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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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-
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday hailed US President Donald Trump following coordinated airstrikes on Iran’s key nuclear facilities, calling the military action a bold and historic move that could reshape the future of the Middle East.
In a video address after the strikes, Netanyahu praised Trump’s decision to target Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, including the heavily fortified Fordow site, as well as installations at Natanz and Esfahan. The Israeli leader reiterated the long-standing motto shared by both leaders: “Peace through strength”.
“First comes strength, then comes peace,” Netanyahu said. “Tonight, President Trump and the United States demonstrated immense strength. This is a decisive and bold action that will be remembered in history.”
The US military reportedly deployed six bunker-buster bombs on the Fordow nuclear facility and launched 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Natanz and Esfahan, as part of what has been described as a highly successful mission. The operation, reportedly codenamed “Rising Lion”, was aimed at neutralising what the US sees as imminent nuclear threats posed by Iran.
“President Trump, congratulations. Your courageous leadership and decision to strike Iran’s nuclear sites with the overwhelming power of the United States is a pivotal moment,” Netanyahu said. “This action, in my view, denies the world’s most dangerous regime access to the world’s most dangerous weapons.”
Netanyahu also highlighted Israel’s role in countering regional threats but acknowledged that the US operation far exceeded anything any nation could have executed. “History will record this as the moment when a line was drawn. President Trump acted not just for American security, but for the safety of the entire world,” he added.
Meanwhile, Trump posted on his platform, Truth Social, confirming the airstrikes and stating, “A full payload of bombs was dropped on Fordow… All planes are safely on their way home.” He called the mission a success and praised the American military, saying, “There is no other force on Earth that could have accomplished this.”
In his post, Trump emphasised that “now is the time for peace” and announced he would address the nation at 10 p.m. local time to discuss the operation in detail. Describing the moment as historic for the US, Israel, and the world, Trump called on Iran to “end this war” and reconsider its nuclear ambitions in the wake of the military response.
Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation has stated that the attacks on its nuclear sites constitute a violation of international law. However, it did not clarify the extent of the damage caused by the strikes that US President Donald Trump announced earlier.
Trump has said the US military carried out strikes on Iran’s Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz atomic sites. The attack took place early on Sunday.
Iran has said that it would not allow the development of its “national industry” – an apparent reference to the country’s nuclear development – to be stopped.
Tehran’s agency said the attacks on its nuclear sites violate international law. “The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran assures the great Iranian nation that despite the evil conspiracies of its enemies, with the efforts of thousands of its revolutionary and motivated scientists and experts, it will not allow the development of this national industry, which is the result of the blood of nuclear martyrs, to be stopped,” it said in its statement.
Earlier, Trump announced that the US military had carried out strikes on Iran’s Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz atomic sites. “We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter,” he said on the social platform ‘Truth Social’.
He further said that this was a historic moment for America, Israel and the world, and that Iran must agree to end this war.
Earlier on Friday, Trump told reporters that he has given Iran a maximum of two weeks to return to the negotiation table over its nuclear program.
On June 13, Israel began airstrikes on Iran, destroying several infrastructures and killing dozens of Iranian military commanders and nuclear scientists. In response, Iran has carried out missile and drone attacks on various locations in Israel.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Mike Ezell (Mississippi 4th District)
Ezell Applauds President Trump’s Decisive Action Against Iranian Nuclear Threat
Congressman Mike Ezell (MS-4) issued the following statement in response to President Donald Trump’s recent military strike targeting Iran’s nuclear weapons infrastructure:
“I applaud President Trump for taking bold and decisive action to eliminate Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities. The Islamic Republic has long posed a grave threat to global stability, and this strike sends an unmistakable message: the United States will not tolerate rogue regimes developing weapons of mass destruction.
For decades, Iran’s leaders have openly chanted ‘Death to America’ while funding terrorism and threatening our allies. Those words are not just rhetoric—they represent a dangerous agenda that must be taken seriously.
This operation not only protects our national security interests, but also strengthens the safety of our allies in the Middle East—especially Israel—and helps secure a more stable future for the region. I am proud to stand with President Trump and our military for taking swift and necessary steps to defend peace through strength.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Scott Fitzgerald (WI-05)
WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Scott Fitzgerald (WI-05) issued the following statement in response to U.S. strikes against Iran.
“Today’s U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites represent strong, decisive action fully within President Trump’s constitutional authority as Commander in Chief. By targeting Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan, the Administration has significantly degraded Tehran’s nuclear capabilities and disrupted a looming threat to global security.
“This action was not taken lightly, but with resolve, responsibility, and in pursuit of a more stable and peaceful future. By reducing Iran’s capacity to develop a nuclear weapon, these strikes send a clear and unmistakable message: America will act swiftly and with precision to defend our national interests and those of our allies.
“Now is the time for Iran to reassess its path and choose negotiation over provocation. While diplomacy should always remain our preferred path, I fully support President Trump’s use of legitimate, constitutional authority to protect the United States and prevent a far greater conflict down the road.”
US President Donald Trump declared that America had bombed three nuclear sites in Iran and warned Tehran of further precision strikes unless it ended its confrontation with Israel.
The targeted locations reportedly include the highly fortified Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan nuclear facilities.
Addressing a media briefing just hours after the strikes on Saturday (US time), Trump stated, “This cannot continue. There will either be peace or tragedy for Iran, far greater than what we have witnessed over the last eight days. There are many targets left.”
“Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight was the most difficult of them all, by far, and perhaps the most lethal, but if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill,” he added.
The President asserted that the strikes were aimed at crippling Iran’s “nuclear enrichment capacity and put a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.”
Despite weeks of diplomatic efforts to renegotiate a nuclear agreement with Tehran — following the US withdrawal from the 2015 accord in 2018 – Trump has now thrown full support behind Israel’s military campaign against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and high-ranking military officials, a campaign launched a little over a week ago.
In his statement, Trump extended gratitude to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying, “I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. We worked as a team, like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we’ve gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel. I want to thank the Israeli military for the wonderful job they’ve done.”
The air conflict between the two nations erupted on June 13 when Israel launched a surprise strike on Iran.
Israeli authorities claimed the offensive was a preemptive measure to stop Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons – an ambition Iran has consistently denied.
The conflict has since raised tensions across the region, already on edge following Israel’s prolonged war in Gaza since October 2023.
The latest exchange has now drawn in the United States in a direct military capacity.
Earlier in the day, Trump posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, calling the strikes a “historic moment for the United States of America, Israel, and the World… Iran must now agree to end this war. Thank you!”
In another post, the US President praised American forces, writing, “There is not another military in the World that could have done this. Now is the time for peace! Thank you for your attention to this matter.”
Iranian state media confirmed that parts of the Fordow nuclear facility were hit in what it called “enemy strikes,” though further details on the extent of the damage remain limited.
US President Donald Trump declared that America had bombed three nuclear sites in Iran and warned Tehran of further precision strikes unless it ended its confrontation with Israel.
The targeted locations reportedly include the highly fortified Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan nuclear facilities.
Addressing a media briefing just hours after the strikes on Saturday (US time), Trump stated, “This cannot continue. There will either be peace or tragedy for Iran, far greater than what we have witnessed over the last eight days. There are many targets left.”
“Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight was the most difficult of them all, by far, and perhaps the most lethal, but if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill,” he added.
The President asserted that the strikes were aimed at crippling Iran’s “nuclear enrichment capacity and put a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.”
Despite weeks of diplomatic efforts to renegotiate a nuclear agreement with Tehran — following the US withdrawal from the 2015 accord in 2018 – Trump has now thrown full support behind Israel’s military campaign against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and high-ranking military officials, a campaign launched a little over a week ago.
In his statement, Trump extended gratitude to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying, “I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. We worked as a team, like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we’ve gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel. I want to thank the Israeli military for the wonderful job they’ve done.”
The air conflict between the two nations erupted on June 13 when Israel launched a surprise strike on Iran.
Israeli authorities claimed the offensive was a preemptive measure to stop Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons – an ambition Iran has consistently denied.
The conflict has since raised tensions across the region, already on edge following Israel’s prolonged war in Gaza since October 2023.
The latest exchange has now drawn in the United States in a direct military capacity.
Earlier in the day, Trump posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, calling the strikes a “historic moment for the United States of America, Israel, and the World… Iran must now agree to end this war. Thank you!”
In another post, the US President praised American forces, writing, “There is not another military in the World that could have done this. Now is the time for peace! Thank you for your attention to this matter.”
Iranian state media confirmed that parts of the Fordow nuclear facility were hit in what it called “enemy strikes,” though further details on the extent of the damage remain limited.
US stealth bombers were flying across the Pacific Ocean on Saturday, fueling speculation over their intended mission as President Donald Trump considers joining Israel’s attack on Iranian nuclear sites. Trump says he will decide within two weeks on whether the US military will get directly involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran, while the president has kept the world guessing on his plans, veering from proposing a swift diplomatic solution to suggesting the US might join the fighting on Israel’s side.
Israeli forces launched fresh strikes against Iran’s critical port city of Bandar Abbas in southwestern Iran on Saturday, targeting what the military described as unmanned aerial vehicle depots and weapons facilities. The strategic significance of Bandar Abbas cannot be overstated – the city serves as Iran’s most important commercial gateway, housing the country’s main port, naval headquarters, and vital oil infrastructure near the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of global oil trade passes. Earlier Saturday, Israel said it launched airstrikes against Iran, including against the Isfahan nuclear site, as Iran sent missiles and drones toward Israel.
The conflict between Iran and Israel is intensifying, drawing growing concern from regional powers and international observers.
In the latest escalation, Iran launched around 40 drones toward Israeli territory. In response, Israeli forces struck what they described as “dozens of military targets” in southwestern Iran. Among the sites hit was an emergency center in Khuzestan province, which, according to Iranian media, included a university reported to have been completely destroyed in the bombardment.
Meanwhile, the United States has increased its military posture in the region. The Pentagon has deployed B-2 stealth bombers from their base in Missouri to the Pacific. These long-range aircraft are capable of carrying the GBU-57 bunker buster, a 14-ton conventional weapon designed to penetrate deep underground facilities, such as Iran’s fortified Fordow uranium enrichment site.
The conflict has prompted warnings from Iran-backed groups across West Asia, with Houthi forces cautioning the United States against military action targeting Tehran. The rebels specifically threatened to target American ships and warships in the Red Sea if Washington joins Israel’s military campaign against Iran.
An Iranian military spokesperson escalated tensions further by declaring that arms exports to Israel would be considered legitimate targets by Tehran.
Diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis have proven unsuccessful, with Iranian officials stating they would not engage in discussions with the United States while Israel’s bombing campaign continues.
US stealth bombers were flying across the Pacific Ocean on Saturday, fueling speculation over their intended mission as President Donald Trump considers joining Israel’s attack on Iranian nuclear sites. Trump says he will decide within two weeks on whether the US military will get directly involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran, while the president has kept the world guessing on his plans, veering from proposing a swift diplomatic solution to suggesting the US might join the fighting on Israel’s side.
Israeli forces launched fresh strikes against Iran’s critical port city of Bandar Abbas in southwestern Iran on Saturday, targeting what the military described as unmanned aerial vehicle depots and weapons facilities. The strategic significance of Bandar Abbas cannot be overstated – the city serves as Iran’s most important commercial gateway, housing the country’s main port, naval headquarters, and vital oil infrastructure near the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of global oil trade passes. Earlier Saturday, Israel said it launched airstrikes against Iran, including against the Isfahan nuclear site, as Iran sent missiles and drones toward Israel.
The conflict between Iran and Israel is intensifying, drawing growing concern from regional powers and international observers.
In the latest escalation, Iran launched around 40 drones toward Israeli territory. In response, Israeli forces struck what they described as “dozens of military targets” in southwestern Iran. Among the sites hit was an emergency center in Khuzestan province, which, according to Iranian media, included a university reported to have been completely destroyed in the bombardment.
Meanwhile, the United States has increased its military posture in the region. The Pentagon has deployed B-2 stealth bombers from their base in Missouri to the Pacific. These long-range aircraft are capable of carrying the GBU-57 bunker buster, a 14-ton conventional weapon designed to penetrate deep underground facilities, such as Iran’s fortified Fordow uranium enrichment site.
The conflict has prompted warnings from Iran-backed groups across West Asia, with Houthi forces cautioning the United States against military action targeting Tehran. The rebels specifically threatened to target American ships and warships in the Red Sea if Washington joins Israel’s military campaign against Iran.
An Iranian military spokesperson escalated tensions further by declaring that arms exports to Israel would be considered legitimate targets by Tehran.
Diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis have proven unsuccessful, with Iranian officials stating they would not engage in discussions with the United States while Israel’s bombing campaign continues.
Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.) tonight released the following statement:
“President Trump is an impetuous and weak Commander in Chief. He has now double crossed his supporters. He had promised them he would not lead the Unites States into yet another forever war. He has learned nothing from the catastrophes of Iraq and Afghanistan—wars he condemned. President Trump has been lured by Prime Minister Netanyahu to join in his decades-old determination to have a regime change war in Iran. President Trump should not be subservient to Netanyahu, doing what he demands rather than what America First requires.
“This decision to go to war with Iran, without debate or Congressional authorization, is reckless and wrong. It weakens our national security.”
The Government continues to call for diplomacy and dialogue in the Middle East, Foreign Minister Winston Peters says.
“We acknowledge developments in the last 24 hours, including President Trump’s announcement of US strikes on nuclear facilities in Iran,” Mr Peters says.
“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.”
Meanwhile, the Government is pursuing all options for assisting New Zealanders stranded in Iran and Israel, Mr Peters and Defence Minister Judith Collins say.
“We remain seriously concerned about the risks New Zealanders face in Iran and Israel given continued military strikes between the two countries,” Mr Peters says.
“Airspace has been closed since the beginning of the current conflict, and it is highly uncertain when it will reopen. That is why we continue to recommend that New Zealanders do everything they can to leave now if they can find a safe route.
“We know it will not be safe for everyone to leave Iran or Israel, and many people may not have access to transport or fuel supplies. If you are in this situation you should shelter in place, follow appropriate advice from local authorities and stay in touch with family and friends where possible.”
As part of government efforts to pursue all options for assisting New Zealanders in harm’s way, government personnel and a C-130J Hercules aircraft are being deployed to the Middle East and will stand ready to assist if needed. The Government is also in discussion with commercial airlines to assess how they may be able to assist.
“This deployment is part of our contingency plans in preparation for supporting New Zealanders seeking to leave Iran and Israel,” Ms Collins says.
“The New Zealand Defence Force is playing an important role in this operation, stepping up to help New Zealanders in distress overseas.”
“Airspace in Israel and Iran remains heavily restricted, which means getting people out by aircraft is not yet possible. But by positioning an aircraft and Defence and Foreign Affairs personnel in the region, we may be able to do more when airspace reopens.”
The situation in the Middle East is fast-moving and it will take several days for the C-130J Hercules, scheduled to leave Auckland tomorrow, to reach the region.
All New Zealanders in the Middle East – not just in Iran and Israel – are urged to register on SafeTravel.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is running 24/7 consular operations, including via teams in the region.
New Zealanders in Iran and Israel needing urgent consular assistance should call the Ministry’s Emergency Consular Call Centre on +64 99 20 20 20.
