Tag Archives: John Ratcliffe

CNN: US did not use bunker-buster bombs on one of Iran’s nuclear sites, top general tells lawmakers, citing depth of the target

Posted on by
Reply

The US military did not use bunker-buster bombs on one of Iran’s largest nuclear sites last weekend because the site is so deep that the bombs likely would not have been effective, the US’ top general told senators during a briefing on Thursday.

The comment by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, which was described by three people who heard his remarks and a fourth who was briefed on them, is the first known explanation given for why the US military did not use the Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb against the Isfahan site in central Iran. US officials believe Isfahan’s underground structures house nearly 60% of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, which Iran would need in order to ever produce a nuclear weapon.

US B2 bombers dropped over a dozen bunker-buster bombs on Iran’s Fordow and Natanz nuclear sites. But Isfahan was only struck by Tomahawk missiles launched from a US submarine.

So what we heard from King Donald was largely lies and hot air — par for the course.

US’ top general tells lawmakers | CNN Politics
The US military did not use bunker-buster bombs on one of Iran’s largest nuclear sites last weekend because the site is so deep that the bombs likely would not have been effective, the US’ top general told senators during a briefing on Thursday.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/27/politics/bunker-buster-bomb-isfahan-iran

Guardian: Trump and Hegseth admit doubts about level of damage to Iranian nuclear sites

Posted on by
Reply

President calls intelligence ‘inconclusive’, while defence secretary describes harm to facilities as ‘moderate to severe’

Donald Trump and the US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, have admitted to some doubt over the scale of the damage inflicted on Iran’s nuclear sites by the US bombing at the weekend, after a leaked Pentagon assessment said the Iranian programme had been set back by only a few months.

“The intelligence was very inconclusive,” Trump told journalists at a Nato summit in The Hague, introducing an element of uncertainty for the first time after several days of emphatic declarations that the destruction had been total.

“The intelligence says we don’t know. It could’ve been very severe. That’s what the intelligence suggests.”

The president then appeared to revert to his claim that “it was very severe. There was obliteration”. Later in the day, he claimed that was the conclusion from “collected intelligence”, and that the Iranian programme had been set back “decades”.

Trump also likened the US use of massive bunker-buster bombs on the Fordow and Natanz uranium enrichment sites to the impact of the US nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the second world war, using the comparison specifically in reference to their impact in ending a conflict.

Over the course of the day, Trump’s claims became more far-reaching, even rejecting reports from the nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), that Iran’s 400kg stock of 60% enriched uranium could no longer be accounted for, and appeared to have been moved.

Despite all the huffing and puffing, the bombings were pretty much a flop.

Trump and Hegseth admit doubts about level of damage to Iranian nuclear sites
President calls intelligence ‘inconclusive’ while defence secretary describes harm to facilities as ‘moderate to severe’

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/25/trump-and-hegseth-admit-doubts-over-irans-nuclear-sites-damage-by-us-strikes

Time: Trump Issues Blistering Response After Iran Threatens U.S.

Posted on by
Reply

“Look, you’re a man of great faith. A man who’s highly respected in his country. You have to tell the truth. You got beat to hell,” Trump said as he addressed the Iranian Supreme Leader during a White House press conference on Friday. Trump issued an even stronger response on his social media platform, Truth Social, later in the day, and doubled down on his stance once more when he reposted his message early Saturday morning.

In the lengthy post, Trump accused Khamenei of publicly sharing a “lie” by claiming Iran achieved a victory over Israel. He reaffirmed his much debated viewpoint that the U.S. strikes “obliterated” the three key nuclear facilities it targeted on Saturday, June 21. Trump also seemingly made reference to previous reports that stated the White House turned down a plan by Israel to try and kill Khamenei.

“His country was decimated, his three evil nuclear sites were obliterated, and I knew exactly where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces… terminate his life. I saved him from a very ugly and ignominious death,” Trump said, lamenting that Khamenei would not “thank” him for this. “During the last few days, I was working on the possible removal of sanctions, and other things, which would have given a much better chance to Iran at a full, fast, and complete recovery. The sanctions are biting! But no, instead I get hit with a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust, and immediately dropped all work on sanction relief.”

Awwww … Poor Trumpsie got his feelings hurt?

Trump Issues Blistering Response After Iran Threatens U.S.
“A burned out, blown up country with no future, a decimated military, a horrible economy, and death all around them.”

https://time.com/7298477/trump-iran-threat-khamenei-nuclear-bombs-sanctions

Robert Reich: The Dogs of War

Posted on by
Reply

What’s really going on.

As a result, he’s probably getting decent advice about what’s good for Trump but not about what’s good for America or the world. It’s an inevitable consequence of purging from the government anyone more loyal to the United States than to him. Besides, Trump only listens to information he wants to hear.

1. Why is Trump taking us into war with Iran?

2. Is (or was) Iran building a nuclear weapon?

3. Is Trump getting good information and advice?

4. Will Iran now cave and agree to destroy its remaining stockpile of enriched uranium and allow inspectors to confirm that the stockpile is gone?

5. Have the bombings wiped out Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons?

6. What’s the worst Iran can now do to the United States in retaliation?

7. Will the American public “rally ‘round the flag” and support Trump in this war

8. Will he send in American ground troops?

9. What’s Congress likely to do now?

10. Bonus question: Where does the phrase “dogs of war” come from?

The Dogs of War
What’s really going on

https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-dogs-of-war

CNN: Concerns about Hegseth’s judgment come roaring back after group chat scandal

Posted on by
Reply

“I know exactly what I’m doing,” Hegseth told reporters Tuesday.

By Wednesday, however, other defense officials were increasingly skeptical of that, especially after The Atlantic magazine revealed the details that Hegseth shared in the Signal chat about the pending strike on Houthi rebels in Yemen, including the timing and types of aircraft.

“It is safe to say that anybody in uniform would be court-martialed for this,” a defense official told CNN. “My most junior analysts know not to do this.”

…

But former national security and intelligence officials say it’s Hegseth who looks particularly bad given the level of detail he shared.

“The egregious actor here is Hegseth,” said one former senior intelligence official. “He’s in the bullseye now because he puts all this out on a Signal chat.”

Interviews with multiple current and former national security officials this week, including career military and civilian officials, reflect growing concerns about Hegseth’s leadership at the Pentagon.

…

Many of his orders are verbal and based on gut instinct rather than a deliberative, multi-layered process, people familiar with his methods said.

“He’s a TV personality,” one of the sources said. “[A general officer] makes a recommendation, and he’s like, ‘Yeah, yeah, go do it.’ [Former Defense Secretary] Lloyd Austin would never be like, ‘Yeah, yeah, go do it.’ 

…

Several DoD officials told CNN that Hegseth seems more preoccupied with appearances than with substance—wanting to appear more “lethal” than his predecessor and pulling resources from elsewhere in DoD to achieve that image.

….

“Of all the things they could be doing, the places they’re putting their focuses on first are really things that just don’t matter … This was literally a waste of our time,” a defense official told CNN of the content purge. “This does absolutely nothing to make us stronger, more lethal, better prepared.”

And Hegseth is outranked and outclassed by his predecessors:

Hegseth ultimately rose to the rank of Major before leaving the National Guard in 2021, and has the least experience of any Senate-confirmed defense secretary in recent history.

His immediate predecessor Austin, a four-star general, served for 41 years and commanded US Central Command; former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper served as the Secretary of the Army before being confirmed as SecDef; and former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, also a 40-year veteran and four-star general, commanded US Central Command as well before being confirmed as Trump’s first secretary of defense.

Concerns about Hegseth’s judgment come roaring back after group chat scandal

Concerns about Hegseth’s judgment come roaring back after group chat scandal

Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal

Posted on by
Reply

The administration has downplayed the importance of the text messages inadvertently sent to The Atlantic’s editor in chief.

So, about that Signal chat.

On Monday, shortly after we published a story about a massive Trump-administration security breach, a reporter asked the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, why he had shared plans about a forthcoming attack on Yemen on the Signal messaging app. He answered, “Nobody was texting war plans. And that’s all I have to say about that.”

At a Senate hearing yesterday, the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Ratcliffe, were both asked about the Signal chat, to which Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic, was inadvertently invited by National Security Adviser Michael Waltz. “There was no classified material that was shared in that Signal group,” Gabbard told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Ratcliffe said much the same: “My communications, to be clear, in the Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.”

President Donald Trump, asked yesterday afternoon about the same matter, said, “It wasn’t classified information.”

So if it wasn’t classified, and if the Trump administration is going to openly insult them and call them liars …

The statements by Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, and Trump—combined with the assertions made by numerous administration officials that we are lying about the content of the Signal texts—have led us to believe that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions. There is a clear public interest in disclosing the sort of information that Trump advisers included in nonsecure communications channels, especially because senior administration figures are attempting to downplay the significance of the messages that were shared.

And here it is:

Houthi PC small group
Idiots used an unsecured public messaging platform to plan an attack on Houthi rebels. The discussion group was named “Houthi PC small group”. If these guys are Krasnov’s best and brightest, I’d hate to see their worst & dumbest.

Source:

Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal

Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal