U.S. Officials Concede They Don’t Know Whereabouts of Iran’s Uranium Stockpile – The New York Times
How did your country report this? Share your view in the comments.
Diverging Reports Breakdown
U.S. Officials Concede They Don’t Know Whereabouts of Iran’s Uranium Stockpile
President Trump declared that Iran’s nuclear program had been “completely and totally obliterated” by American bunker-busting bombs and a barrage of missiles. Vice President JD Vance said the U.S. does not know the whereabouts of Iran’s stockpile of near-bomb-grade uranium. But he contended that the country’s potential to build a weapon had been set back substantially because it no longer had the equipment to turn that fuel into operative weapons.
“We are going to work in the coming weeks to ensure that we do something with that fuel and that’s one of the things that we’re going to have conversations with the Iranians about,” Vice President JD Vance told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, referring to a batch of uranium sufficient to make nine or ten atomic weapons. Nonetheless, he contended that the country’s potential to build a weapon had been set back substantially because it no longer had the equipment to turn that fuel into operative weapons.
In a briefing for reporters on Sunday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, Dan Caine, avoided Mr. Trump’s maximalist claims of success. They said an initial battle-damage assessment of all three sites struck by Air Force B-2 bombers and Navy Tomahawk missiles showed “severe damage and destruction.”
Satellite photographs of the primary target, the Fordo uranium enrichment plant that Iran built under a mountain, showed several holes where a dozen 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrators — one of the largest conventional bombs in the U.S. arsenal — punched deep holes in the rock. The Israeli military’s initial analysis concluded that the site, the target of American and Israeli military planners for more than 26 years, sustained serious damage from the strike but had not been completely destroyed.
With Military Strike His Predecessors Avoided, Trump Takes a Huge Gamble
The administration is arguing that it was engaged in an act of pre-emption, seeking to terminate a threat, not the Iranian regime. But it is far from clear that the Iranians will perceive it that way. In essence, Mr. Trump was threatening to broaden his military partnership with Israel, which has spent the last eight days systematically targeting Iran’s top military and nuclear leadership. He promised that if Iran did not relent, he would go after them “with precision, speed and skill”
In short, the administration is arguing that it was engaged in an act of pre-emption, seeking to terminate a threat, not the Iranian regime. But it is far from clear that the Iranians will perceive it that way. In a brief address from the White House on Saturday night, flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Mr. Trump threatened Iran with more destruction if it does not bend to his demands.
“Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,” he said. “If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.”
“There will be either peace,” he added, “or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left.” He promised that if Iran did not relent, he would go after them “with precision, speed and skill.”
In essence, Mr. Trump was threatening to broaden his military partnership with Israel, which has spent the last eight days systematically targeting Iran’s top military and nuclear leadership, killing them in their beds, their laboratories and their bunkers. The United States initially separated itself from that operation. In the Trump administration’s first public statement about those strikes, Mr. Rubio emphasized that Israel took “unilateral action against Iran,” adding that the United States was “not involved.”
But then, a few days ago, Mr. Trump mused on his social media platform about the ability of the United States to kill Iran’s 86-year-old supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, anytime he wanted. And Saturday night, he made clear that the United States was all in, and that contrary to Mr. Rubio’s statement, the country was now deeply involved.
U.S. Military Is Pulled Back Into Middle East Wars
The U.S. military says it has dropped multiple bombs on Iran. The strikes are believed to be the first time they have been used in combat. The Pentagon says more than 40,000 troops are on the ground in Iran.
Across the region, where more than 40,000 American troops are on bases and warships, the strikes ushered in a period of high alert as the Pentagon braced for almost-certain retaliation from Iran.
President Trump announced on social media that three Iranian sites were hit, including the mountain facility at Fordo. The bombs used in the strikes are believed to include “bunker busters,” which are designed to destroy deep underground bunkers or well-buried weapons in highly protected facilities.
A U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss confidential intelligence said that multiple 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs were dropped on Fordo, and that initial damage assessments indicated that the facility had been “taken off the table.” The attack was the first time the U.S. military had used the weapon in combat.
After U.S. Strikes, Iran May Be Determined to Build a Nuclear Weapon
The U.S. attack on Fordo used B-2 bombers armed with America’s largest conventional bomb, the 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator. In the days before the attack, some American officials predicted a successful strike could set back the Iranian program by as many as five years.
“The sad truth here is that by striking Iran, the U.S. has made it much more likely that Iran will want to obtain nuclear weapons,” said Rosemary Kelanic, the director of the Middle East program at Defense Priorities, a think tank that advocates a restrained foreign policy.
She added: “Even if the raids knocked out all of Iran’s nuclear facilities — a big if — Iran will now be more motivated than ever to rebuild their capabilities and pursue not just uranium enrichment but actual weaponization.”
Israel’s initial strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities had set back Iran’s ability to enrich uranium and push toward weaponization of its stockpile by about six months, according to American intelligence assessments.
The U.S. attack on Fordo used B-2 bombers armed with America’s largest conventional bomb, the 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator. In the days before the attack, some American officials predicted a successful strike could set back the Iranian program by as many as five years.
But it is not clear how quickly officials will be able to assess the damage at Fordo and the other two sites. The future of Iran’s nuclear program will depend on the extent of the damage, how many of Iran’s secret nuclear sites remain and Tehran’s negotiating position in the coming days.
Iran Live Updates: Fate of Nuclear Program Unclear as Trump Raises Prospect of Regime Change
Many Democrats and even some Republicans say that the attack was tantamount to a declaration of war. Several Trump aides say they disagree, calling the strike a limited action aimed solely at Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The furor over the sudden strikes follows years of bipartisan efforts in Congress to try to place greater limits on a president’s ability to order military action. But the question is complicated by Article II of the Constitution, which delineates the powers of the president, and which designates the U.S. leader as the “commander in chief” of the military. The Constitution gives Congress dozens of powers like collecting taxes and creating post offices, as well as the power to “declare war” and to ‘raise and support armies’ and “raise and. support armies,” according to an essay by the law professors Michael D. Ramsey and Stephen I. Vladeck for the National Constitution Center. But presidents have repeatedly disregarded that language or argued for a narrow definition of “introduction’ of forces.
Before he ordered strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, President Trump did not seek permission from Congress, to which the U.S. Constitution grants the sole power to declare war. Many Democrats and even some Republicans say that the attack was tantamount to a declaration of war and that Mr. Trump acted illegally.
Several Trump aides say they disagree, calling the strike a limited action aimed solely at Iran’s nuclear capabilities that does not meet the definition of war. “This is not a war against Iran,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News on Sunday.
Vice President JD Vance argued that Mr. Trump had “clear authority to act to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”
However, later on Sunday, Mr. Trump wrote online that his military aims could be much more expansive: “If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!”
Criticisms of the attack, which came less than two weeks after Israel began its bombing campaign against Iran, include Mr. Trump not giving American policymakers, lawmakers and the public enough time to debate a role in a conflict that experts warn could expand quickly if Iran retaliates.
The furor over the sudden strikes follows years of bipartisan efforts in Congress to try to place greater limits on a president’s ability to order military action, efforts that arose because of disastrous American wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.
So is the United States at war with Iran? And did Mr. Trump have the authority to order his attack without consulting Congress?
What does the U.S. Constitution say about war?
Image A demonstrator holds a shredded copy of the Constitution of the United States on Sunday. Credit… Eric Lee for The New York Times
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution assigns Congress dozens of powers like collecting taxes and creating post offices, as well as the power to “declare war” and to “raise and support armies.”
The Constitution’s framers considered that clause a crucial check on presidential power, according to an essay by the law professors Michael D. Ramsey and Stephen I. Vladeck for the National Constitution Center. Early in American history, Congress approved even limited conflicts, including frontier clashes with Native American tribes.
But the question is complicated by Article II of the Constitution, which delineates the powers of the president, and which designates the U.S. leader as the “commander in chief” of the U.S. military.
Presidents of both parties, relying heavily on legal opinions written by executive-branch lawyers, have cited that language to justify military action without congressional involvement.
Congress tried asserting itself with the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which says the American president must “consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.”
But presidents have repeatedly disregarded that language or argued for a narrow definition of the “introduction” of forces. Congress has done little to enforce it.
What are members of Congress saying about the U.S. strikes?
Image President Trump walking across the South Lawn as he returned to the White House on Sunday. Credit… Anna Rose Layden for The New York Times
Democrats have almost uniformly criticized Mr. Trump for acting without legislative consent, and a few Republicans have as well.
“His actions are a clear violation of our Constitution — ignoring the requirement that only the Congress has the authority to declare war,” Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, said in a statement echoed by many of his colleagues.
Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, told CBS News that there was no “imminent threat to the United States” from Iran.
Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, said on the same CBS program that Congress must act this week to assert a role in any further U.S. military action.
“Would we think it was war if Iran bombed a U.S. nuclear facility? Of course we would,” Mr. Kaine said. “This is the U.S. jumping into a war of choice at Donald Trump’s urging, without any compelling national security interests for the United States to act in this way, particularly without a debate and vote in Congress.”
Some Democrats say Mr. Trump has already gone unforgivably far. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York called on Saturday night for Mr. Trump’s impeachment.
Hawkish Republicans rejected such talk. “He had all the authority he needs under the Constitution,” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told NBC News on Sunday. Mr. Graham cited Mr. Trump’s power as commander in chief under Article II of the Constitution.
“Congress can declare war, or cut off funding. We can’t be the commander in chief. You can’t have 535 commander-in-chiefs,” Mr. Graham said, referring to the combined number of U.S. representatives and senators. “If you don’t like what the president does in terms of war, you can cut off the funding.”
Mr. Graham noted that Congress has made formal war declarations in only five conflicts, and none since World War II. However, there has been a legal equivalent from Congress that President George W. Bush was the last American leader to successfully seek: an authorization for the use of military force.
What are legal scholars saying?
Image Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi of Iran called the U.S. attack an “outrageous, grave and unprecedented violation” of international law and of the United Nations charter. Credit… Khalil Hamra/Associated Press
Several lawyers and scholars who have studied the international law of armed conflict say the United States is without a doubt at war with Iran for purposes of application of that law, and that Mr. Trump acted in violation of international conventions.
“The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,” said Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department.
Brian Finucane, a former lawyer at the State Department, agreed that Mr. Trump needed to ask Congress for authorization beforehand. He also said “there is certainly a U.S. armed conflict with Iran, so the law of war applies.”
On Sunday, Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, called the U.S. attack an “outrageous, grave and unprecedented violation” of international law and of the United Nations charter, which forbids U.N. members from violating the sovereignty of other members.
Mr. Araghchi did not specifically say that his country is now at war with America. Mr. Finucane also said the United States violated the U.N. charter.
Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University who has also worked at the Defense Department, said “one important matter for both domestic law and especially international law is the issue of ‘imminence.’”
The Trump administration is justifying the U.S. attack by saying Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon was imminent, Mr. Goodman noted.
But “the law would require that the attack would be imminent,” he said, and “it is very hard to see how the administration can meet that test under even the most charitable legal assessment.”
Even if one were to focus on the question of a nuclear bomb, U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that Iran had not yet decided to make such a weapon, even though it had developed a large stockpile of the enriched uranium necessary for doing so.
How often have presidents sought congressional approval for war?
Image The furor over the sudden strikes also follows years of bipartisan efforts in Congress to try to place greater limits on a president’s ability to order military action, efforts that arose because of disastrous American wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. Credit… Eric Lee/The New York Times
In the decades since Congress declared war on Japan and Germany in 1941, U.S. presidents have repeatedly joined or started major conflicts without congressional consent.
President Harry S. Truman sent U.S. forces into Korea. President Ronald Reagan ordered military action in Libya, Grenada and Lebanon; President George H.W. Bush invaded Panama; President Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of mostly Serbian targets in Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War; President Barack Obama joined a 2011 NATO bombing campaign against the government of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya and led a military campaign against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.
Mr. Obama broke with this trend in September 2013 when he decided against launching a planned strike against Syria without first seeking congressional authorization. The strike was unpopular in Congress, which never held a vote, and Mr. Obama did not act.
President George W. Bush won separate congressional authorizations for the use of military force against Afghanistan and Iraq before ordering invasions of those countries in 2001 and 2003.
In the years since the Al Qaeda attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, several presidents have also ordered countless airstrikes and special operations raids on foreign soil to kill accused terrorists. Those have largely relied on broad interpretations of the two authorizations for the use of military force that Congress granted the executive branch for the so-called war on terror.
Emma Ashford, a scholar of U.S. foreign policy at the Stimson Center, said that in the post-9/11 wars, “some presidents have largely stopped asking permission at all.”
In January 2020, Mr. Trump chose not to consult Congress before ordering an airstrike that killed a senior Iranian military commander, Qassim Suleimani, while he was visiting Iraq. Many members of Congress called that a clear act of war that was likely to begin wider hostilities. Iran responded by firing 27 missiles at U.S. forces in Iraq, inflicting traumatic brain injuries on about 100 U.S. troops. But the conflict did not expand further.
Last year, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. ordered U.S. airstrikes against the Houthi militia in Yemen without getting congressional permission, and Mr. Trump did the same this year.
Advances in military technology, including drones and precision-guided munitions, have allowed presidents to take action with minimal initial risk to U.S. forces. Military officials say that Saturday’s strike in Iran, carried out by B-2 stealth bombers, encountered no resistance.
But critics say the action invites Iranian retaliation that could escalate into full-scale war.
What happens next
Image Advances in military technology, including drones and precision-guided munitions, have allowed presidents to take action with minimal initial risk to U.S. forces. Credit… Eric Lee for The New York Times
G.O.P. leaders in the House and Senate have signaled support for the strike, but Democrats and a few Republicans are demanding that Congress approve any further military action.
Mr. Kaine, who serves on the committees on armed services and foreign relations, introduced a Senate resolution last week requiring that Mr. Trump get explicit congressional approval before taking military action against Iran. Mr. Kaine on Sunday said the measure was still relevant and that he hoped it would come to a vote this week.
Mr. Massie, the Kentucky Republican, introduced a similar war powers resolution last week in the House with Ro Khanna, Democrat of California.
“When two countries are bombing each other daily in a hot war, and a third country joins the bombing, that’s an act of war,” Mr. Massie wrote on social media on Sunday.
Mr. Massie said he was “amazed at the mental gymnastics” Mr. Trump’s defenders have employed to argue the United States was not entering a war by attacking Iranian nuclear facilities.
Megan Mineiro contributed reporting.