong and surgical. Please pray for peace.”

    Sen. Ted Budd: “Tonight, the United States dealt a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program. The U.S. military alone had the capability to destroy these facilities deep underground, and I commend President Trump for standing with our Israeli allies in their efforts to end the threat of a nuclear Iran once and for all. May God bless and protect our troops, who continue to keep us safe around the world.”

    Sen. Bill Cassidy: “Iran’s nuclear program is a threat to peace and stability. Peace must remain the goal.”

    Sen. John Cornyn: “President Trump made the courageous and correct decision to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat. God Bless the USA. Thank you to our extraordinary military and our indomitable @POTUS This is what leadership on the world stage looks like.”

    Sen. Kevin Cramer: “When only we can do what needs doing, we must do it. Great call Mr. President and great job @usairforce ! God Bless The USA! #PeaceThroughStrength #GodBlessIsrael.”

    Sen. Ted Cruz: “I commend our pilots and servicemembers, our intelligence personnel, and his national security staff on tonight’s successful and critical operation. The prospect of the Iranian regime acquiring nuclear weapons represents the most acute immediate threat to America and our allies. When the Ayatollah chants ‘Death to America’ he means it, and the reason he is building nuclear weapons is because he intends to use them. President Trump has consistently and unequivocally stated that those threats cannot be countered without dismantling the Iranian regime’s enrichment capacity. The President and his negotiators spent two months exploring whether the regime would agree to a negotiated settlement that met America’s national security needs. At the end of that period, Iranian regime officials declared that instead of agreeing to deal they would open a new enrichment facility and install more advanced centrifuges. After that declaration, our Israeli allies launched a preemptive attack against the regime and its nuclear infrastructure, which was enormously successful. It could not disable the nuclear activities at Fordow, an underground enrichment bunker built into a mountain which was legitimized by the Obama-era deal. As long as Iran was able to access and enrich uranium, they could still rush to build a nuclear arsenal. Tonight’s actions have gone far in foreclosing that possibility, and countering the apocalyptic threat posed by an Iranian nuclear arsenal.”

    Sen. John Curtis: “Iran’s relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons is a direct threat to American interests, our allies, and global stability. Today’s action was a serious and necessary response to that danger. I honor the brave servicemembers who carried out the mission with skill and courage. Strength paired with genuine diplomacy is how we create peace, prevent conflict, and preserve freedom. I join the President in calling for a return to diplomacy.”

    Sen. Steve Daines: “Thank you President Trump and the men and women of our armed forces. America, Israel and the rest of the world are safer tonight as a result of your bravery, courage and unrivaled skill. Iran is the world’s largest state sponsor of terror, has killed hundreds of U.S. service members, attempted to assassinate President Trump, and calls the United States ‘big Satan’ and Israel ‘little Satan.’ Stopping Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is a major step toward achieving peace.”

    Sen. Joni Ernst: “By leading with peace through strength, President Trump is making the world a safer place and protecting Americans. Iran must never be able to threaten America with a nuclear weapon. God bless our commander in chief and our servicemembers!”

    Sen. Deb Fischer: “For decades, Iran has chanted ‘death to America’ and pledged to wipe Israel off the map. When foreign adversaries pledge to destroy us, we should believe them. President Trump has always been clear: Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon – and I agree. Today, his administration took the necessary steps to keep a nuclear weapon out of Iran’s reach, and I am grateful to the service members who successfully carried out the mission.”

    Sen. Bill Hagerty: “@POTUS’s decisive leadership enforced deadlines and redlines. This was a tough decision, one that, as always, President Trump put the interests of the American people first in making. May this be the end of Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions and lay the groundwork for lasting peace.”

    Sen. Lindsey Graham: “Good. This was the right call. The regime deserves it. Well done, President @realDonaldTrump To my fellow citizens: We have the best Air Force in the world. It makes me so proud. Fly, Fight, Win.”

    Sen. Chuck Grassley: “Our commander in chief & brave military forces hv carried out a mission in Iran to prevent nuclear enrichment Iran believes in “Death to Israel Death to America” Keeping USA safe is number 1 responsibility of Pres Trump”

    Sen. John Fetterman: “As I’ve long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS. Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I’m grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.”

    Sen. James Lankford: “I continue to be grateful for the skill and professionalism of our United States service members. Cindy and I are praying for our military, the President and for a lasting peace.”

    Sen. Mike Lee: “Tonight, the Iranian nuclear program was wiped out. Please join me in praying for the safety of the brave men and women of America’s armed forces in the Middle East and around the world, and that these strikes may lead to the lasting peace called for by President Trump.”

    Sen. Roger Marshall: “Thank you to our brave American Air Force and their successful mission as no Americans were harmed. We stand tall with President Trump who is protecting the world from a nuclear capable Iran.”

    Sen. Dave McCormick: “As I have said all along, Iran must not have a nuclear weapon. This targeted attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is the result of the Iranian regime’s failure to make a deal despite months of President Trump’s good faith efforts to negotiate. I applaud President Trump’s strong leadership and his continued commitment to peace through strength. Once again, America’s detractors around the world should know President Trump means what he says. And I am so grateful for America’s brave warriors, who appear to have achieved their mission successfully and are returning home safely. I look forward to being briefed along with my Senate colleagues on this action.  This is an important step toward ensuring that the world’s largest state sponsor of terror never obtains a nuclear weapon.”

    Sen. Ashley Moody: “This is a solemn and important moment for security and peace. We stand with and pray for our President, the service members who carried out this mission, and the people affected by this conflict.”

    Sen. Markwayne Mullin: “To those concerned about U.S. involvement— this isn’t a “forever war” in fact, it’s ending one. @POTUS was clear: Iran must never have a nuclear weapon. The Republican-led @SenateGOP trusts President Trump to keep America safe, free, and prosperous. Peace through strength.”

    Sen. Pete Ricketts: “President Trump gave Iran ample time to come to the negotiating table on its nuclear program. Tonight’s strikes mean Iran is further from possessing a nuclear weapon. I’m thankful for the heroes who carried out this strike and for our service members in the Middle East and around the world.”

    Sen. Rick Scott: “Thank you, @POTUS, @SecDef, and our brave American warriors for a successful strike on three Iranian nuclear sites. This is what peace through strength looks like. The United States and the world are a safer place without Iran possessing a nuclear weapon.”

    Sen. Tim Scott: “Decisive American leadership. Americans and the world can thank President Trump for his courage to lead.”

    Sen. Tim Sheehy: “The right decision. Iran had every opportunity to give up their nukes. To the naysayers out there, this isn’t starting a war, this is ending one. Iran has been at war with America for 46 years. The Iranian people should rise up and put an end to this murderous regime.”

    Sen. Dan Sullivan: “President Trump meant what he said—Iran will never get a nuclear bomb. I commend @POTUS and his national security team for making this important but difficult decision and our brave military members for carrying it out. The terrorist leaders of Iran have, in essence, been at war with the United States for decades—targeting, wounding and killing thousands of American service members for years. Making sure the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism never gets a nuclear weapon is part of the work of reestablishing deterrence against Iran, which was lost during the appeasement of the Biden Administration. This is difficult work, but critical for our national security. I fully support the President and his national security team in these critical efforts.”

    Sen. Thom Tillis: “This was the right decision by @POTUS: we cannot allow Iran to build nuclear weapons. God Bless our brave servicemembers who supported and executed this mission.”

    Sen. Tommy Tuberville: “God bless our Troops. God bless President Trump. And may God continue to bless the United States of America.”

    Sen. Roger Wicker: “Our commander-in-chief has made a deliberate —and correct— decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime. We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies and stability for the middle-east. Well-done to our military personnel. You’re the best!”

    Sen. Todd Young: “Thank you to our brave service members who executed this mission. The world will be safer if Iran’s nuclear capability is destroyed. I look forward to briefings in the coming days.”

    House Majority Whip Tom Emmer: “A nuclear Iran posed a threat to the Middle East and to the world. @POTUS has been consistent that this dangerous regime should NEVER possess a nuclear weapon. He was right then, and he is right today: NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE.”

    House Republican Conference Chair Lisa McClain: “President Trump is delivering PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH. Today’s successful mission destroyed Iran’s nuclear capabilities, protected American lives, and will make the world safer. Now, it’s time for peace.  God bless America and our warfighters!”

    Rep. Robert Aderholt: “I fully support President Trump’s decision to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities. As I have said, I believe that if Iran gets a functioning nuclear weapon they would not hesitate to use it against Israel or the United States. When they say death to Israel and death to America, we have no reason not to believe them. I pray this action has made the world safer. President Trump has pledged to get us out of “forever wars.” This could be a step toward ending the war we have been in with Iran since 1979. They have killed hundreds and hundreds of Americans in the past half century.”

    Rep. Mark Alford: “PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH REQUIRES STRENGTH We strongly support President Trump’s targeted strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. The Ayatollah must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon and we will always stand with Israel.”

    Rep. Don Bacon: “Iran with a nuclear weapon is an existential threat. Pres. Trump is protecting America.”

    Rep. Troy Balderson: “Thank you @realDonaldTrump for taking decisive action. The world is a whole lot safer tonight.”

    Rep. Michael Baumgartner: “There is no greater threat to the world than nuclear proliferation, let alone from a regime that has consistently used radical Islamic terrorists to attack and kill Americans for nearly 4 decades. I fully support President Trump’s decision to bomb Iran’s nuke reactor. Trump gave Iran a choice. The Ayatollah chose poorly.”

    Rep. Andy Barr: “God Bless Donald J. Trump, God Bless our military, and God Bless the United States of America! America thanks you, @realdonaldtrump! The world thanks you too.”

    Rep. Tom Barrett: “I anticipate a full briefing of our military strike in Iran immediately upon my return to Washington. Tonight, I am praying for wisdom in our decisions, President Trump and his team, and the safety of our troops. God bless the United States of America.” 

    Rep. Aarron Bean: “The rogue Iranian regime has murdered American soldiers and been the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism for decades. Peace through strength is a strategy that works. God bless our brave American troops and God bless the USA!”

    Rep. Mike Bost: “I trust that President Trump made the decision to target Iran’s nuclear program tonight due to intelligence that indicates the regime was within reach of developing nuclear weapons that could threaten the lives of American citizens and U.S. troops stationed across the globe. He showed the strength to ensure that never happens.”

    Rep. Ken Calvert: “Like President Trump, I have consistently said Iran cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. I support his decision to use the force and precision of the U.S. military in coordination with our ally Israel to uphold this redline with tonight’s targeted strike.”

    Rep. Buddy Carter: “I support President Trump. Peace through strength!  Thank you to the brave troops who defended us and our ally, Israel.”

    Rep. Mike Collins: “Peace through strength. Thank God we have President Trump as Commander in Chief.”

    Rep. Jeff Crank: “Tonight, President Trump took decisive action to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, protect Americans and build peace in the Middle East.  Congratulations to the Department of Defense on a successful mission.”

    Rep. Rick Crawford: “As I have said multiple times recently, I regret that Iran has brought the world to this point. That said, I am thankful President Trump understood that the red line—articulated by Presidents of both parties for decades—was real. The United States and our allies, including Israel, are making it clear that the world would never accept Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon. I have been in touch with the White House before this action and will continue to track developments closely with them in the coming days. I commend President Trump for taking decisive action and I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes. I continue to pray for the safety of the forces engaged to protect the free world.”

    Rep. Dan Crenshaw: “Support President Trump. You think these decisions were easy? They weren’t. You think this means WW3? You’re wrong. You think it means American soldiers deploying to Iran? You’re wrong. You think it means long term stability in the Middle East and a safer future for Americans? You’re right. Because the regime that wanted ‘Death to the Great Satan’ is at its end.  Support the President.”

    Rep. Scott DesJarlais: “I stand with President Trump’s decision to take out the last of Iran’s nuclear sites and his call for peace. My full statement & the DOJ indictment on Iran’s attempt to assassinate Trump.”

    Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart: “I stand with our Commander-in-Chief President @realDonaldTrump in making sure the terrorist regime in Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. Proud of our exceptional military and proud to stand by our ally Israel.”

    Rep. Neal Dunn: “Iran’s nuclear ambitions are a threat not just to Israel but also to all our allies and the entire free world. The Ayatollah’s regime forced the President’s hand. It was imperative that President Trump act decisively to eliminate that existential threat. Prayers for the Iranian people and peace in the Middle East.”

    Rep. Gabe Evans: “I’m glad to see @POTUS take action to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. As a veteran of a Global War on Terror, I know we achieve peace through strength. Prayers and thanks to our brave men and women who carried out this necessary operation.”

    Rep. Pat Fallon: “President Trump today made the tough, but absolutely correct decision in the best interest of America’s national security to order strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites. Let me be clear — Iran cannot possess nuclear weapons under any circumstances. Thank you to our brave servicemembers for getting the job done.”

    Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick: “Tonight, the United States executed a successful strike on Iran’s nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. All our aircraft are safely out of Iranian airspace and headed home. This was the right call—and a necessary one. Make no mistake: a nuclear Iran is an existential threat—not just to Israel, but to the entire free world. Peace through strength is how we lead. And tonight, the greatest military on Earth delivered —for America, for our allies, and for the cause of global security. God bless our Troops. God bless America. And God Bless the enduring cause of liberty, now and forever.”

    Rep. Chuck Fleischmann: “President Trump is showing strong leadership that will protect America and the entire world by ensuring Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon. Iran is the world’s largest state-sponsor of terrorism, responsible for the murder of thousands globally. The Iranian regime must NEVER have access to nuclear weapons. I applaud President Trump for his steadfast leadership as our Commander in Chief and our outstanding Armed Forces for their successful mission.”

    Rep. Mike Flood: “Tonight, President Trump took bold steps to ensure that Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon. Keeping Iran from becoming a nuclear power will not only help keep America safe but can provide peace and stability around the world.  Thank you to our brave service members who skillfully carried out this mission.”

    Rep. Vince Fong: “President Trump’s decisive action to eliminate the nuclear capabilities posed by the Iranian regime was a necessary one to prevent a real and catastrophic threat. Iran can NEVER be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. We’re grateful for the bravery of the @usairforce and all our military personnel. May God protect them and all Americans in harm’s way as we continue the necessary work to preserve peace and stability.”

    Rep. Russell Fry: “I stand with President Trump—Iran CANNOT have a nuclear weapon. Peace through strength.”

    Rep. Brandon Gill: “’Peace through strength’ means ensuring our existential enemies don’t acquire the most lethal and catastrophic weapons known to man.”

    Rep. Carlos Gimenez: “God bless America! God bless the Jewish State of Israel! God bless President Donald J. Trump! The people of #Iran will soon taste freedom again, Israel will be at peace, & democracy will be safe from this radical Islamist terrorist regime!”

    Rep. Lance Gooden: “PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH! Thank you, Mr. President, and our great military! And thanks, especially, to God, for our pilots’ safe return.”

    Rep. Mark Green: “The United States has given Tehran every opportunity to forgo its nuclear ambitions; it has repeatedly refused. President Trump made the right decision. A nuclear armed Iran would be detrimental to the existence of our ally Israel, the stability of the Middle East, and our own national security.”

    Rep. Abe Hamadeh: “Iran has limited internet access. The news of Trump’s successful military operation should be spread far and wide in Iran, DROP LEAFLETS. The Iranian people need to know how weak the regime truly is, and now is their time to chart their own destiny if they choose.”

    Rep. Mike Haridopolos: “I support the actions taken by President Trump to end Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The world is a much safer place due to his actions taken today.”

    Rep. Pat Harrigan: “President Trump gave Iran a diplomatic off-ramp—60 days to deescalate and come to the table. They kept enriching uranium, kept making threats, and ignored every warning, including the one not to target Americans. We tried peace through strength. With American lives at risk, I support @POTUS’s actions to advance peace in the Middle East.”

    Rep. Andy Harris: “A nuclear-armed Iran endangers America, Israel, and the entire free world. The U.S. took decisive action to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability, protecting American lives, our allies, and global stability. This is peace through strength.

    Rep. Mark Harris: “I am grateful for President Trump’s thoughtful and wise approach that has gone into the decision and action which has been carried out this evening in a determined approach to make certain Iran does not have a nuclear weapon!! Pray for our nation’s military, the most powerful courageous fighting force in the world!!”

    Rep. Diana Harshbarger: “President Trump has tried over and over again to come to a peaceful agreement with Iran, but they have refused to work with us. While I believe war should never be an option, I am proud of President Trump and our military on a successful operation to deter the spread of war in the Middle East.”

    Rep. Ashley Hinson: “Thanks to President Trump’s decisive leadership, our military carried out successful strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites tonight. Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism & President Trump made it clear: Iran can never have a path to a nuclear weapon. Now they won’t. Thank you to our brave warriors who carried out these attacks & are now on their way back safely home. God Bless President Trump and the USA.”

    Rep. Richard Hudson: “President Donald Trump has been consistent and resolute that Iran- the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism- will not be allowed to build a nuclear weapons capability. He negotiated in good faith and offered Iran peace in exchange for ending their nuclear ambition. Iran did not take President Trump seriously and they have learned tonight that was a mistake. It would be another mistake for Iran to retaliate against Americans anywhere in the world. I support President Trump, I stand with Israel and I pray for the safety of our brave men and women in uniform around the world. America leads with resolve, and the world is safer when we do.”

    Rep. Bill Huizenga: “After attempting to negotiate peace through diplomacy, President Trump took decisive action. We must ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon and usher in a new age of nuclear terrorism. I commend the men and women of our Armed Forces for their performance in this operation to make the world a safer place. It is now time for Iran to come to the table and abandon its nuclear ambitions.”

    Rep. Wesley Hunt: “When faced with a clear choice between peace and violence, Iran chose violence. That was a grave mistake. Underestimating the resolve of the United States, the leadership of President Trump, and the unmatched strength of the most advanced military force on Earth is not just unwise, it’s fatal. I commend our Commander-in-Chief for acting decisively to dismantle Iran’s nuclear ambitions at the source. This was not just a mission of military precision, it was a message: the United States will not tolerate threats to our national security or to global stability. To the brave men and women of our Armed Forces who carried out this operation with courage and excellence, thank you. The nation stands in awe of your service.”

    Rep. Jeff Hurd: “Iran cannot be allowed to possess nuclear capabilities. We must always stand up for the safety and security of the U.S. and its allies. I fully support actions taken to prevent an evil regime from being able to harm us, Israel, and our other allies.”

    Rep. Darrell Issa: “Tonight, @realDonaldTrump is showing the world the true meaning of peace through strength. And American strength is making peace with Iran possible for the first time in 46 years.”

    Rep. Brian Jack: “I stand with our brave military stationed across the world and President Trump, our Commander in Chief.”

    Rep. Ronny Jackson: “President Trump once again demonstrated the bold, decisive leadership the American people elected him for. He has long maintained that Iran must NEVER obtain a nuclear weapon and he kept that promise. A nuclear Iran is a direct threat to America and our allies. Tonight, the world is safer because OUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF, PRESIDENT TRUMP acted. Thank you President Trump and the servicemembers who carried out the strike. GOD BLESS THE USA!!!”

    Rep. Jim Jordan: “God Bless the United States Military. God Bless President Trump.”

    Rep. Tom Kean: “The world is a far safer place without Iranian nuclear sites. Thank you to President Trump and our second-to-none American military for carrying out this successful series of strikes. It is time for security and peace for all.”

    Rep. Jen Kiggans: “The American military remains the greatest in the world … God bless our troops. I support President Trump’s decision to bomb the three sites in Iran because Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. Iran should heed the president’s warning to not retaliate against U.S. forces or U.S. citizens anywhere in the world. Peace through strength remains our goal.”

    Rep. Young Kim: “The military’s targeted actions tonight against Iranian nuclear sites are necessary to deter Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and save lives. I thank our military for their service in this critical operation to restore peace through strength and am glad they are safely on the way home. I look forward to additional briefings from the administration soon.”

    Rep. David Kustoff: “Thank you, @realDonaldTrump, for demonstrating strong leadership on the World stage. Iran should never have a nuclear weapon. This is peace through strength!”

    Rep. Darin LaHood: “@POTUS and the United States have been clear: under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. I thank our brave service members, Intelligence Community, and the Administration’s national security team for holding this red line to protect U.S. national security.”

    Rep. Nick LaLota: “Tonight’s American response makes it clear: Iran will be held accountable for its proxies killing Americans and its blatant ambition to bring death to America through nuclear weapons. Tehran must return to the table, abandon its nuclear ambitions, and choose peace. Praying for our brave troops and American citizens in the region.”

    Rep. Doug LaMalfa: “The President’s decision to carry out a targeted strike on Iranian nuclear sites was the right move. It was necessary, and sent a clear message. No other country has the capability to take out this type of threat. I support President Trump’s decision to take action before it was too late. Iran’s leaders chant “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” as official policy and they mean it. They’ve made it clear that if they ever got their hands on a nuclear weapon, they’d use it on America and Israel. We could not leave major Iranian nuclear sites operational and intact.  I hope Iran will take the President’s offer now. They’ve had many chances to give up their weapons ambitions.”

    Rep. Nick Langworthy: “God bless the United States of America and the brave men and women in uniform who sacrifice so much to protect our freedoms and do the extraordinary every day. We pray for their safety, and we pray for wisdom and strength for our Commander in Chief.”

    Rep. Bob Latta: “Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. The president took decisive action to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Now is the time for peace. God bless and protect our troops.”

    Rep. Mike Lawler: “President Trump made the right decision — and like when President Obama struck Libya, Syria, Pakistan, and Yemen — he did so under the terms of the 2001 and 2002 AUMF. War has not been declared, however, a Nuclear Iran has been prevented. I fully support the President’s decision.”

    Rep. Barry Loudermilk: “Thanks to this bold and decisive action by President Trump, and our amazing military, America and the rest of the world are much safer. Putting America first means prioritizing the safety and security of the United States; and Iran has been a serious threat to the U.S. and our ally, Israel, for decades. President Trump exercised incredible restraint while seeking diplomatic solutions with Iran these past few months; unfortunately, Iran was unwilling to cooperate.”

    Rep. Anna Paulina Luna: “May God protect our brave service members until they return home safely, along with our foreign service officers and the dedicated men and women of the State Department. Pray for our country. We need peace.”

    Rep. Nicole Malliotakis: “There’s no other military in the world that can do what was just done. God bless America and our brave service members.”

    Rep. Tracey Mann: “Audrey and I join the nation in praying for the safety of our troops and civilians in the Middle East. We pray for wisdom for President Trump and his team as they promote American peace through strength. God bless our troops.”

    Rep. Rich McCormick: “President Trump gave Iran every opportunity to give up its nuclear ambitions. They are now very aware that this President will not be dropping pallets of cash to bribe them to stop developing nukes, we will be delivering ordinances that ensures they do.”

    Rep. Addison McDowell: “President Trump protects America and our interests: A nuclear Iran was never an option. God bless America and the brave men and women who serve our nation.”

    Rep. Carol Miller: “Iran was persistent in their refusal to stop enriching uranium. We gave them every opportunity to stop and agree to nuclear disarmament. They refused, so America ended their nuclear weapons program tonight. The Commander in Chief has my full support.”

    Rep. Mary Miller: “A great victory for the United States! President Trump understands that PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH keeps America, and the world, safe and secure.”

    Rep. Max Miller: “As President Trump has stated before, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. Promises made, promises kept”

    Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks: “Under the constitutional authority granted to the president as Commander-in-Chief under Article II, @POTUS took decisive action tonight to keep America, our allies and the world, safe. His bold leadership and commitment to peace through strength delivered results. Our military successfully struck Iran’s nuclear sites, sending a clear message: the world’s top sponsor of terrorism will never obtain a nuclear weapon.  Proud of our warriors and our President.”

    Rep. John Moolenaar: “President Trump has been consistent. A nuclear Iran poses a grave threat to our nation, our military, and our allies. His decision to strike Iran is necessary to keep us and our allies safe, and ensure the largest sponsor of terror in the world does not develop nuclear weapons.”

    Rep. Barry Moore: “I stand with President Trump. God bless him and our brave service members.”

    Rep. Tim Moore: “Iran’s radical regime is a threat to freedom everywhere and has spent decades spreading terror across the globe. President Trump made clear that any attack on Americans or our allies would be met with overwhelming force. May God bless and protect our troops as we confront the evil of Iran and its terrorist proxies.”

    Rep. Nathaniel Moran: “Peace through strength in action. This was a necessary step to protect America and its ally Israel from the clear and present danger presented by Iran and its advanced nuclear program. This is the kind of leadership the moment demands. @POTUS”

    Rep. Troy Nehls: “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. I’m glad the mission was successful, and I’m glad we have President Trump in the White House. Peace through strength.”

    Rep. Ralph Norman: “President Trump’s bold leadership didn’t just defend democracy around the world — it helped save it. God bless the USA”

    Rep. Zach Nunn: “As President Trump takes decisive action to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat, I also remain committed to ensuring our troops—including Iowa’s Guardsmen deploying to the region—are protected and not engaged in a forever war. America remains a strong force for Peace through Strength.”

    Rep. Andy Ogles: “We must end Iran’s nuclear ambitions and protect American lives. Praise God for a successful mission—keep praying for our country.”

    Rep. Burgess Owens: “We have a peace through strength President who doesn’t bluff and knows the world is safer without a nuclear Iran. God bless our U.S. Armed Forces”

    Rep. August Pfluger: “Today, American airmen executed an operation at the direction of President Trump to eliminate Iranian nuclear facilities. I commend President Trump, the national security team, and the men and women who executed these orders on this successful mission. The Iranian regime is the largest sponsor of terrorism and the choice is now theirs… I hope they choose peace and a return to normalized society. But one thing is clear, they will not have a nuclear weapon.”

    Rep. Guy Reschenthaler: “President Trump was right to strike Iran’s nuclear program. A nuclear Iran was a direct threat to our national security and our allies in the region. Iran is responsible for the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of our servicemembers. May God bless our nation and our troops.”

    Rep. John Rose: “Our brave troops executed a well-planned and successful strike in Iran that signals a new chapter in the Middle East, a chapter where there is no misunderstanding about American tolerance of a nuclear-armed Iran. @POTUS is leading with strength, and I fully support this action.”

    Rep. David Rouzer: “I commend President Trump for taking decisive and resolute action to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Regardless of any Iranian response which may occur, the President and those in our great military responsible for successfully carrying out this difficult mission have provided a meaningful opportunity for lasting peace in the Middle East and safety to the United States and our allies.”

    Rep. Maria Salazar: “Thank you, President Trump, for leading with strength and clarity. Iran must never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. May God protect our troops, and may peace prevail through strength.”

    Rep. Austin Scott: “I commend the President for his decisive action to attack Iran’s nuclear program. I also commend the bravery and skill of our warfighters who participated in this important mission. There was no scenario in which Iran could be allowed to continue their nuclear weapons program. The time is now for the Iranian people to rise up against the radical regime.”

    Rep. Keith Self: “This is what leadership from a Commander in Chief looks like.”

    Rep. Adrian Smith: “Through months of talks between negotiators from his administration and Iranian officials, President Trump has shown he is committed to achieving peace for the United States and our allies. Today, he and brave American servicemembers acted decisively when it became clear the Iranian regime, which openly threatened to wield nuclear weapons, was not open to diplomatic engagement. America stands with the friends of freedom, and our forces will defend our people against all threats.”

    Rep. Pete Stauber: “Iran has been wanting to eliminate the United States and Israel for decades. President Trump’s decision to surgically remove this threat was decisive leadership with the power of our extraordinary military force! This is peace through strength.”

    Rep. Greg Steube: “President Trump made every effort to give Iran a peaceful off-ramp to dismantle its nuclear ambitions. The Ayatollah’s refusal to negotiate in good faith confirms what we’ve long known: Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. I’m deeply grateful to our brave men and women in uniform for executing their mission with courage and precision. And I thank President Trump for his decisive leadership during this critical moment.”

    Rep. Dale Strong: “A nuclear-armed Iran is a threat to the entire world. They had ample time to come to the table and make a deal, but forced President Trump to take action to ensure the safety of our country and our allies.”

    Rep. Marlin Stutzman: “Peace through strength means you have to be willing to prove your strength when adversaries will not accept the peaceful option. I support President Trump’s decision and am thankful the strikes were successful. God Bless America!”

    Rep. Claudia Tenney: “President Trump has shown unwavering resolve in defending the U.S. & the free world. We are grateful for the bravery of our servicemembers who carried out these successful airstrikes & for President Trump’s leadership as our Commander in Chief!  God Bless America”

    Rep. William Timmons: “President Trump took decisive action against Iran’s nuclear threat. This sends a clear message: the U.S. will defend our interests and our allies. Grateful our Airmen carried out the mission safely — their courage keeps us safe. FLY FIGHT WIN”

    Rep. Derrick Van Orden: “Peace Through Strength. The terrorist regime in Iran’s time in the sun is over.”

    Rep. Tim Walberg: “Tonight, President @realDonaldTrump displayed decisive action to eliminate the nuclear program of the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. President Trump pursued and exhausted diplomatic options, and to protect the security of our nation, this moment called for strong leadership. God bless America and God bless our troops.”

    Rep. Ann Wagner: “Iran was given every chance to get rid of its nuclear program, but instead of choosing peace the Ayatollah embraced violence and chaos. President Trump was absolutely right to send our bombers in and strike the Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan nuclear facilities, and this decision will save American lives and protect our national security. He and I are in full agreement that we must achieve peace through strength, and today’s decisive strikes are a testament to that shared commitment. Iran cannot and will not have nuclear weapons and today is a direct result of the Ayatollah’s reckless choices…”

    Rep. Randy Weber: “Iran should NEVER have their hands on a nuclear weapon. President Trump ensured that won’t happen. Congratulations on a successful mission.”

    Rep. Roger Williams: “We must always stand with Israel.  Iran should never have a nuclear weapon and I’m thankful that under @realDonaldTrump, our country is stronger than ever.  God bless our military.  We pray for their safety and for peace.”

    Rep. Joe Wilson: “President Trump has been consistent in his willingness to engage in negotiations. Enemies of America insult this effort instead pursuing apocalyptic delusions. Ultimately, Peace is achieved through deterrence and Strength. Assad was warned in 2017. The Iranian regime was warned. War criminal Putin has been warned. President Trump will not hesitate to act when tested.”

    Rep. Rob Wittman: “The President was right – Iran refused to commit to nuclear disarmament. This was the right decision. America must secure peace through strength. God bless our servicemen and women in uniform – I am praying for their safe return.”

    Rep. Steve Womack: “I support the President’s decisive action to thwart Iran from completing a nuclear weapon. Our Israeli allies were instrumental in setting the conditions for these strikes, and President Trump’s decision ultimately makes America and our allies safer. I thank God for the bravery and safety of our servicemembers who made this mission a success.”

    Rep. Rudy Yakym: “Thank you to our brave warfighters for defending the greatest nation on earth. God bless our troops and the United States of America!”

    Rep. Ryan Zinke: “We gave Iran a chance, they didn’t take it. The President has been crystal clear: Iran must not have nuclear weapons. If they don’t give up their nuclear program, this will continue to escalate. They will lose their Army, Navy, what’s left of their Air Force AND they will lose their refineries. This is a fight they will not win. I pray for the freedom loving Iranian people who have lived under extremism for too long.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why corporations are backing away from supporting Pride this year

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Leah Hamilton, Professor in the Faculty of Business & Communication Studies, Mount Royal University

    Prime Minister Mark Carney recently raised the Pride flag on Parliament Hill and lamented the growing anti-2SLGBTQIA+ sentiment in Canada. He also committed $1.5 million to make Pride festivals across the country safer.

    This political support stands in sharp contrast to the many businesses that have reduced or ended their support for the 2SLGBTQIA+ community this Pride season.

    Multinational corporations like Google, as well as Canadian-owned companies like Molson Coors, have divested from supporting festivals, while Target has scaled back its Pride merchandise due to threats against employees and large-scale conservative backlash.

    The impact is already being felt. Pride Toronto is currently facing a $900,000 funding gap. Executive director Kojo Modeste recently told CBC News this corporate divestment appears to be linked to the larger backlash against diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

    Fear of punitive measures

    In January, United States President Donald Trump issued an executive order to dismantle DEI initiatives in federal agencies and target private companies that support DEI measures. In the executive order, Trump’s administration called DEI measures and mandates “immoral discrimination programs.”

    Spearheaded by journalist-cum-activist and Trump adviser Christopher Rufo, the attacks against so-called “woke” DEI programs are fuelled by the “culture wars” that pit equity and inclusion against merit and the free market.




    Read more:
    Here’s what ‘woke’ means and how to respond to it


    Major private corporations, including IBM, quickly bent to the pressure of Trump’s anti-DEI orders by gutting their programs and shifting corporate donorship away from “woke” initiatives.

    The pressure to comply with anti-DEI measures hasn’t ended with corporations. More recently, Trump has set his sights on the U.S. post-secondary system, freezing US$2.2 million in federal grants and US$60 million in contracts after Harvard University refused to comply with the administration’s demands related to its DEI programs.

    In Canada, the rollback of DEI programs isn’t as loud, but it is happening. Michelle Grocholsky, the CEO of Empowered EDI in Toronto, told CBC News companies are reducing their budgets and cutting their staff. In the midst of job cuts in January 2025, the Alberta Investment Management Corporation removed their DEI staff.

    Following in the footsteps of the U.S., Alberta’s United Conservative Party membership passed a resolution to eliminate DEI programs and training in the public service. The party has also indicated it will remove government funding from post-secondary institutions that continue to do DEI work.

    Declining public support

    In addition to the rollback of DEI programs, the ongoing corporate reductions in Pride support are taking place amid increasing anti-2SLGBTQIA+ sentiment.

    A 2024 poll reported that, in Canada, support for 2SLGBTQIA+ visibility — like representation on screens and in sports — is lower than it was in 2021. Compared to previous years, Canadians also expressed less support for transgender rights, and this level of support was lower than the 26 other countries surveyed.

    Not surprisingly, this declining public support for the 2SLGBTQIA+ community coincides with rising hate crimes targeting 2SLGBTQIA+ communities. In 2023, Statistics Canada reported a 69 per cent increase in hate crimes targeting sexual orientation.

    Public attitudes don’t change in a vacuum. They are deeply influenced by hate movements, political rhetoric and the spread of misinformation and disinformation weaponized by politicians and leaders to dehumanize the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, particularly transgender people.

    This dehumanization incites fear, violence and support for anti-2SLGBTQIA+ hate. It has coincided with companies silently withdrawing their support for the 2SLGBTQIA+ community.

    Where we live, in Alberta, the provincial government has passed the most draconian anti-trans laws Canada has ever seen. As we (Corinne L. Mason and Leah Hamilton) have previously written, Premier Danielle Smith’s government has unveiled a suite of policies targeting transgender, intersex and gender diverse children and youth in Alberta, and the 2SLGBTQIA+ community more broadly.

    In this environment of reduced public and political support, it’s not surprising to see companies backing away from the 2SLGBTQIA+ community.

    Getting back to Pride’s roots

    The fact that companies have quickly backed away from their support of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community — by halting production of Pride merchandise or reducing sponsorship in Pride festivals — illustrates the conditionality of their support.

    Rather than beg big business to come back to the table, some members of the community are using this moment to reflect on how corporate “Love is Love” campaigns haven’t actually led to increased quality of life or justice for our communities.

    While it has received less media coverage than calls to remove police from Pride and the presence of Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement at Pride festivals, the corporatization of Pride has long been subject of debate in the 2SLGBTQIA+ community.




    Read more:
    Queers and trans say no to police presence at Pride parade


    Those against “rainbow capitalism” — the shallow and inauthentic use of Pride imagery in advertising — argue for a return to community-based and radical protest rather than settling for flag-waving bankers throwing beads from atop expensive floats.

    Pride Month is rooted in protest and resistance against police violence and systemic oppression. It was led by Black trans women and can be traced back to the Stonewall Riots. Today, Pride still isn’t simply a party and parade.

    Authentic ‘rainbow dollars’

    In this sociopolitical climate of legislated DEI rollbacks and declining public support for the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, organizations that want to support the 2SLGBTQIA+ community should back up their messaging with meaningful actions and structural support.

    Some organizations have shown a commitment to structural support for the 2SLGBTQIA+ community from its beginning, including the Northern Super League, the top-division professional women’s soccer league in Canada. The league openly and consistently amplifies and supports its 2SLGBTQIA+ players, coaches, staff and fans. Founded by Diana Matheson, an openly queer woman, the league is founded on inclusion as a core value.

    When it comes to creating Pride merchandise, Social Made Local is a queer-owned Canadian apparel company in Saskatoon that focuses on gender-inclusive sizing, sustainability and community. They donate a portion of their sales to Canadian non-profits like Rainbow Railroad.

    Companies that want to show their support can spend their rainbow dollars in good faith through actions that meaningfully support the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. This could include creating programs that support queer entrepreneurs, donating to legal funds that are fighting discriminatory legislation, and partnering with 2SLGBTQIA+ organizations to amplify their work.

    Leah Hamilton receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    Corinne L. Mason receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

    Gini (Virginia) Weber does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Why corporations are backing away from supporting Pride this year – https://theconversation.com/why-corporations-are-backing-away-from-supporting-pride-this-year-258770

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: 4 reasons to be concerned about Bill C-4’s threats to Canadian privacy and sovereignty

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sara Bannerman, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Communication Policy and Governance, McMaster University

    In Canada, federal political parties are not governed by basic standards of federal privacy law. If passed, Bill C-4, also known as the Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act, would also make provincial and territorial privacy laws inapplicable to federal political parties, with no adequate federal law in place.

    Federal legislation in the form of the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act sets out privacy standards for government and business, based on the fair information principles that provide for the collection, use and disclosure of Canadians’ personal information.

    At the moment, these laws don’t apply to political parties. Some provinces — especially British Columbia — have implemented laws that do. In May 2024, the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the provincial Information Commissioner’s ruling that B.C.’s privacy legislation applies to federal political parties. That decision is currently under appeal.

    Bill C-4 would undermine those B.C. rights. It would make inapplicable to federal parties the standard privacy rights that apply in other business and government contexts— such as the right to consent to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information — and to access and correct personal information held by organizations.

    Why should we be concerned about Bill C-4’s erasure of these privacy protections for Canadians? There are four reasons:

    1. Threats to Canada’s sovereignty

    In light of threats to Canadian sovereignty by United States President Donald Trump, the Canadian government and Canadian politicians must rethink their approach to digital sovereignty.

    Until now, Canadian parties and governments have been content to use American platforms, data companies and datified campaign tactics. Bill C-4 would leave federal parties free to do more of the same. This is the opposite of what’s needed.

    The politics that resulted in Trump being elected twice to the Oval Office was spurred in part by the datafied campaigning of Cambridge Analytica in 2016 and Elon Musk in 2024. These politics are driven by micro-targeted and arguably manipulative political campaigns.

    Do Canadians want Canada to go in the same direction?




    Read more:
    How political party data collection may turn off voters


    Are political parties spying and experimenting on Canadians via personal data collection?
    (Unsplash/Arthur Mazi), FAL

    2. Threats to Canada’s future

    Bill C-4 would undermine one of the mechanisms that makes Canada a society: collective political decisions.

    Datified campaigning and the collection of personal information by political parties change the nature of democracy. Rather than appealing to political values or visions of what voters may want in the future or as a society — critically important at this historical and troubling moment in history — datified campaigning operates by experimenting on unwitting individual citizens who are alone on their phones and computers. It operates by testing their isolated opinions and unvarnished behaviours.

    For example, a political campaign might do what’s known as A/B testing of ads, which explores whether ad A or ad B is more successful by issuing two different versions of an ad to determine which one gets more clicks, shares, petition signatures, donations or other measurable behaviour. With this knowledge, a campaign or party can manipulate the ads through multiple versions to get the desired behaviour and result. They also learn about ad audiences for future targeting.




    Read more:
    A/B testing: how offline businesses are learning from Google to improve profits


    In other words, political parties engaging in this tactic aren’t engaging with Canadians — they’re experimenting on them to see what type of messages, or even what colour schemes or visuals, appeal most. This can be used to shape the campaign or just the determine the style of follow-up messaging to particular users.

    University researchers, to name just one example, are bound by strict ethical protocols and approvals, including the principle that participants should consent to the collection of personal information, and to participation in experiments and studies. Political parties have no such standards, despite the high stakes — the very future of democracy and society.

    Most citizens think of elections as being about deliberation and collectively deciding what kind of society they want to live in and what kind of future they want to have together as they decide how to cast their ballots.

    But with datified campaigning, citizens may not be aware of the political significance of their online actions. Their data trail might cause them to be included, or excluded, from a party’s future campaigning and door-knocking, for example. The process isn’t deliberative, thoughtful or collective.

    3. Secret personal data collection

    Political parties collect highly personal data about Canadians without their knowledge or consent. Most Canadians are not aware of the extent of the collection by political parties and the range of data they collect, which can include political views, ethnicity, income, religion or online activities, social media IDs, observations of door-knockers and more.

    If asked, most Canadians would not consent to the range of data collection by parties.

    4. Data can be dangerous in the wrong hands

    Some governments can and do use data to punish individuals politically and criminally, sometimes without the protection of the rule of law.

    Breaches and misuses of data, cybersecurity experts say, are no longer a question of “if,” but “when.”

    Worse, what would happen if the wall between political parties and politicians or government broke down and the personal information collected by parties became available to governments? What if the data were used for political purposes, such as for vetting people for political appointments or government benefits? What if it were used against civil servants?

    What if it were to be used at the border, or passed to other governments? What if it were passed to and used by authoritarian governments to harass and punish citizens?

    What if it was passed to tech companies and further to data brokers?

    OpenMedia recently revealed that Canadians’ data is being passed to the many different data companies political parties use. That data is not necessarily housed in Canada or by Canadian companies.

    If provincial law is undermined, there are few protections against any of these problems.

    Strengthening democracy

    Bill C-4 would erase the possibility of provincial and territorial privacy laws being applied to federal political parties, with virtually nothing remaining. Privacy protection promotes confidence and engagement with democratic processes — particularly online. Erasing privacy protections threatens this confidence and engagement.

    The current approach of federal political parties in terms of datified campaigning and privacy law is entirely wrong for this political moment, dangerous to Canadians and dangerous to democracy. Reforms should instead ensure federal political parties must adhere to the same standards as businesses and all levels of government.

    Data privacy is important everywhere, but particularly so for political parties, campaigns and democratic engagement. It is important at all times — particularly now.

    Sara Bannerman receives funding from the Canada Research Chairs program, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and McMaster University. She has previously received funding from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner’s Contributions Program and the Digital Ecosystem Research Challenge.

    ref. 4 reasons to be concerned about Bill C-4’s threats to Canadian privacy and sovereignty – https://theconversation.com/4-reasons-to-be-concerned-about-bill-c-4s-threats-to-canadian-privacy-and-sovereignty-259331

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Russia: |Sirens sound in Israel as Iran launches new wave of missiles

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    JERUSALEM, June 22 (Xinhua) — Sirens sounded in central and northern Israel and in Israeli-controlled Jerusalem as Iran launched a new wave of ballistic missiles.

    Israelis in the affected areas were advised to remain in bomb shelters.

    It was Iran’s first ballistic missile strike on Israel in more than a day – and the first since the United States attacked three Iranian nuclear sites.

    Israel closed its airspace as an apparent precaution following the US strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the Israel Airports Authority said earlier.

    The IDF said in a statement that with the approval of Defense Minister Israel Katz and after assessing the situation, it was determined that changes would be made to the Home Front Command instructions immediately as of 03:45 Sunday /00:45 GMT/.

    Earlier on Saturday, US President Donald Trump said the United States had completed attacks on three nuclear sites in Iran, namely “Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan.” –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Global: US joins Israel in attack on Iran and ushers in a new era of impunity

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Simon Mabon, Professor of International Relations, Lancaster University

    When US B-2 bombers hit Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, Donald Trump declared the strikes a success and urged the Islamic Republic to make peace or face even more devastating strikes. The US president proclaimed the might of the US military, operating in full coordination with Israel, before taking to truth social.

    Trump and the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, will hope that the strikes will end Iran’s nuclear programme once and for all. It may, it may not. More certain is that the operation will sound the death knell for the post-second world war global order.

    After the horrors of the that war and the cold war that followed, a global order emerged seemingly predicated on a set of largely liberal rules and norms that sought to prevent a retreat into global conflict. Predicated on non-intervention, diplomacy and a respect for the rule of law, this global order was idealistic and – ultimately – aspirational.

    But in recent years, this vision of global politics has come crashing down. Now America joining Israel in its attacks on Iran will rightly provoke serious questions about the future of global order and what comes next.


    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


    Trump’s decision to use US air power to land heavy blows against Iran’s nuclear programme is the latest event on a continuum which arguably reaches back to the Hamas terror attack of October 7.

    Israel’s destruction of Gaza, its decapitation of Hamas and disabling of Hezbollah’s military capacity and its strikes against the Houthi rebels have consolidated Israel’s position of strength in the region, to generally positive acclaim from global audiences. Yet the spectre of Iran continued to loom large, even as its proxies were defeated

    Iran has long been framed as an nefarious puppet master controlling a complex web of “proxy actors” across the Middle East each accused of doing the bidding of Tehran. The reality is rather different. While the Islamic Republic undeniably wields influence over such groups, it is not the perfidious mastermind that some would suggest, nor is it the source of all ills in the region.

    Instead, Iran is in a perilous position. The Islamic Republic faces serious social and economic pressures, with the “women life freedom movement” galvanising popular opposition, while unrest across Iran’s peripheral provinces which are home to ethnic and religious minorities continues to ferment.

    In recent years, diplomacy has shown it can work, ameliorating longstanding and deep-seated animosities. This was bearing fruits as seen in the gradual rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia from 2023, which had been preceded by the signing of the Abraham accords in 2020.

    Seen by many as a key achievement of Trump’s first presidency, this was a series of agreements between Israel and Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco and Sudan in which the Arab countries recognised Israel and all sides signed a declaration of principles focused on mutual understanding, respect for human dignity, and cooperation.

    While many in Israel and the US hoped that Saudi Arabia would officially recognise Israel, the events of October 7 and the destruction of Gaza that followed ended those hopes. Now the possibility of all-out conflict between Iran and Israel and the US risks blowing a major regional conflict with global implications.

    Serious questions must be asked as to the longer-term strategy here. While Israeli officials have articulated a need for strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities to prevent the Islamic Republic from getting a nuclear weapons capability, Iran is a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (although it has threatened recently to quit) and key officials have regularly declared that nuclear weapons have no place in Iran’s strategic portfolio.

    Israel is not a signatory to the treaty. In fact, it is thought to possess between 75 and 400 nuclear warheads. It’s hard to tell, as the country has maintained a steadfast policy of nuclear opacity, never actually admitting the extent of its nuclear capability.

    New impunity?

    Is this the start of a new order of impunity across the region, backed by western powers? And if so, what does this mean for the war in Ukraine and the potential for an aggressive Russia engaging in further dangerous adventurism? What does it mean for the possibility of China taking advantage in this breakdown to perhaps fulfil its generations-old ambition to unite with Taiwan, by force, if necessary? Are we seeing the shift to a world in which Donald Trump’s threats to annex Greenland – even perhaps Canada – must be taken seriously?

    The contours of global politics are changing before our eyes. Gone are the norms that have served as the bedrock of the so-called liberal international order. The risk is that while this period has itself featured tragedy and suffering on an almost unimaginable scale, tearing up the rule book will be far worse.

    Simon Mabon receives funding from Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Henry Luce Foundation. He is a Senior Research Fellow with the Foreign Policy Centre.

    ref. US joins Israel in attack on Iran and ushers in a new era of impunity – https://theconversation.com/us-joins-israel-in-attack-on-iran-and-ushers-in-a-new-era-of-impunity-259511

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reed Statement on Trump Ordering U.S. Airstrike Attacks on Iran

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed

    PROVIDENCE, RI — Tonight, U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), the Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, issued the following statement on President Trump’s decision to order U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities:

    “Tonight, President Trump ordered airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, directly involving U.S. forces in this conflict.  This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off.  President Trump declared: “Iran’s nuclear facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.”  But there is a lot we still don’t know and we need an accurate, factual damage assessment.

    “What we do know is that the United States of America has the strongest military in the world powered by brave men and women who expertly supported and executed this mission.  We are grateful for their service and we must be prepared for retaliation — both in the short and long-term, on the battlefield and asymmetrically.   

    “Congress needs to be briefed in a classified setting.  And I will work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure the American people get the facts and answers they deserve.  

    “It’s easier to start wars than end them.  Even though the U.S. maintains military dominance, we are in a dangerous stage that could lead to significant instability in the region and beyond.  We must be prepared for contingencies going forward. 

    “I strongly urge the Trump Administration to immediately pursue restraint, diplomacy, and international engagement to prevent further bloodshed.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Green Party respond to US strikes on Iran

    Source: Green Party of England and Wales

    Responding to news of US attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Green Party co-leader Adrian Ramsay MP said:

    “We utterly condemn the reckless attacks on Iran by the United States that can only lead to further dangerous conflict in an already volatile region. There is no international legal basis for this unilateral action that poses a serious threat to international peace and security.

    “Our prime minister has shamefully decided to echo the rhetoric of Trump and Netanyahu rather than condemn the indefensible aggression of both Israel and the US. Keir Starmer has further implied that it is justifiable for the Iranian regime to be bombed back to the negotiating table. I fully recognise the brutal nature of the Iranian regime but this unilateral action is no way to build peace and risks making the UK once again complicit in escalating a Middle East crisis.”

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI Global: The US has entered the Israel-Iran war. Here are 3 scenarios for what might happen next

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ian Parmeter, Research Scholar, Middle East Studies, Australian National University

    After prevaricating about whether the United States would enter Israel’s war on Iran, President Donald Trump finally made a decision.

    Early Sunday, US warplanes and submarines struck three of Iran’s nuclear sites at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, where the Iranians have a uranium enrichment plant buried about 80 metres beneath a mountain.

    These strikes have to be viewed as part of an overall continuum that began with the Gaza war following Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and then continued with Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah (the Iran-backed militant group in Lebanon) and the fall of the Iran-backed Assad regime in Syria.

    Iran has never been weaker than it is now. And when Trump said it may take two weeks for him to decide whether to bomb Iran, the Israelis likely pushed him to act sooner.

    We can assume there was a lot of Israeli pressure on Trump to use the massive ordnance penetrators, the 30,000-pound (13,600-kilogram) “bunker buster” bombs that only the US can deploy with its B2 bombers.

    Now that Trump has taken the significant step of entering the US in yet another Middle East war, where could things go from here? There are a few possible scenarios.

    Iran strikes back

    The Iranians know they don’t have the strength to take on the US, and that the Americans can do enormous damage to their country and even put the Iranian regime’s stability at risk.

    This is always the prime consideration of the clerical regime led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – everything else is subordinate to that.

    To gauge Iran’s possible reaction, we can look at the how it responded to the first Trump administration’s assassination of the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Quds Force, Qassem Soleimani, in January 2020.

    Iran said there would be a major reaction, but all it did was launch a barrage of missiles at two American bases in Iraq, which caused no US fatalities and very little damage. After that token retaliation, Iran said the matter was closed.

    Iran’s reaction to the new US strikes will likely be along these lines. It probably won’t want to get into a tit-for-tat with the US by launching attacks against American facilities in the region. Trump has promised to respond with force:

    Iran, a bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.

    It’s also unclear how long Iran will be able to prosecute this war. This depends largely on how many ballistic missiles and launchers it has left.

    There are various estimates as to how many ballistic missiles Iran may have remaining in its stockpiles. It was believed to have about 2,000 missiles capable of reaching Israel at the start of the war. Some estimates say Iran has fired 700 of them; others say around 400. Whatever the number is, its stockpiles are dwindling quickly.

    Israel has also destroyed about a third of Iran’s ballistic missile launchers. If Israel is able to destroy all of them, Iran would have very limited ability to fight back.

    Iran backs down

    Before the US got involved in the conflict, Iran said it was prepared to negotiate, but it wouldn’t do so while Israel was still attacking.

    So, one scenario is that some sort of compromise can now be worked out, in which Israel announces a ceasefire and Iran and the US agree to resume negotiations on Tehran’s nuclear program.

    The big problem is that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he doesn’t trust the negotiating process and he doesn’t want to stop Israel’s military actions until all of Iran’s nuclear facilities have been completely destroyed. He’s also been bombing Iran’s oil terminals and gas facilities to put even more pressure on the regime.

    But the regime has shown itself to be incredibly determined not to lose face. It was under great pressure at different times during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and never considered surrendering until a US missile mistakenly took down an Iranian passenger jet, killing 290 people.

    Iran then agreed to a UN-brokered ceasefire. But the Iran-Iraq war lasted eight years, causing an estimated one million deaths. And when the then-supreme leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, agreed to the ceasefire, he said it was “worse than drinking poison”.

    Given the state of Iran’s military capabilities, Khamenei, the current supreme leader, might surrender simply to try to preserve the regime. But this would be quite a climbdown as far as he’s concerned, and he has been very obstinate in the past.

    The regime is very unpopular, but the Iranian people, in my experience, are strongly patriotic – loyal to their country, if not the regime. Though it’s difficult to gauge opinion in a country of 90 million people, a lot of Iranians would not want to be ordered to do anything by the US or Israel, and would rather fight on.

    Netanyahu has said he wants to create the conditions for the Iranian people to rise up against the regime.

    But it’s worth bearing in mind that the opposite of autocracy is not necessarily democracy. It could possibly be chaos. Iran has a number of different ethnic groups and there may be huge disagreements over what should take the place of the clerical regime, were it to fall.

    At this stage, the regime will probably be able to hold together. And even if Khameini were to die suddenly, the regime will likely be able to quickly replace him.

    Though we don’t know his probable successor, the regime has had plenty of time to plan for this. Those in senior positions will also know that a post-Khamenei succession struggle really would put the regime at risk.

    The US engagement is limited

    According to the new polling by The Economist and YouGov, released on June 17, 60% of Americans were opposed to joining the conflict between Israel and Iran, with just 16% in favour. Among Republicans, 53% opposed military action.

    So, these strikes were not an obviously popular move among Americans at this stage. However, if this is an isolated event and succeeds in bringing a swift end to the war, Trump will probably be applauded by a majority of Americans.

    If the US has to go back with more bombers – or there are serious attacks on US interests in the region – there could be more adverse reactions among Americans.

    Another question is whether Iran’s 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium have been destroyed in the US attack.

    If it hasn’t been destroyed, and depending how much damage has been done to its centrifuges, Iran may be able to reconstruct its nuclear program relatively quickly. And it could have more incentive to further enrich this uranium to 90% purity, or weapons-grade level, to build a nuclear device.

    Ian Parmeter does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. The US has entered the Israel-Iran war. Here are 3 scenarios for what might happen next – https://theconversation.com/the-us-has-entered-the-israel-iran-war-here-are-3-scenarios-for-what-might-happen-next-259509

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: What is a ‘bunker buster’? An expert explains what the US dropped on Iran

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By James Dwyer, Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania

    The jagged silhouette of a B2 stealth bomber seen during a 2015 flyover in the US. Jonathan Daniel / Getty Images

    Late on Saturday night, local time, the United States carried out strikes against Iranian nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, marking its open participation in the conflict between Iran and Israel.

    The US says it fired 30 submarine-launched missiles at the sites in Natanz and Isfahan, as well as dropping more than a dozen “bunker buster” bombs at Fordow and Natanz.

    The kind of bomb in question is the extremely destructive GBU-57 Massive Ordance Penetrator, or MOP, which weighs around 13.5 tonnes.

    The attacks raise a lot of questions. What are these enormous bombs? Why did the US feel it had to get involved in the conflict? And, going forward, what does it mean for Iran’s nuclear ambitions?

    What are ‘bunker busters’, and why are they used?

    Bunker busters are weapons designed to destroy heavily protected facilities such as bunkers deep underground, beyond the reach of normal bombs.

    Bunker busters are designed to bury themselves into the ground before detonating. This allows more of the explosive force to penetrate into the ground, rather than travelling through the air or across the surface.

    Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan are built deep underground. Estimates suggest that Fordow for example could be 80m beneath the surface, and capped with layers of reinforced concrete and soil.

    What is the MOP?

    The bunker buster used in this particular operation is the largest in the US arsenal. Leaving aside nuclear weapons, the MOP is the largest known buster buster in the world.

    Weighing some 13.5 tonnes, the MOP is believed to be able to penetrate up to 60 metres below ground in the right conditions. It is not known how many the US possesses, but the numbers are thought to be small (perhaps 20 or so in total).

    We also don’t know exactly how many were used in Iran, though some reports say it was 14. However, it is likely to be a significant portion of the US MOP arsenal.

    Why does only the US possess this capability?

    The US is not the only state with bunker-busting weaponry. However, the size of MOP means it requires very specialised bombers to carry and drop it.

    Only the B2 stealth bomber is currently able to deploy the MOP. Each B2 can carry at most two MOPs at a time. Around seven of America’s 19 operational B2s were used in the Iran operation.

    There has been some consideration whether large transport aircraft such as the C-130 Hercules could be modified to carry and drop the MOP from its rear cargo doors. While this would allow other countries (including Israel) to deploy the MOP, it is for now purely hypothetical.

    Why has the US (apparently) used them in Iran

    The Trump administration claims Iran may be only a few weeks from possessing a nuclear weapon, and that it needed to act now to destroy Iranian nuclear enrichment sites. This claim is notably at odds with published assessments from the US intelligence community.

    However, Israel lacks bunker busting weaponry sufficient to damage the deeply buried and fortified enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

    An F-15E Strike Eagle releases a GBU-28 ‘bunker buster’ laser-guided bomb, a smaller equivalewnt of the 13,600 kg GBU-57 ‘Massive Ordnance Penetrator’ believed to have been used in Iran.
    Michael Ammons / US Air Force

    Only the MOP could do the job (short of using nuclear weapons). Even then, multiple MOPs would have been required to ensure sufficient damage to the underground facilities.

    The US has claimed that these sites have been utterly destroyed. We cannot conclusively say whether this is true.

    Iran may also have other, undeclared nuclear sites elsewhere in the country.

    Iran’s reaction

    The US has reportedly reached out to Iran via diplomatic channels to emphasise that this attack was a one-off, not part of a larger project of regime change. It is hard to say what will happen in the next few weeks.

    Iran may retaliate with large strikes against Israel or against US forces in the region. It could also interrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, which would affect a large portion of global oil shipments, with profound economic implications.

    Alternatively, Iran could capitulate and take steps to demonstrate it is ending its nuclear program. However, capitulation would not necessarily mean the end of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

    The value of nuclear weapons

    Perhaps a greater concern is that the attack will reinforce Iran’s desire to go nuclear. Without nuclear weapons, Iran was unable to threaten the US enough to deter today’s attack.

    Iran may take lessons from the fate of other states. Ukraine (in)famously surrendered its stockpile of former Soviet nuclear weapons in the early 1990s. Russia has since felt emboldened to annex Crimea in 2014 and launch an ongoing invasion in 2022. Other potential nuclear states, such as Iraq and Gadaffi’s regime in Libya, also suffered from military intervention.

    By contrast, North Korea successfully tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006. Since then there has been no serious consideration of military intervention in North Korea.

    Iran may yet have the ability to produce useful amounts of weapons-grade uranium. It may now aim to buy itself time to assemble a relatively small nuclear device, similar in scale to the bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Depending on what facilities and resources have survive the US strikes, the attack has likely reinforced that the only way the Iranian regime can guarantee its survival is to possess nuclear weapons.

    James Dwyer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. What is a ‘bunker buster’? An expert explains what the US dropped on Iran – https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-bunker-buster-an-expert-explains-what-the-us-dropped-on-iran-259508

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • Israel under missile attack, Iran says all options open after US strikes

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Israel faced a missile attack on Sunday as Iran said it reserved all options to defend itself after unprecedented U.S. strikes that President Donald Trump said had “obliterated” its key nuclear facilities.

    Hours after Trump dramatically escalated Middle East tensions by sending B-2 bombers to Iran, the Israeli military warned people to seek cover from a barrage that appeared heavier than the Iranian salvoes fired in the past few days.

    “The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences,” said Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas, calling the U.S. strikes a “grave violation” of the U.N. charter, international law and the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    “Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people,” Araqchi posted on X.

    Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization said it would not allow development of its “national industry” to be stopped, and an Iranian state television commentator said every U.S. citizen or military member in the region would be legitimate targets.

    Israel’s ambulance service said at least 16 people were hurt in the morning barrage.

    Air raid sirens sounded across most of the country, sending millions of people to safe rooms and bomb shelters as explosions rang out and missile interceptions were seen above Jerusalem and in other parts of the country.

    It was not immediately clear how many missiles had pierced Israel’s air defence systems, but police confirmed at least three impact sites in residential areas in central and northern Israel.

    Video from Israel’s commercial hub Tel Aviv and the port city of Haifa further north showed rescue teams combing through debris, apartments reduced to rubble, mangled cars along a street filled with debris and medics evacuating injured people from a row of blown out houses.

    Most airlines continued to avoid large parts of the Middle East after the U.S. strikes, according to flight tracking website FlightRadar24, with traffic already skirting airspace in the region due to recent missile exchanges.

    TRUMP SAYS IRAN FACES ‘PEACE OR TRAGEDY’

    Trump, in a televised address to the U.S. people, flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, called the strikes a “spectacular military success” that had taken out Iran’s three principal nuclear sites: Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow.

    He warned Tehran it would face more devastating attacks if it does not agree to peace.

    After days of deliberation and long before his self-imposed two-week deadline, Trump’s decision to join Israel’s military campaign against its major rival Iran is the biggest foreign policy gamble of his two presidencies and one fraught with risks and unknowns.

    The major escalation of armed conflict in the Middle East risks opening a new era of instability in the Middle East.

    Trump said Iran’s future held “either peace or tragedy,” and there were many other targets that could be hit by the U.S. military. “If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill.”

    The U.S. contacted Iran diplomatically on Saturday to say the strikes are all the U.S. plans and it does not aim for regime change, CBS News reported.

    Trump told Fox News’ Sean Hannity show that six “bunker-buster” bombs were dropped on the deep-underground Fordow facility, while 30 Tomahawk missiles were fired against other nuclear sites. U.S. B-2 bombers were involved in the strikes, a U.S. official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

    Reuters had reported the movement of the B-2 bombers, which can be equipped to carry the massive bombs that experts say would be needed to strike Fordow, which is buried beneath a mountain south of Tehran. Given its fortification, it will likely be days, if not longer, before the impact of the strikes is known.

    An Iranian official, cited by Tasnim news agency, confirmed part of the Fordow site was attacked by “enemy airstrikes.” However, Mohammad Manan Raisi, a lawmaker for Qom, near Fordow, told the semi-official Fars news agency the facility had not been seriously damaged.

    A reporter from Iranian state media IRNA reporter said he had arrived near the Fordow site at 3 a.m. (2330 GMT on Saturday) and saw smoke that “seems to be related to air defences”. He quoted a nearby witness as reporting “six explosions were heard, but they said it wasn’t very loud.”

    DIPLOMATIC FAILURE

    The U.N. nuclear watchdog said no increases in off-site radiation levels had been reported after the U.S. strikes.

    Hassan Abedini, deputy political head of Iran’s state broadcaster, said Iran had evacuated the three sites some time ago.

    “The enriched uranium reserves had been transferred from the nuclear centres and there are no materials left there that, if targeted, would cause radiation and be harmful to our compatriots,” he told the channel.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Trump on his “bold decision”, saying, “History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world’s most dangerous regime, the world’s most dangerous weapons.”

    Israel and Iran have been engaged in more than a week of aerial combat that has resulted in deaths and injuries in both countries. Israel launched its attacks on June 13, saying Iran was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons.

    Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only. Israel is widely assumed to possess nuclear weapons, which it neither confirms nor denies.

    Diplomatic efforts by Western nations to stop the hostilities have so far failed. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called the U.S. strikes a “dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security.”

    In the U.S., Democratic lawmakers and some from Trump’s Republican Party have argued that he must receive permission from Congress before committing the U.S. military to any combat against Iran.

    At least 430 people have been killed and 3,500 injured in Iran since Israel began its attacks, Iranian state-run Nour News said, citing the health ministry.

    In Israel, 24 civilians have been killed and 1,272 people injured, according to local authorities.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-Evening Report: NZ group slams Israeli ‘hoodwinking’ of US over nuclear strikes – Peters calls for talks

    Asia Pacific Report

    The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa has called on New Zealanders to condemn the US bombing of Iran.

    PSNA co-chair Maher Nazzal said in a statement that he hoped the New Zealand government would be critical of the US for its war escalation.

    “Israel has once again hoodwinked the United States into fighting Israel’s wars,” he said.

    “Israel’s Prime Minister has [been declaring] Iran to be on the point of producing nuclear weapons since the 1990s.

    “It’s all part of his big plan for expulsion of Palestinians from Palestine to create a Greater Israel, and regime change for the entire region.”

    Israel knew that Arab and European countries would “fall in behind these plans” and in many cases actually help implement them.

    “It is a dreadful day for the Palestinians. Netanyahu’s forces will be turned back onto them in Gaza and the West Bank.”

    ‘Dreadful day’ for Middle East
    “It is just as dreadful day for the whole Middle East.

    “Trump has tried to add Iran to the disasters of US foreign policy in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. The US simply doesn’t care how many people will die.”

    New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters “acknowledged the development in the past 24 hours”, including President Trump’s announcement of the US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

    He described it as “extremely worrying” military action in the Middle East, and it was critical further escalation was avoided.

    “New Zealand strongly supports efforts towards diplomacy. We urge all parties to return to talks,” he said.

    “Diplomacy will deliver a more enduring resolution than further military action.”

    The Australian government said in a statement that Canberra had been clear that Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programme had been a “threat to international peace and security”.

    It also noted that the US President had declared that “now is the time for peace”.

    “The security situation in the region is highly volatile,” said the statement. “We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy.”

    Iran calls attack ‘outrageous’
    However, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, said the “outrageous” US attacks on Iran’s “peaceful nuclear installations” would have “everlasting consequences”.

    His comments come as an Iranian missile attack on central and northern Israel wounded at least 23 people.

    In an interview with Al Jazeera, Dr Mehran Kamrava, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, said the people of Iran feared that Israel’s goals stretched far beyond its stated goal of destroying the country’s nuclear and missile programmes.

    “Many in Iran believe that Israel’s end game, really, is to turn Iran into Libya, into Iraq, what it was after the US invasion in 2003, and/or Afghanistan.

    “And so the dismemberment of Iran is what Netanyahu has in mind, at least as far as Tehran is concerned,” he said.

    US attack ‘more or less guarantees’ Iran will be nuclear-armed within decade

    ‘No evidence’ of Iran ‘threat’
    Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said there had been “absolutely no evidence” that Iran posed a threat.

    “Neither was it existential, nor imminent,” he told Al Jazeera.

    “We have to keep in mind the reality of the situation, which is that two nuclear-equipped countries attacked a non-nuclear weapons state without having gotten attacked first.

    “Israel was not attacked by Iran — it started that war; the United States was not attacked by Iran — it started this confrontation at this point.”

    Dr Parsi added that the attacks on Iran would “send shockwaves” throughout the world.

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: NZ group slams Israeli ‘hoodwinking’ of US over nuclear strikes – Peters calls for talks

    Asia Pacific Report

    The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa has called on New Zealanders to condemn the US bombing of Iran.

    PSNA co-chair Maher Nazzal said in a statement that he hoped the New Zealand government would be critical of the US for its war escalation.

    “Israel has once again hoodwinked the United States into fighting Israel’s wars,” he said.

    “Israel’s Prime Minister has [been declaring] Iran to be on the point of producing nuclear weapons since the 1990s.

    “It’s all part of his big plan for expulsion of Palestinians from Palestine to create a Greater Israel, and regime change for the entire region.”

    Israel knew that Arab and European countries would “fall in behind these plans” and in many cases actually help implement them.

    “It is a dreadful day for the Palestinians. Netanyahu’s forces will be turned back onto them in Gaza and the West Bank.”

    ‘Dreadful day’ for Middle East
    “It is just as dreadful day for the whole Middle East.

    “Trump has tried to add Iran to the disasters of US foreign policy in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. The US simply doesn’t care how many people will die.”

    New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters “acknowledged the development in the past 24 hours”, including President Trump’s announcement of the US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

    He described it as “extremely worrying” military action in the Middle East, and it was critical further escalation was avoided.

    “New Zealand strongly supports efforts towards diplomacy. We urge all parties to return to talks,” he said.

    “Diplomacy will deliver a more enduring resolution than further military action.”

    The Australian government said in a statement that Canberra had been clear that Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programme had been a “threat to international peace and security”.

    It also noted that the US President had declared that “now is the time for peace”.

    “The security situation in the region is highly volatile,” said the statement. “We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy.”

    Iran calls attack ‘outrageous’
    However, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, said the “outrageous” US attacks on Iran’s “peaceful nuclear installations” would have “everlasting consequences”.

    His comments come as an Iranian missile attack on central and northern Israel wounded at least 23 people.

    In an interview with Al Jazeera, Dr Mehran Kamrava, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, said the people of Iran feared that Israel’s goals stretched far beyond its stated goal of destroying the country’s nuclear and missile programmes.

    “Many in Iran believe that Israel’s end game, really, is to turn Iran into Libya, into Iraq, what it was after the US invasion in 2003, and/or Afghanistan.

    “And so the dismemberment of Iran is what Netanyahu has in mind, at least as far as Tehran is concerned,” he said.

    US attack ‘more or less guarantees’ Iran will be nuclear-armed within decade

    ‘No evidence’ of Iran ‘threat’
    Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said there had been “absolutely no evidence” that Iran posed a threat.

    “Neither was it existential, nor imminent,” he told Al Jazeera.

    “We have to keep in mind the reality of the situation, which is that two nuclear-equipped countries attacked a non-nuclear weapons state without having gotten attacked first.

    “Israel was not attacked by Iran — it started that war; the United States was not attacked by Iran — it started this confrontation at this point.”

    Dr Parsi added that the attacks on Iran would “send shockwaves” throughout the world.

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Murray Statement on Trump Strikes on Iran

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray

    Washington, D.C.— Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, issued the following statement in response to the Trump administration’s recently announced strikes on Iran:

    “We can all agree that Iran should never possess a nuclear weapon. But the American people do not want to begin a war with Iran, and Trump does not have the unilateral authority to start one.

    “This strike was unconstitutional. I share the questions the American people have.  What is the strategy here? Why are we putting American lives at risk? The administration must now do its utmost to ensure service members and civilians in the region are protected against retaliation.

    “The United States of America is a democracy with constitutional separation of powers, and that requires a president—any president—to come to Congress to approve the use of military force.

    “It is critical that Congress ask important questions before approval—Congress needs to understand what intelligence the administration is acting upon, what the goal is, what the endgame is, and whether we have built an international coalition of support. None of this happened.

    “Congress has not been presented with any evidence that required these strikes tonight.  I will continue to demand answers and to speak up on behalf of my constituents, the overwhelming majority of whom do not want to be dragged into yet another forever war.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • US B-2 bombers and bunker-busters used in Iran strike

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    The U.S. Air Force’s B-2 Spirit stealth bombers were involved in strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites on Saturday.

    Three Iranian nuclear sites were struck in a “very successful attack,” President Donald Trump said on Saturday, adding that the crown jewel of Tehran’s nuclear program, Fordow, is gone.

    The B-2 is one of America’s most advanced strategic weapons platforms, capable of entering sophisticated air defenses and delivering precision strikes against hardened targets such as Iran’s buried network of nuclear research facilities.

    B-2 SPIRIT SPECIFICATIONS:

    The U.S. B-2 costs about $2.1 billion each, making it the most expensive military aircraft ever built. Made by Northrop Grumman (NOC.N), opens new tab, the bomber, with its cutting-edge stealth technology, began its production run in the late 1980s but was curbed by the fall of the Soviet Union. Only 21 were made after the Pentagon’s planned acquisition program was truncated.

    The bomber’s range of over 6,000 nautical miles (11,112 km) without refueling enables global strike capabilities from continental U.S. bases. With aerial refueling, the B-2 can reach virtually any target worldwide, as demonstrated in missions from Missouri to Afghanistan and Libya and now Iran.

    Its payload capacity of more than 40,000 pounds (18,144 kg) allows the aircraft to carry a diverse array of conventional and nuclear weapons. The bomber’s internal weapons bays are specifically designed to maintain stealth characteristics while accommodating large ordnance loads which could include two GBU-57A/B MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator), a 30,000-pound precision-guided “bunker buster” bomb.

    Reports said six bunker buster bombs were used on Iran’s Fordow research site.

    The B-2’s two-pilot crew configuration reduces personnel requirements while maintaining operational effectiveness through advanced automation systems.

    The B-2’s stealth technology incorporates radar-absorbing materials and angular design features that minimize detection by enemy air defense systems. Its radar cross-section is reportedly comparable to that of a small bird, making it nearly invisible to conventional radar.

    MASSIVE ORDNANCE PENETRATOR (MOP):

    The 30,000-pound MOP represents the largest conventional bomb in the U.S. arsenal, specifically engineered to defeat hardened underground bunkers. Its massive size requires the B-2 to carry only one or two MOPs per mission, but provides unmatched bunker-penetration capability.

    The weapon’s 20.5-foot (6.25-m) length and GPS-guided precision targeting system enable accurate strikes against specific underground facilities. Its penetration capability of over 200 feet through hardened concrete makes it effective against the world’s most protected underground installations.

    CONVENTIONAL PAYLOADS:

    Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) provide the B-2 with precision conventional strike capability against fixed targets. These GPS-guided weapons can be deployed in large numbers, with the bomber capable of simultaneously engaging multiple targets with high accuracy.

    Joint Standoff Weapons (JSOW) extend the aircraft’s engagement range while maintaining stealth characteristics during approach. These glide bombs allow the B-2 to strike targets from outside heavily defended airspace perimeters.

    Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM) offer long-range precision strike capability with their own stealth features. The extended-range JASSM-ER variant provides strike options against targets over 500 miles (805 km) away.

    NUCLEAR PAYLOAD CAPABILITIES:

    The B-2 Spirit serves as a key component of America’s nuclear triad, capable of delivering strategic nuclear weapons with stealth and precision. The aircraft can carry up to 16 B83 nuclear bombs.

    (Reuters)

  • Strikes on Iran mark Trump’s biggest, and riskiest, foreign policy gamble

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    With his unprecedented decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, directly joining Israel’s air attack on its regional arch-foe, U.S. President Donald Trump has done something he had long vowed to avoid – intervene militarily in a major foreign war.

    The dramatic U.S. strike, including the targeting of Iran’s most heavily fortified nuclear installation deep underground, marks the biggest foreign policy gamble of Trump’s two presidencies and one fraught with risks and unknowns.

    Trump, who insisted on Saturday that Iran must now make peace or face further attacks, could provoke Tehran into retaliating by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important oil artery, attacking U.S. military bases and allies in the Middle East, stepping up its missile barrage on Israel and activating proxy groups against American and Israeli interests worldwide, analysts said.

    Such moves could escalate into a broader, more protracted conflict than Trump had envisioned, evoking echoes of the “forever wars” that America fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he had derided as “stupid” and promised never to be dragged into.

    “The Iranians are seriously weakened and degraded in their military capabilities,” said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator for Democratic and Republican administrations. “But they have all sorts of asymmetric ways that they can respond… This is not going to end quick.”

    In the lead-up to the bombing that he announced late on Saturday, Trump had vacillated between threats of military action and appeals for renewed negotiation to persuade Iran to reach a deal to dismantle its nuclear program.

    A senior White House official said that once Trump was convinced that Tehran had no interest in reaching a nuclear agreement, he decided the strikes were “the right thing to do.”

    Trump gave the go-ahead once he was assured of a “high probability of success,” the official said – a determination reached after more than a week of Israeli air attacks on Iran’s nuclear and military facilities paved the way for the U.S. to deliver the potentially crowning blow.

    NUCLEAR THREAT REMAINS

    Trump touted the “great success” of the strikes, which he said included the use of massive “bunker-buster bombs” on the main site at Fordow. But some experts suggested that while Iran’s nuclear program may have been set back for many years, the threat may be far from over.

    Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, saying its program is for purely peaceful purposes.

    “In the long term, military action is likely to push Iran to determine nuclear weapons are necessary for deterrence and that Washington is not interested in diplomacy,” the Arms Control Association, a non-partisan U.S.-based organization that advocates for arms control legislation, said in a statement.

    “Military strikes alone cannot destroy Iran’s extensive nuclear knowledge. The strikes will set Iran’s program back, but at the cost of strengthening Tehran’s resolve to reconstitute its sensitive nuclear activities,” the group said.

    Eric Lob, assistant professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Florida International University, said Iran’s next move remains an open question and suggested that among its forms of retaliation could be to hit “soft targets” of the U.S. and Israel inside and outside the region.

    But he also said there was a possibility that Iran could return to the negotiating table – “though they would be doing so in an even weaker position” – or seek a diplomatic off-ramp.

    In the immediate aftermath of the U.S. strikes, however, Iran showed little appetite for concessions.

    Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization said it would not allow development of its “national industry” to be stopped, and an Iranian state television commentator said every U.S. citizen or military member in the region would not be legitimate targets.

    Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, posted on X: “Trump indicated this is now the time for peace. It’s unclear and unlikely the Iranians will see it the same way. This is more likely to open a new chapter of the 46-year-old US-Iran war than conclude it.”

    ‘REGIME CHANGE’

    Some analysts suggested that Trump, whose administration has previously disavowed any aim of dislodging the Iranian leadership, could be drawn into seeking “regime change” if Tehran carries out major reprisals or moves to build a nuclear weapon.

    That, in turn, would bring additional risks.

    “Beware mission creep, aiming for regime change and democratization campaigns,” said Laura Blumenfeld, a Middle East analyst at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies in Washington. “You’ll find the bones of many failed U.S. moral missions buried in Middle East sands.”

    Jonathan Panikoff, a former U.S. deputy intelligence officer for the Middle East, said Iran’s leadership would quickly engage in “disproportionate attacks” if it felt its survival was imperiled.

    But Tehran will also have to be mindful of the consequences, he said. While actions such as closing the Strait of Hormuz would pose problems for Trump with the resulting higher oil prices and potential U.S. inflationary impact, it would also hurt China, one of Iran’s few powerful allies.

    At the same time, Trump is already facing strong push-back from congressional Democrats against the Iran attack and will also have to contend with opposition from the anti-interventionist wing of his Republican MAGA base.

    Trump, who faced no major international crisis in his first term, is now embroiled in one just six months into his second.

    Even if he hopes U.S. military involvement can be limited in time and scope, the history of such conflicts often carries unintended consequences for American presidents.

    Trump’s slogan of “peace through strength” will certainly be tested as never before, especially with his opening of a new military front after failing to meet his campaign promises to quickly end wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

    “Trump is back in the war business,” said Richard Gowan, U.N. director at the International Crisis Group. “I am not sure anyone in Moscow, Tehran or Beijing ever believed his spiel that he is a peacemaker. It always looked more like a campaign phrase than a strategy.”

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-Evening Report: What is a ‘bunker buster’? An expert explains what the US dropped on Iran

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Dwyer, Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania

    The jagged silhouette of a B2 stealth bomber seen during a 2015 flyover in the US. Jonathan Daniel / Getty Images

    Late on Saturday night, local time, the United States carried out strikes against Iranian nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, marking its open participation in the conflict between Iran and Israel.

    The US says it fired 30 submarine-launched missiles at the sites in Natanz and Isfahan, as well as dropping more than a dozen “bunker buster” bombs at Fordow and Natanz.

    The kind of bomb in question is the extremely destructive GBU-57 Massive Ordance Penetrator, or MOP, which weighs around 13.5 tonnes.

    The attacks raise a lot of questions. What are these enormous bombs? Why did the US feel it had to get involved in the conflict? And, going forward, what does it mean for Iran’s nuclear ambitions?

    What are ‘bunker busters’, and why are they used?

    Bunker busters are weapons designed to destroy heavily protected facilities such as bunkers deep underground, beyond the reach of normal bombs.

    Bunker busters are designed to bury themselves into the ground before detonating. This allows more of the explosive force to penetrate into the ground, rather than travelling through the air or across the surface.

    Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan are built deep underground. Estimates suggest that Fordow for example could be 80m beneath the surface, and capped with layers of reinforced concrete and soil.

    What is the MOP?

    The bunker buster used in this particular operation is the largest in the US arsenal. Leaving aside nuclear weapons, the MOP is the largest known buster buster in the world.

    Weighing some 13.5 tonnes, the MOP is believed to be able to penetrate up to 60 metres below ground in the right conditions. It is not known how many the US possesses, but the numbers are thought to be small (perhaps 20 or so in total).

    We also don’t know exactly how many were used in Iran, though some reports say it was 14. However, it is likely to be a significant portion of the US MOP arsenal.

    Why does only the US possess this capability?

    The US is not the only state with bunker-busting weaponry. However, the size of MOP means it requires very specialised bombers to carry and drop it.

    Only the B2 stealth bomber is currently able to deploy the MOP. Each B2 can carry at most two MOPs at a time. Around seven of America’s 19 operational B2s were used in the Iran operation.

    There has been some consideration whether large transport aircraft such as the C-130 Hercules could be modified to carry and drop the MOP from its rear cargo doors. While this would allow other countries (including Israel) to deploy the MOP, it is for now purely hypothetical.

    Why has the US (apparently) used them in Iran

    The Trump administration claims Iran may be only a few weeks from possessing a nuclear weapon, and that it needed to act now to destroy Iranian nuclear enrichment sites. This claim is notably at odds with published assessments from the US intelligence community.

    However, Israel lacks bunker busting weaponry sufficient to damage the deeply buried and fortified enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

    An F-15E Strike Eagle releases a GBU-28 ‘bunker buster’ laser-guided bomb, a smaller equivalewnt of the 13,600 kg GBU-57 ‘Massive Ordnance Penetrator’ believed to have been used in Iran.
    Michael Ammons / US Air Force

    Only the MOP could do the job (short of using nuclear weapons). Even then, multiple MOPs would have been required to ensure sufficient damage to the underground facilities.

    The US has claimed that these sites have been utterly destroyed. We cannot conclusively say whether this is true.

    Iran may also have other, undeclared nuclear sites elsewhere in the country.

    Iran’s reaction

    The US has reportedly reached out to Iran via diplomatic channels to emphasise that this attack was a one-off, not part of a larger project of regime change. It is hard to say what will happen in the next few weeks.

    Iran may retaliate with large strikes against Israel or against US forces in the region. It could also interrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, which would affect a large portion of global oil shipments, with profound economic implications.

    Alternatively, Iran could capitulate and take steps to demonstrate it is ending its nuclear program. However, capitulation would not necessarily mean the end of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

    The value of nuclear weapons

    Perhaps a greater concern is that the attack will reinforce Iran’s desire to go nuclear. Without nuclear weapons, Iran was unable to threaten the US enough to deter today’s attack.

    Iran may take lessons from the fate of other states. Ukraine (in)famously surrendered its stockpile of former Soviet nuclear weapons in the early 1990s. Russia has since felt emboldened to annex Crimea in 2014 and launch an ongoing invasion in 2022. Other potential nuclear states, such as Iraq and Gadaffi’s regime in Libya, also suffered from military intervention.

    By contrast, North Korea successfully tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006. Since then there has been no serious consideration of military intervention in North Korea.

    Iran may yet have the ability to produce useful amounts of weapons-grade uranium. It may now aim to buy itself time to assemble a relatively small nuclear device, similar in scale to the bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Depending on what facilities and resources have survive the US strikes, the attack has likely reinforced that the only way the Iranian regime can guarantee its survival is to possess nuclear weapons.

    James Dwyer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. What is a ‘bunker buster’? An expert explains what the US dropped on Iran – https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-bunker-buster-an-expert-explains-what-the-us-dropped-on-iran-259508

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: The US has entered the Israel-Iran war. Here are 3 scenarios for what might happen next

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Parmeter, Research Scholar, Middle East Studies, Australian National University

    After prevaricating about whether the United States would enter Israel’s war on Iran, President Donald Trump finally made a decision.

    Early Sunday, US warplanes struck three of Iran’s nuclear sites at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, where the Iranians have a uranium enrichment plant buried about 80 metres beneath a mountain.

    These strikes have to be viewed as part of an overall continuum that began with the Gaza war following Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and then continued with Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah (the Iran-backed militant group in Lebanon) and the fall of the Iran-backed Assad regime in Syria.

    Iran has never been weaker than it is now. And when Trump said it may take two weeks for him to decide whether to bomb Iran, the Israelis likely pushed him to act sooner.

    We can assume there was a lot of Israeli pressure on Trump to use the massive ordnance penetrators, the 30,000-pound (13,600-kilogram) “bunker buster” bombs that only the US can deploy with its B2 bombers.

    Now that Trump has taken the significant step of entering the US in yet another Middle East war, where could things go from here? There are a few possible scenarios.

    Iran strikes back

    The Iranians know they don’t have the strength to take on the US, and that the Americans can do enormous damage to their country and even put the Iranian regime’s stability at risk.

    This is always the prime consideration of of the clerical regime led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – everything else is subordinate to that.

    To gauge Iran’s possible reaction, we can look at the how it responded to the first Trump administration’s assassination of the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Quds Force, Qassem Soleimani, in January 2020.

    Iran said there would be a major reaction, but all it did was launch a barrage of missiles at two American bases in Iraq, which caused no US fatalities and very little damage. After that token retaliation, Iran said the matter was closed.

    Iran’s reaction to the new US strikes will likely be along these lines. It probably won’t want to get into a tit-for-tat with the US by launching attacks against American facilities in the region. Trump has promised to respond with force:

    Iran, a bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.

    It’s also unclear how long Iran will be able to prosecute this war. This depends largely on how many ballistic missiles and launchers it has left.

    There are various estimates as to how many ballistic missiles Iran may have remaining in its stockpiles. It was believed to have about 2,000 missiles capable of reaching Israel at the start of the war. Some estimates say Iran has fired 700 of them; others say around 400. Whatever the number is, its stockpiles are dwindling quickly.

    Israel has also destroyed about a third of Iran’s ballistic missile launchers. If Israel is able to destroy all of them, Iran would have very limited ability to fight back.

    Iran backs down

    Before the US got involved in the conflict, Iran said it was prepared to negotiate, but it wouldn’t do so while Israel was still attacking.

    So, one scenario is that some sort of compromise can now be worked out, in which Israel announces a ceasefire and Iran and the US agree to resume negotiations on Tehran’s nuclear program.

    The big problem is that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he doesn’t trust the negotiating process and he doesn’t want to stop Israel’s military actions until all of Iran’s nuclear facilities have been completely destroyed. He’s also been bombing Iran’s oil terminals and gas facilities to put even more pressure on the regime.

    But the regime has shown itself to be incredibly determined not to lose face. It was under great pressure at different times during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and never considered surrendering until a US missile mistakenly took down an Iranian passenger jet, killing 290 people.

    Iran then agreed to a UN-brokered ceasefire. But the Iran-Iraq war lasted eight years, causing an estimated one million deaths. And when the then-supreme leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, agreed to the ceasefire, he said it was “worse than drinking poison”.

    Given the state of Iran’s military capabilities, Khamenei, the current supreme leader, might surrender simply to try to preserve the regime. But this would be quite a climbdown as far as he’s concerned, and he has been very obstinate in the past.

    The regime is very unpopular, but the Iranian people, in my experience, are strongly patriotic – loyal to their country, if not the regime. Though it’s difficult to gauge opinion in a country of 90 million people, a lot of Iranians would not want to be ordered to do anything by the US or Israel, and would rather fight on.

    Netanyahu has said he wants to create the conditions for the Iranian people to rise up against the regime.

    But it’s worth bearing in mind that the opposite of autocracy is not necessarily democracy. It could possibly be chaos. Iran has a number of different ethnic groups and there may be huge disagreements over what should take the place of the clerical regime, were it to fall.

    At this stage, the regime will probably be able to hold together. And even if Khameini were to die suddenly, the regime will likely be able to quickly replace him.

    Though we don’t know his probable successor, the regime has had plenty of time to plan for this. Those in senior positions will also know that a post-Khamenei succession struggle really would put the regime at risk.

    The US engagement is limited

    According to the new polling by The Economist and YouGov, released on June 17, 60% of Americans were opposed to joining the conflict between Israel and Iran, with just 16% in favour. Among Republicans, 53% opposed military action.

    So, these strikes were not an obviously popular move among Americans at this stage. However, if this is an isolated event and succeeds in bringing a swift end to the war, Trump will probably be applauded by a majority of Americans.

    If the US has to go back with more bombers – or there are serious attacks on US interests in the region – there could be more adverse reactions among Americans.

    Another question is whether Iran’s 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium have been destroyed in the US attack.

    If it hasn’t been destroyed, and depending how much damage has been done to its centrifuges, Iran may be able to reconstruct its nuclear program relatively quickly. And it could have more incentive to further enrich this uranium to 90% purity, or weapons-grade level, to build a nuclear device.

    Ian Parmeter does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. The US has entered the Israel-Iran war. Here are 3 scenarios for what might happen next – https://theconversation.com/the-us-has-entered-the-israel-iran-war-here-are-3-scenarios-for-what-might-happen-next-259509

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cramer Statement on U.S. Involvement in Israel-Iran Conflict

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND)

    BISMARCK, N.D. — On Saturday, President Donald Trump announced his decision for the United States to take military action against Iran in its ongoing conflict with Israel. The president said the United States successfully attacked three nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan.

    U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), issued the following statement:

    “When the United States alone is able to do what others cannot, we must do what needs to be done, and that is exactly what President Trump ordered today. Iran must be prevented from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The Islamic Republic of Iran is more than a nuisance, it is a dangerous animal that must be stopped, and the firepower of the United States military was up to the task. President Trump is living up to his promise to end wars, which sometimes requires a show of strength. Tonight, the world has seen our strength on full display, and the world is safer for it. God Bless the United States Military and bring peace to our world.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Chairman Mast on U.S. Strikes on Iranian Nuclear Sites

    Source: US House Committee on Foreign Affairs

    Media Contact 202-321-9747

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast issued the following statement in response to the successful U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites.

    President Trump assured America and the world that there would be no Iranian nuclear weapons and he has no fictitious red lines. America and Iran both had a choice and we both chose action.” 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • World leaders react to US attack on Iran

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    The reaction of world leaders after U.S. forces struck three Iranian nuclear sites on Sunday Iran time ranged from Israel lauding President Donald Trump’s decision to the U.N. calling for de-escalation and Iran and some other nations condemning the attacks.

    ISRAEL PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, RECORDED STATEMENT:

    “Congratulations, President Trump. Your bold decision to target Iran’s nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history… History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world’s most dangerous regime the world’s most dangerous weapons.”

    IRAN FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAQCHI, ON X:

    “The United States, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the NPT by attacking Iran’s peaceful nuclear installations. The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior. In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.”

    U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL ANTONIO GUTERRES, STATEMENT

    “I am gravely alarmed by the use of force by the United States against Iran today. This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security. There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control – with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world. I call on Member States to de-escalate and to uphold their obligations under the UN Charter and other rules of international law. At this perilous hour, it is critical to avoid a spiral of chaos. There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy. The only hope is peace.”

    NEW ZEALAND FOREIGN MINISTER WINSTON PETERS, STATEMENT:

    “We acknowledge developments in the last 24 hours, including President Trump’s announcement of US strikes on nuclear facilities in Iran. Ongoing military action in the Middle East is extremely worrying, and it is critical further escalation is avoided. New Zealand strongly supports efforts towards diplomacy. We urge all parties to return to talks. Diplomacy will deliver a more enduring resolution than further military action.”

    AUSTRALIA GOVERNMENT SPOKESPERSON, STATEMENT:

    “We have been clear that Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program has been a threat to international peace and security. We note the US President’s statement that now is the time for peace. The security situation in the region is highly volatile. We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy.”

    MEXICO FOREIGN MINISTRY, ON X:

    “The ministry urgently calls for diplomatic dialogue for peace between the parties involved in the Middle East conflict. In keeping with our constitutional principles of foreign policy and our country’s pacifist conviction, we reiterate our call to de-escalate tensions in the region. The restoration of peaceful coexistence among the states of the region is the highest priority.”

    VENEZUELA FOREIGN MINISTER YVAN GIL, ON TELEGRAM:

    “Venezuela Condemns U.S. Military Aggression Against Iran and Demands an Immediate Cessation of Hostilities. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela firmly and categorically condemns the bombing carried out by the United States military, at the request of the State of Israel, against nuclear facilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan complexes.”

    CUBA PRESIDENT MIGUEL DIAZ-CANEL, ON X:

    “We strongly condemn the US bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities, which constitutes a dangerous escalation of the conflict in the Middle East. The aggression seriously violates the UN Charter and international law and plunges humanity into a crisis with irreversible consequences.”

    (Reuters)

     

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: IAEA Director General’s Speech at the Nobel Peace Prize Forum

    Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

    Nobel’s spotlight on our perilous path and how we change course

    I want to start by congratulating Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha for their Nobel Peace Prize.

    As a young diplomat almost 40 years ago, I was fortunate to be part of a UN disarmament fellowship programme and to visit Hiroshima. There, fellows had an opportunity to meet the hibakusha and I had a conversation with an ailing victim. I have carried to every meeting, to every negotiation, and to every posting, the memory this woman’s silent testimony. When I asked her about that morning in 1945, she struggled to express the horror in words. She tried to articulate some words but stayed silent. Looking at me, right into my eyes. The look in her eyes has stayed with me ever since, like a powerful reminder, a secret mandate, to work so that her suffering is never repeated.

    For decades after the Second World War, the international community has been dealing with this unique dilemma: we built robust norms and passed nonproliferation and disarmament treaties. Instead of dozens of countries armed with nuclear weapons, as was the concern in the 1960s, there are less than ten. Stockpiles of nuclear weapons have shrunk from tens of thousands to thousands.

    But on its journey through the perils of the atomic age, the world has come to a crucial crossroads. Our deep psychological connection caused by collectively seeing the horror of the consequences of nuclear war seems to be evaporating, taking with it our joint resolve to do everything possible to prevent a repetition.

    Like a giant spotlight, this year’s Nobel Peace Prize has lit up our path ahead. It has done it, by reminding us of the past, and of the consequences of ignoring the perils of nuclear weapons use.

    Context of conflicts

    To understand the important challenges we face, we must look at the global context, at what is happening around the world.  

    War has returned to Europe, and it directly involves a nuclear weapon state. The conflict in Ukraine is also an indirect confrontation between the world’s biggest nuclear weapon states, the first since the end of the Cold War. But nuclear exercises and open references to the use of nuclear weapons in the theatre of this war are increasing the risks and can not be ignored.

    In the Middle East, the conflict of the past year has ignited smoldering tensions between Israel and Iran and led to the unprecedented step of direct exchanges and attacks between the two. Here there is also a nuclear weapons dimension. On one side, the assumed presence of nuclear weapons looms in the background. On the other, the very real potential of nuclear proliferation is raising the stakes.

    We find ourselves in a harmful loop: the erosion of the restraints around nuclear weapons is making these conflicts more dangerous. Meanwhile, these conflicts are contributing to the erosion of the restraints. The vicious circle dynamic is in motion.

    An unfortunate change of direction

    Doctrines regarding the use of nuclear weapons are being revised or reinterpreted. The quantity and quality of nuclear weapon stockpiles are being increased. 

    And in some non-nuclear weapon states – states that are important in their region – leaders are asking “why not us?”. And they are asking this openly!

    At the start of the nuclear arms race, J Robert Oppenheimer described the USSR and the US as “two scorpions in a bottle” each capable of killing the other, but only by risking their own life.

    Oppenheimer’s blunt statement would later be developed and elaborated under the roof of deterrence and the more sophisticated concept of “Mutual Assured Destruction,” or MAD.

    Today, independent of the vantage point of the observer, there is widespread concern that the risk of mutual destruction through nuclear war is higher than it has been for more than a generation.

    Lessons from history

    But it does not have to be this way. We can do better. History has shown that effective dialogue among superpowers has, more often than not, led to confidence and, as a result, also to arms limitation and even disarmament. At certain moments in history, world leaders took the right decisions, to tone down, or, to use today’s parlance, to de-escalate. Let’s see:

    The end of the Cuban Missile Crisis happened thanks to the direct engagement of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and US President John F Kennedy. Decades later, at the Geneva Summit of 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan agreed a crucial axiom: “Nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.” They met again the next year in Reykjavik and significant reductions in nuclear arsenals followed. Nuclear weapon reductions and the elimination of a whole category of weapon, through the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty, were agreed. These steps towards rapprochement took leadership and courage. They often happened despite skepticism and voices against them.

    Diplomacy and dialogue (and the duty of nuclear weapon states)

    A return to diplomacy and dialogue is urgently needed, and this, not only in things nuclear. Shutting the other side out has never solved a problem and almost certainly aggravates it. Top leadership involvement is simply indispensable when nuclear weapons are involved. President Trump took the initiative and talked to Kim Jong Un. More of this is needed. Some have said these talks were ill prepared. I say, this is important. Nuclear weapon policy and limitations does not work bottom up. It is of course the other way around.

    We must be proactive in building the trust and protections that lower the risk of close calls and of brinkmanship, especially during today’s tensions. Not taking active steps means we rely on luck – or the assumption that the other side will show restraint – to save us from nuclear war. The longer you rely on luck, the more likely it is to run out.

    Conflict and tensions compel nations to arm themselves. Diplomacy and compromise create conditions in which they can disarm.

    The road to a nuclear weapon-free world is long and winding. The disarmament landscape is complex, and it’s worth acknowledging that. This does not diminish the responsibility nuclear weapons states have to make progress. After all, they committed themselves to this goal back in 1968, through the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Steps can be taken to decrease the reliance on nuclear weapons, both in their production and the scenarios for their use.

    Nuclear weapon states, through their actions at home and on the world stage, have a responsibility to avoid a scenario in which more countries seek nuclear weapons. Pushing ahead with increases in arsenals leads to despair, cynicism, and a growing skepticism about the value of past commitments. Disengagement and unilateralism fuel sentiments of vulnerability in other countries, and with that, the notion nuclear weapons could be the ultimate protection against outside threats.

    Engagement among the five permanent members of the Security Council is indispensable. Such engagement can take many different shapes, starting with direct contact among themselves, bilaterally or as a group. This dialogue, which still exists, has been reduced to a very low level, virtually without real impact. Perhaps its revival could be assisted by an international organization, or facilitated with the support of a respected, impartial leader. Therefore, it’s essential that the United Nations, other international organizations, and their leaders work effectively to ensure their continued relevance amid the changing needs of their stakeholders.

    Do not make things worse (by falling for the siren call of proliferation)

    The IAEA has played its indispensable technical role during past attempts of nuclear proliferation, particularly in the Middle East. As the difficult experiences in Iraq, Libya and Syria remind us, the draw of nuclear weapons is real and so is the geopolitical and military response.

    Today’s tensions are prompting even leaders of important counties that, so far, are in good standing with the NPT to ask: “Why shouldn’t we have a nuclear weapon too?”

    To this, I would say, “Do not make things worse.” Acquiring a nuclear weapon will not increase national security, it will do the opposite. Other countries will follow. And this will contribute to the unravelling of a nonproliferation regime that has had its ups and downs – and it still has its limitations – but none-the-less it has served humanity extraordinarily well. The problem and challenge to the NPT regime may come from those nuclear armed but also those who, while not having nuclear weapons, may feel the NPT has failed as a catalyst to disarmament.

    Weakening the non-proliferation treaty under the argument that progress on nuclear disarmament has been slow and more drastic approaches are required, would be totally misguided and may make us throw away existing international measures committing nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states in this field.

    I come from a non-nuclear weapon state. I understand the frustration that some people feel about the “haves” and “have-nots” of nuclear weapons. But I have also seen the legacy of peace and prosperity left by leaders who resisted that siren call. In the 1980s, vision, resolve and dialogue meant Brazil and Argentina changed course and did not go down the path to nuclear arms. Today, Latin America is a nuclear weapon free zone.

    Multilateral leaders: step up by stepping in

    Many wonder whether there’s still a role for multilateralism in guiding us through this maze of conflicting interests. Yes, there is. During difficult times in the past, international organizations have had a big impact on peace and security. But it only happens when leaders of these organizations get off the side lines and use their mandate and their own good offices effectively.

    We prove our relevance in extraordinary times.   

    Each organization has different tools, a different mandate, a different membership, and each of their leaders will determine how to act. I can speak for the IAEA.  We have nuclear science at our core, and we are the world’s nuclear weapons watchdog. Let me give you an example:

    For almost three years, Ukraine, the world and the IAEA have been confronted with a completely unprecedented situation – never before has a military conflict involved the seizure of a nuclear power plant and been fought among the facilities of a major nuclear power programme.

    At the beginning of the war, Ukraine’s biggest nuclear power plant – the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe, with nearly 6 gigawatts of installed capacity – was taken by Russia. This established a hotspot in the middle of a combat zone. The chance of an incident – or accident – causing terrible radiological consequences became real.

    Observing this from the outside was never, in my mind, an option. Staying on the sidelines and later reflecting on “lessons learned” may have been the more traditional – or expected – path for an international organization. But to me this would have been a dereliction of duty. So, we leaned into our core mission, crossed the front lines of war, and established a permanent presence of IAEA experts at all Ukraine’s nuclear power plants. That makes us the only international organization operating independently in occupied territory. We are informing the world of what’s going on and reducing the chance that a radiological incident enflames the conflict and causes even more devastation.

    We did the same by going to Kursk when a Russian nuclear reactor was at risk of coming into the line of fire. I am in constant communication with both sides.

    I have been meeting with President Zelenskyy, and President Putin regularly. Nuclear safety and security during this conflict must have the buy-in and continued involvement of both leaders. Talking to only one of them would not achieve this important goal. At the same time, I am keeping an open dialogue with leaders on all continents and briefing the UN Security Council. When it comes to nuclear safety in Ukraine it has been possible to build a level of agreement that is rare during the divisions of this conflict. Where there is agreement, there is hope for more agreement.

    Ukraine is not our only hotspot.

    In Iran, the IAEA’s job is to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of a growing nuclear programme. Iran has now enriched uranium to a level that is hard to justify. It has not yet answered the IAEA’s questions completely and it has made our work more difficult by taking away some of our cameras and blocking some of our most experienced safeguards inspectors from going into the country. This has caused concern and led to a pattern of mistrust and recriminations. In diplomacy, progress often requires prompting, catalyzing, and suggesting ways forward. This presents a role for an impartial, honest and effective broker. It is a role I, in my capacity as the IAEA’s Director General, have been playing. In fact, I returned from my latest visit to Tehran just a few weeks ago where I presented alternatives and ideas to reduce the growing tensions, and hopefully to retain Iran within the NPT and the non-proliferation norms.

    The danger of playing it safe

    When it comes to working on behalf of peace and security, playing it safe is dangerous.

    Silence and indifference can be deadly.

    Dag Hammerskjold, the second Secretary General of the United Nations, said: “It is when we all play safe that we create a world of utmost insecurity.”

    A new path

    This week, the Norwegian Nobel Committee looked beyond today’s conflicts. In its own way, it did not play it safe. Instead, it shined a light on the horrors of nuclear war and the people who have been warning us about them for many decades.

    In doing that, the Nobel Committee, Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha have illuminated the danger of the path we are now on.

    We have to make a new path.

    First, the leaders of the nuclear weapon states must recognize the need for a responsible management of their nuclear arsenals. Experiences from the past confirm that even at times of crisis and conflict it has been possible to recognize the unique terminal power of these weapons and the responsibility that comes with it. What Kennedy, Khrushchev, Reagan, Gorbachev, or Trump did by reaching out to a nuclear-armed adversary, sets a precedent, a useful one. Such contacts, either bilateral or at the P5 level could possibly be facilitated by a competent broker. These are the first steps to bringing down the tone so that nuclear sabre rattling recedes and the commitments to the unequivocal undertakings to move towards a nuclear free world can be fulfilled.

    Secondly, an iron-clad resolve to observe and strengthen the global non-proliferation regime needs to be adopted. Nuclear weapon and nuclear non-weapon states must work together to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

    Ladies and gentlemen,

    We need to walk through perilous times by recognizing limitations and keeping our eyes on our common objectives.

    Nuclear disarmament cannot be imposed on the nuclear armed.

    Realism is not defeatism. Diplomacy is not weakness.

    Difficult times call for enlightened leadership, at the national level, and at the international level as well.

    Putting the international system back on track is within our reach. World leaders, including those at the top of the multilateral system, have a duty and an irrevocable responsibility to work towards this.  

    Personally, I am convinced. Perhaps, because the secret mandate I received that day in Hiroshima from a hibakusha burns in me, stronger than ever. Thank you.

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: D. Trump threatens Iran with new strikes if “peace does not come quickly”

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    WASHINGTON, June 22 (Xinhua) — Iran will face new military strikes if peace does not come soon, U.S. President Donald Trump said on Saturday.

    Addressing his fellow citizens on television, Trump said Iran’s key nuclear facilities had been “completely and utterly destroyed,” adding that future attacks would be “much bigger and much simpler.”

    “If peace does not come quickly, we will attack other targets with precision, speed and skill. Most of them can be destroyed within minutes,” the US leader said after the bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites.

    “Our goal was to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities,” he said, calling the bombing an “impressive” success. -0-

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Markey Statement on U.S. Strikes on Iran Nuclear Facilities

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey

    Boston (June 21, 2025) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) released the following statement after the U.S. launched strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. 

    “Trump’s military attack on Iran was illegal and unconstitutional. This attack was not approved by Congress and holds dangers for all Americans. The American people do not want another endless war in the Middle East.

    This attack may set back but will not stop Iran’s efforts to get a nuclear bomb. The regime can rebuild its program and will now be highly motivated to do so. A diplomatic solution remains the best way to permanently and verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

    Trump’s illegal actions raise the risk of escalation into a wider regional war with grave risks for U.S. troops and personnel and civilians in the region.

    Trump must work to stop this war and begin ceasefire talks with Israel and Iran now.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Markey Statement on U.S. Strikes on Iran Nuclear Facilities

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey

    Boston (June 21, 2025) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) released the following statement after the U.S. launched strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. 

    “Trump’s military attack on Iran was illegal and unconstitutional. This attack was not approved by Congress and holds dangers for all Americans. The American people do not want another endless war in the Middle East.

    This attack may set back but will not stop Iran’s efforts to get a nuclear bomb. The regime can rebuild its program and will now be highly motivated to do so. A diplomatic solution remains the best way to permanently and verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

    Trump’s illegal actions raise the risk of escalation into a wider regional war with grave risks for U.S. troops and personnel and civilians in the region.

    Trump must work to stop this war and begin ceasefire talks with Israel and Iran now.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Fischer Statement on U.S. Strikes on Iran Nuclear Sites

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Nebraska Deb Fischer

    Today, U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, released the following statement in response to the United States striking Iran’s nuclear sites:

    “For decades, Iran has chanted ‘death to America’ and pledged to wipe Israel off the map. When foreign adversaries pledge to destroy us, we should believe them.

    “President Trump has always been clear: Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon – and I agree. Today, his administration took the necessary steps to keep a nuclear weapon out of Iran’s reach, and I am grateful to the service members who successfully carried out the mission.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Fischer Statement on U.S. Strikes on Iran Nuclear Sites

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Nebraska Deb Fischer

    Today, U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, released the following statement in response to the United States striking Iran’s nuclear sites:

    “For decades, Iran has chanted ‘death to America’ and pledged to wipe Israel off the map. When foreign adversaries pledge to destroy us, we should believe them.

    “President Trump has always been clear: Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon – and I agree. Today, his administration took the necessary steps to keep a nuclear weapon out of Iran’s reach, and I am grateful to the service members who successfully carried out the mission.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI China: Trump threatens more strikes on Iran if “peace does not come quickly”

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    U.S. President Donald Trump said Saturday that Iran will face more military strikes if peace does not come quickly.

    Addressing the nation Saturday evening, Trump said that Iran’s key nuclear facilities had been “completely and totally obliterated,” and that future attacks will be “far greater and a lot easier.”

    “If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill. Most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes,” he said.

    “Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear capacity,” he said, calling the bombing a “spectacular” success.

    Trump said that he decided a long time ago not to let Iran gain a nuclear weapon and that without peace, there will be “tragedy” for Iran that will far exceed what’s taken place.

    Top U.S. military leaders will hold a news conference at 8:00 am (1200 GMT) Sunday morning, he said.

    Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said Saturday that U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites are “a dangerous escalation” and “a direct threat to international peace and security.”

    “I am gravely alarmed by the use of force by the United States against Iran today. This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge — and a direct threat to international peace and security,” said Guterres in a statement.

    There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control — with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region and the world, he said.

    Guterres called on UN member states to uphold their obligations under the UN Charter and other rules of international law.

    “At this perilous hour, it is critical to avoid a spiral of chaos. There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy. The only hope is peace,” he said. 

    MIL OSI China News

  • Guterres warns US bombing of Iran can catastrophically get out of control

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has warned that the “dangerous escalation” of the Iran conflict through US bombing of nuclear sites in the country can catastrophically get out of control.

    In a statement minutes before US President Donald Trump’s address to the nation on Saturday night, Guterres said the attack was “a direct threat to international peace and security.”

    He said he was “gravely alarmed by the use of force by the United States against Iran today” and warned that “there is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control – with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world.”

    Trump said his “military carried out massive, precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime: Fordo, Natanz, and Esfahan.”

    “Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s No. 1 state sponsor of terror,” he said.

    The US and Israel, Trump said, worked “as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before.”

    He warned, “There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days.”

    There are more targets that the US can hit in Iran, he said.

    “But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed, and skill. Most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes.”

    However, in an earlier Truth Social post, Trump also said, “Now is the time for peace! Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

    “There’s no military in the world that could have done what we did tonight. Not even close,” he added.

    Israel had started attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities on June 13, and Iran retaliated with missiles and drones, some of which managed to penetrate Israel’s defence.

    Trump, who had been vacillating between restraint and joining Israel, had said on Thursday that he would decide whether to attack in a two-week frame, but it came two days later.

    The US attack followed an apparently failed last-minute diplomatic effort by foreign ministers of Britain, Germany and France, along with the European Union representative, to de-escalate the situation.

    Two of the three sites that Trump said had been hit had been attacked earlier by Israel.

    They were Fordo and Natanz, which are uranium enrichment facilities where the element is refined to ultimately reach bomb grade.

    The third facility attacked was a storage for the enriched uranium.

    (IANS)

  • MIL-Evening Report: What is a ‘bunker buster’? An expert explains what the US dropped on Iran – and what might happen now

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Dwyer, Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania

    The jagged silhouette of a B2 stealth bomber seen during a 2015 flyover in the US. Jonathan Daniel / Getty Images

    Late on Saturday night, local time, the United States carried out strikes against Iranian nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, marking its open participation in the conflict between Iran and Israel.

    The US says it fired 30 submarine-launched missiles at the sites in Natanz and Isfahan, as well as dropping more than a dozen “bunker buster” bombs at Fordow and Natanz.

    The kind of bomb in question is the extremely destructive GBU-57 Massive Ordance Penetrator, or MOP, which weighs around 13.5 tonnes.

    The attacks raise a lot of questions. What are these enormous bombs? Why did the US feel it had to get involved in the conflict? And, going forward, what does it mean for Iran’s nuclear ambitions?

    What are ‘bunker busters’, and why are they used?

    Bunker busters are weapons designed to destroy heavily protected facilities such as bunkers deep underground, beyond the reach of normal bombs.

    Bunker busters are designed to bury themselves into the ground before detonating. This allows more of the explosive force to penetrate into the ground, rather than travelling through the air or across the surface.

    Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan are built deep underground. Estimates suggest that Fordow for example could be 80m beneath the surface, and capped with layers of reinforced concrete and soil.

    What is the MOP?

    The bunker buster used in this particular operation is the largest in the US arsenal. Leaving aside nuclear weapons, the MOP is the largest known buster buster in the world.

    Weighing some 13.5 tonnes, the MOP is believed to be able to penetrate up to 60 metres below ground in the right conditions. It is not known how many the US possesses, but the numbers are thought to be small (perhaps 20 or so in total).

    We also don’t know exactly how many were used in Iran, though some reports say it was 14. However, it is likely to be a significant portion of the US MOP arsenal.

    Why does only the US possess this capability?

    The US is not the only state with bunker-busting weaponry. However, the size of MOP means it requires very specialised bombers to carry and drop it.

    Only the B2 stealth bomber is currently able to deploy the MOP. Each B2 can carry at most two MOPs at a time. Around seven of America’s 19 operational B2s were used in the Iran operation.

    There has been some consideration whether large transport aircraft such as the C-130 Hercules could be modified to carry and drop the MOP from its rear cargo doors. While this would allow other countries (including Israel) to deploy the MOP, it is for now purely hypothetical.

    Why has the US (apparently) used them in Iran

    The Trump administration claims Iran may be only a few weeks from possessing a nuclear weapon, and that it needed to act now to destroy Iranian nuclear enrichment sites. This claim is notably at odds with published assessments from the US intelligence community.

    However, Israel lacks bunker busting weaponry sufficient to damage the deeply buried and fortified enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

    An F-15E Strike Eagle releases a GBU-28 ‘bunker buster’ laser-guided bomb, a smaller equivalewnt of the 13,600 kg GBU-57 ‘Massive Ordnance Penetrator’ believed to have been used in Iran.
    Michael Ammons / US Air Force

    Only the MOP could do the job (short of using nuclear weapons). Even then, multiple MOPs would have been required to ensure sufficient damage to the underground facilities.

    The US has claimed that these sites have been utterly destroyed. We cannot conclusively say whether this is true.

    Iran may also have other, undeclared nuclear sites elsewhere in the country.

    Iran’s reaction

    The US has reportedly reached out to Iran via diplomatic channels to emphasise that this attack was a one-off, not part of a larger project of regime change. It is hard to say what will happen in the next few weeks.

    Iran may retaliate with large strikes against Israel or against US forces in the region. It could also interrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, which would affect a large portion of global oil shipments, with profound economic implications.

    Alternatively, Iran could capitulate and take steps to demonstrate it is ending its nuclear program. However, capitulation would not necessarily mean the end of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

    The value of nuclear weapons

    Perhaps a greater concern is that the attack will reinforce Iran’s desire to go nuclear. Without nuclear weapons, Iran was unable to threaten the US enough to deter today’s attack.

    Iran may take lessons from the fate of other states. Ukraine (in)famously surrendered its stockpile of former Soviet nuclear weapons in the early 1990s. Russia has since felt emboldened to annex Crimea in 2014 and launch an ongoing invasion in 2022. Other potential nuclear states, such as Iraq and Gadaffi’s regime in Libya, also suffered from military intervention.

    By contrast, North Korea successfully tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006. Since then there has been no serious consideration of military intervention in North Korea.

    Iran may yet have the ability to produce useful amounts of weapons-grade uranium. It may now aim to buy itself time to assemble a relatively small nuclear device, similar in scale to the bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Depending on what facilities and resources have survive the US strikes, the attack has likely reinforced that the only way the Iranian regime can guarantee its survival is to possess nuclear weapons.

    James Dwyer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. What is a ‘bunker buster’? An expert explains what the US dropped on Iran – and what might happen now – https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-bunker-buster-an-expert-explains-what-the-us-dropped-on-iran-and-what-might-happen-now-259508

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI USA: Statement on Trump’s Decision to Launch Direct Strikes on Iran

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Commonwealth of Virginia Mark R Warner

    WASHINGTON – Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Vice Chairman Mark R. Warner (D-VA) today released the following statement:

    “President Trump came into office promising to ‘end the endless foreign wars.’ Tonight, he took steps that could drag the United States into another one, without consulting Congress, without a clear strategy, without regard to the consistent conclusions of the intelligence community, and without explaining to the American people what’s at stake.

    “There is no question that Iran poses a serious threat to regional stability, and the United States must remain unwavering in our commitment to Israel’s security and in ensuring that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon. But launching direct military strikes without authorization from or consultation with Congress raises urgent questions: What is the president’s objective? How is he measuring success? And what’s the plan to prevent this from dragging our country into another open-ended conflict in the Middle East that costs American lives and resources for years to come?

    “The Constitution makes clear that the power to authorize war lies with Congress. There are more than 40,000 U.S. servicemembers deployed across the region, as well as American diplomats, contractors, and aid workers, and the safety of our personnel must be paramount. With American lives and our national security on the line, any action that could draw the United States into a broader conflict demands transparency, accountability, and a clear strategy. So far, the president has offered none of these.

    “The American people deserve more than vague rhetoric and unilateral decisions that could set off a wider war. The president must come before Congress immediately to articulate clear strategic objectives and lay out how he plans to protect American lives and ensure we are not once again drawn into a costly, unnecessary, and avoidable conflict.”

    MIL OSI USA News