The US has bombed Fordow and other sites.

[MistressoftheDarkSide]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/jun/22/israel-iran-war-live-trump-says-us-has-attacked-nuclear-sites-in-iran-including-fordow

BBC Summary:

• US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth calls US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites at the weekend "historically successful"
• Speaking at a Pentagon news conference, Hegseth cites various assessments, including from the CIA and the UN's nuclear watchdog
• Hegseth also attacks the media, after a leaked intelligence report earlier this week suggested the strikes' impact may have been limited
• The update comes after Iran's supreme leader said the US "failed to achieve anything significant" with the nuclear strikes
• Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also claims victory over Israel - and says Iran delivered a "heavy slap" to the US by attacking a US base in Qatar

If any more evidence is needed that the Ayatollah is deluded, that is it. Him saying that Iran delivered a "heavy slap" to the US.

Er.... I think it was very much the other way round, actually!

The sooner this guy gets replaced the better (by internal means not by regime change being imposed by the US or Israel).

The language used is heightened. There was a statement at one point during it that just sounded so unhinged, that the leaders really shouldn’t have enriched uranium capacity.

In a way let them think it so and feel satisfied rather than keep going.

Yes agree the main thing is that they don’t keep going.

I think we need to focus on facts here. The director of the CIA said they had relied on what had been historically a reliable source - which presumably meant spies? But just one source. No one officially has seen the site other than Iranians. The site has not been inspected by the IAEA yet and they have said various things a long the way some of which has been misquoted, but the key thing they have said is that they really are not at all sure yet about anything and won't be unless and until an inspection took place - and when asked days, months years they said they couldn't answer. I am not suggesting the US is deliberately misleading though. But Iran has in fact been quite straightforward during the 12 days in their reporting - they also gave US advance notice of strikes in Qatar which the US thanked them for.

Also sorry to correct but I think you got it wrong upthread too - basically the day after Israel attacked (the first attack) the Iran FM said that they were responding but that as soon as Israel stopped they would stop, and said the same thing after Trump persuaded Israel to commit to ceasefire - so it was de facto Iran responding not attacking and saying throughout that they would stop once Israel stopped. As in, there is footage of Iran saying this in clear and plain language several times. (Sorry if that was a different poster though)

You’ve quoted my post about the Ayatollah saying he gave the US a slap - do you agree with him because it certainly looks like Iran was forced to agree to a ceasefire after the US bombed 3 of their nuclear sites. If Iran wasn’t scared by the US getting involved then they wouldn’t have stopped fighting Israel so I see the Ayatollahs comments as pure face saving and laughable.

It’s true we don’t know the full extent of the damage yet ( & I may have got something wrong I said earlier, the reports coming through were confusing). But I think it has been established that Iran sent missiles into Israel after the ceasefire. The point of a ceasefire is that both sides should cease fire that seems straightforward.

I have just seen a clip of the Iran FM saying that the damage was "serious and extensive" - this is not necessarily undermining what the Ayatollah said, as the Ayatollah was referring to capacity I think, so it looks like they are saying serious damage was done to scientific equipment, but it has not done anything to stop a nuclear programme and so it was a pointless and damaging strike. This is just my reading of what is being said though - I am sure that all will come clear at some point.

I think that Trump is trying to open up diplomatic discussions with Iran and Israel (as well as claim total success) incidentally not close things down?

And any sort of overthrow internal or external is destabilising?! I think work to change specific policies is better than a revolution usually?!

Sorry our posts crossed. I have explained a bit more in my last post. I think all three parties claimed victory and that the Ayatollah was saying that if the US strike in future, Iran will respond? But I do firmly disagree with your statement here:
because it certainly looks like Iran was forced to agree to a ceasefire after the US bombed 3 of their nuclear sites. If Iran wasn’t scared by the US getting involved then they wouldn’t have stopped fighting Israel - the IranFM said on camera very, very clearly the day after the 12 day war began that they would stop as soon as Israel stopped - they maintained this right to the end, irrespective of the US strike - see the tweet by the Iran FM on the day of the ceasefire saying that what Trump had not stated ceasefire terms correctly but that in any event Iran would stop as soon as Israel stopped - this really was absolutely clear - Iran said they had no interest in attacking anyone and would stop responding to Israel as soon as Israel stopped attacking them. These statements are given in clear and plain language throughout.

In relation to your second paragraph, I am not sure what happened as there were conflicting accounts and there was some confusion, but Trump said Iran had misfired something not significant and Israel had responded 3 times with force and Trump had had to tell Israel to quit.

There is currently a ceasefire and that is good, at least!

@stepawayfromthedarkside I accept some of your argument but in what universe can the Ayatollah claim victory?

Even if it is true that Iran would at any point have stopped as soon as Israel stopped, how is that victory or giving the US a “heavy slap”.

Iran are the ones who have been most severely punished for attacking Israel with their proxy army, Hamas. They are the ones with the most damage - to buildings and civilian lives - even without the nuclear sites being bombed. Which will probably turn out to be extensively damaged due to the fact that the bombs achieved a direct hit.

Trump was downplaying things when he said it may have been accidental that Iran sent 8 missiles into Israel after the ceasefire ( only one got through). I agree that Israel responded with 3 times the force and had to be told by Trump to cease & desist for the sake of the ceasefire.

The Ayatollahs comment most probably refers to the damage caused to Israeli infrastructure and also depletion of their air defence rockets and missile stockpiles.

Iran really focused of Military installations and also economic sites in Israel. For example they hit the Weizmann research lab completely destroying years of research, therefore stopping future investments. They also targeted Haifa port.

In the West we got a very sanitized version of the destruction due to Israel passing a law making it illegal to film or show images of the destruction. It's going to cost billions to repair what can be repaired.

In the last days Iran sent less rockets but hit more targets due to the air defences degrading.

@BelleHathoris this good news to you?

The Ayatollah's comment was about the US, he said that his country had “dealt a severe slap to the face of America”

He continued with, "should any aggression occur, the enemy will definitely pay a heavy price.”

So deluded if he thinks Iran could take on America. They couldn't even win a war against Israel hence were keen to agree a ceasefire.

I don't often say this, but he makes Trump looks reasonable by comparison.

That's because some people including geopolitical analysts see Israel as an American outpost in the middle east used to exert its power in the region.

@easternstandard whether it's a good thing or not is a calculation that the Israeli and American planners should have made before launching this misadventure. My views are irrelevant in that if you start something, you better make sure you can finish it. There was a lot of reporting in the Israeli media during the conflict that they had underestimated Iranian missile quality.

What do you mean by finish it in this context?

If Israel were going to do this, they needed to ensure that what they had planned for years (recruitment of spies in Iran, building of the drone factories in Iran, infiltrating the IAEA) that it could be completed.

I know why they did it there's always been a struggle between Iran and Israel to be the dominant power in the region. Israel wanted to cement its hegemony (being the only country with nukes), that's why it systematically attempted/managed to destroy or weaken Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria.

The was always to destroy or restrain Iran, whether through sanctions or military action. I think some planners were hoping for a situation similar to what happened in Syria in December a complete collapse and the installation of a government more friendly to the West.

It was predictable that the negotiations would end up in a war as the terms offered to Iran (no enrichment, curtail it's missile program) are something that no sovereign country could accept.

Therefore it was predictable that Irans response would be severe if the decapitation strikes did not work. Netanyahu chose that time as he had just survived a vote to dissolve his government, but were they ready?

Now no one knows where the 400kg of Uranium is (if not destroyed), no one trusts America. Air Defence missiles are depleted and all Iran had to do is survive, which it has so far. Now the Iranian Defence minister is China viewing Chinese military equipment and Iran has checkpoints internally to catch any spies.

I'll post it again as it was laid out quite clearly, read this especially chapter 6 "leave it to Bibi"

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/which-path-to-persia-options-for-a-new-american-strategy-toward-iran/

@twiglets1 my post above was not very clear so I asked for it to be deleted and I will try again tomorrow! This is the video made in the early days showing the Iranian FM statement that they will stop when Israel stops - you will need to watch it in full to understand properly what he is saying.

s

The other points I picked up in my post above and when it is deleted I will post again a bit more clearly.

@stepawayfromthedarkside to hopefully prevent you writing another essay I’ll keep my question very simple: how can anyone agree that the Ayatollah gave the US a “heavy slap”.

This is what the Ayatollah has achieved for Iran with his foolish comments:

US President Donald Trump has said he would "absolutely" consider bombing Iran again.

Responding to a question from the BBC's Nomia Iqbal at a White House press briefing, he said he would "without question" attack the country if intelligence concluded Iran could enrich uranium to concerning levels.

All parties in the conflict have claimed victory, with the ayatollah telling Iranians that Israel and Iran had failed to disrupt the country's nuclear programme.
However, the country's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi later admitted "excessive and serious" damage was done to the country's nuclear sites by the recent US and Israeli bombings.

Reacting to the ayatollah's comments, Trump repeated his assertions that Iran was "decimated".

"Why would the so-called 'Supreme Leader' Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, of the war-torn country of Iran, say so blatantly and foolishly that he won the war with Israel, when he knows his statement is a lie," Trump added.

Trump claimed he had been "working on the possible removal of sanctions" against Iran, but had decided to "immediately" drop all work on sanction relief after the ayatollah released his statement of "anger, hatred and disgust".

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgenq599kwo

A wounded Iran is an Iran to be worried about not least by those Iranians oppressed by the regime.

One thought I had was even if the Iranians enriched uranium to weapons grade level they still have to have means of delivering it. It therefore is incumbent on the US and Israel to continually limit Iran's ballistic missile capability. Just one nuclear war head is obviously devastating so in a sense the stakes have got a lot higher.

One future thought is that we have regional MAD preventing Iran and Israel coming to blows as with the cold war on a larger scale. I think this situation would be a lot more precarious though.

@BelleHathorIran must also be aware by now that the US will strike too. It’s not just Israel.

Well, I will keep being patient and polite even if you can't. You are missing the point (I say this politely and patiently) focusing on the "slap". The focus should be on future peace. Did you watch the link to the IranFM statement on day 2/3 of the war and do you understand what he said?

@BelleHathor I haven't yet read the report but will. However, it is dated 2009 and quite a lot has changed since then. BRICS and the relationships between the parties have increased - and the BRICS countries support trade, peace, multipolar, no WWIII etc - but will retaliate in defence if pushed. Whereas the west still seem stuck in the thinking of the past, almost colonial. Also, what happened on Oct 7 ironically increased the world's awareness of the Israel/Palestinian conflict, which has raged since the Balfour agreement of 1917, so although there is condemnation for terrorism, there is also increased awareness of the roots of the conflict and the acts of both sides.

@twiglets1 also, did you watch the Ayatollah's speech in full or did you just listen to highlights from the media? Because I watched it in full and my impression was that he was saying Israel had attacked but had been unsuccessful, hence Iran's victory, and that he was responding to the US when he said that if the US attacked them again they would respond - that their response to the bombing was restrained. I think that if you only watched the media report, they may have slanted it and it is worth watching the speech in full.

So, to try to respond again without an essay. Firstly, we all wanted the ceasefire and I think that the US then telling everyone how amazing the US was and how great they were and that their bombing of Iran's facilities (which Iran were obviously not too happy about) was probably not the best diplomacy ever. The US should just have focused on saying that the ceasefire was an achievement and then immediately starting talking about how to achieve future peace. It was handled badly and it looks like it is all kicking off again. We really need the narrative to be just focusing on future peace.

Even if it is true that Iran would at any point have stopped as soon as Israel stopped, how is that victory or giving the US a “heavy slap”.
I think this has now been answered.

Iran are the ones who have been most severely punished for attacking Israel with their proxy army, Hamas. They are the ones with the most damage - to buildings and civilian lives - even without the nuclear sites being bombed. Which will probably turn out to be extensively damaged due to the fact that the bombs achieved a direct hit
I think most of this has been answered, but just picking up on the proxy point - this issue would go away if Israel committed to negotiations for a two state solution.
The problems about all this root back to the Balfour agreement in 1917 and the conflicting promises and problems after the end of the 2nd world war to do with clarity. Since then there has been attacks by both sides, accusations of terrorism in relation to both sides.
Iran POV - they support Hezbollah and Hamas in their resistance against Israel. Israel POV - Iran is fighting a proxy war
Iran POV - they are not fighting a proxy war because they don't want to fight a war with anyone but they will support Arab countries invaded by Israel. In the last year they have said that they support a 2 state solution
Some Israeli commentators have indicated that Israel is very powerful and has powerful backers and that they should be a larger country and therefore want to expand - and that this is what the attacks are about really - what do you think about that?

In any event as you see there is quite a lot of work to be done to resolve issues and this is why I keep saying the focus should be future peace.

Trump getting Israel to the table in relation to a 2 state solution would be an extraordinary feat. He could definitely claim victory over that.

Trump was downplaying things how do you know?

I am not at all against Trump generally by the way.

Hope that wasn't too much of an essay.