[Hurlburt88]

Thanks Marty. Now I won’t be able to get the song out of my head.

BC

Dr. Demento. Circa 1980.  It took 44 years to get it done.

In thread-drift news Dr. Demento is retiring after 55 years.  My frosh roomate and I got t-shirts with the logo "Dr. Demento:  Stay Demented" back in the 80s.  And now back to very serious stuff . . .

[Hurlburt88]

Thanks Marty. Now I won’t be able to get the song out of my head.

BC

Dr. Demento. Circa 1980.  It took 44 years to get it done.

In thread-drift news Dr. Demento is retiring after 55 years.  My frosh roomate and I got t-shirts with the logo "Dr. Demento:  Stay Demented" back in the 80s.  And now back to very serious stuff . . .

[GK3]

Do you think Pakistan will continue to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize?

How do you do BDA on a facility 300 feet underground?

It seems that we already have a BDA: "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,"

It always seems to be sort of stupid to issue a statement like this when in fact real assessment will take some time.

[GK3]

Do you think Pakistan will continue to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize?

How do you do BDA on a facility 300 feet underground?

It seems that we already have a BDA: "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,"

It always seems to be sort of stupid to issue a statement like this when in fact real assessment will take some time.

[Goose]

I checked USGS’s earthquakes bigger than 2.5 an hour or two after the announcement and none were registered in Iran.

Quite possibly, the earthquake monitors are filtering out near-surface activity.

I’ve seen 1+ magnitude (depth of 0km) earthquakes registered in Santa Clara county mining ops clearly from man-made blasts. So I expected to see these bunker busters. 

I haven't seen a firm time of the bombing (I guess no one got invited to Signal!).  Trump posted his announcement at 7:46 EDT (Sat 23:46 UTC).

Looking at a list of earthquakes in the vicinity of Iran (> 1, apparently)
lat/long  day GMT  Mag  depth
(no earlier quakes on Sat GMT)
29.31N 53.07E Sat 20:08:11 GMT  2.5  5km
31.45N 57.13E Sat  23:47:59 GMT  2.6  8km
27.879 56.702 Sun 04:53:37 GMT 4.4  10km
27.800 56.790 Sun  05:05:19 GMT 3.0 10km
36.740 49.790  Sun 06:15:40 GMT  3.7  8km
32.23N 56.09E Sun 06:51:19 GMT 2.5  9km

Saturday was oddly quiet for Iran in terms of recorded earthquakes.  Hmmmm.....

For reference
Fordo: 34.2605° N, 50.9042° E
Natanz: 33.5074, 51.9137
Isfahan: 32.6539° N, 51.6660° E

Relevant article:  Identifying attacks in the Russia–Ukraine conflict using seismic array data

Very relevant article! Quite interesting work being done in the middle of a conflict. The sensor array available to the authors of the paper is undoubtedly much "better" than whatever could be directed against the MOP strikes in Iran, even if the "normal" arrays were augmented by a few sensors placed much closer to the target and "optimally" located to estimate its depth. OTOH the authors of the paper were trying to detect explosions that were much smaller than the MOP would produce. The paper outlined a methodology to estimate the time, location and explosive size of typical "military" weapons. The largest "weapon's grade" they considered "reasonable" was the 700 kg Iskander warhead. The explosive payload of the MOP was presumably about 2423 kg which means its "footprint" would be more like a mining explosion.
 
Estimating the dept of the MOP explosion is in some ways a much easier problem in that the location is known quite exactly. The actual time of detonation is not known exactly but is known well enough to eliminate the detection problems the authors of the paper had to solve. OTOH the goal of estimating the depth of the MOP explosion to adequate accuracy with a less-than-optimal array requires "good" precision. The MOP is supposedly rated to penetrate 60 m of earth before exploding. Knowing how deep it actually did go therefore would require real good resolution. Of course there may be clues in the actual seismic waveform that would separately reveal the collapse of a substantial interior void.

(Trump said more than just that the attack was a "big success".  He said
"Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated."
I doubt he has the information to make such a claim.)

Totally agree. At that point in time no "good" BDA could have been available. At that point all we would know was that the bombs hit the correct geographic position and the aircraft made it out without loss. The military effectiveness could not yet have been know. I suspect that as of 8:23 AM PDT that question still lacks a complete answer.

[Goose]

I checked USGS’s earthquakes bigger than 2.5 an hour or two after the announcement and none were registered in Iran.

Quite possibly, the earthquake monitors are filtering out near-surface activity.

I’ve seen 1+ magnitude (depth of 0km) earthquakes registered in Santa Clara county mining ops clearly from man-made blasts. So I expected to see these bunker busters. 

I haven't seen a firm time of the bombing (I guess no one got invited to Signal!).  Trump posted his announcement at 7:46 EDT (Sat 23:46 UTC).

Looking at a list of earthquakes in the vicinity of Iran (> 1, apparently)
lat/long  day GMT  Mag  depth
(no earlier quakes on Sat GMT)
29.31N 53.07E Sat 20:08:11 GMT  2.5  5km
31.45N 57.13E Sat  23:47:59 GMT  2.6  8km
27.879 56.702 Sun 04:53:37 GMT 4.4  10km
27.800 56.790 Sun  05:05:19 GMT 3.0 10km
36.740 49.790  Sun 06:15:40 GMT  3.7  8km
32.23N 56.09E Sun 06:51:19 GMT 2.5  9km

Saturday was oddly quiet for Iran in terms of recorded earthquakes.  Hmmmm.....

For reference
Fordo: 34.2605° N, 50.9042° E
Natanz: 33.5074, 51.9137
Isfahan: 32.6539° N, 51.6660° E

Relevant article:  Identifying attacks in the Russia–Ukraine conflict using seismic array data

Very relevant article! Quite interesting work being done in the middle of a conflict. The sensor array available to the authors of the paper is undoubtedly much "better" than whatever could be directed against the MOP strikes in Iran, even if the "normal" arrays were augmented by a few sensors placed much closer to the target and "optimally" located to estimate its depth. OTOH the authors of the paper were trying to detect explosions that were much smaller than the MOP would produce. The paper outlined a methodology to estimate the time, location and explosive size of typical "military" weapons. The largest "weapon's grade" they considered "reasonable" was the 700 kg Iskander warhead. The explosive payload of the MOP was presumably about 2423 kg which means its "footprint" would be more like a mining explosion.
 
Estimating the dept of the MOP explosion is in some ways a much easier problem in that the location is known quite exactly. The actual time of detonation is not known exactly but is known well enough to eliminate the detection problems the authors of the paper had to solve. OTOH the goal of estimating the depth of the MOP explosion to adequate accuracy with a less-than-optimal array requires "good" precision. The MOP is supposedly rated to penetrate 60 m of earth before exploding. Knowing how deep it actually did go therefore would require real good resolution. Of course there may be clues in the actual seismic waveform that would separately reveal the collapse of a substantial interior void.

(Trump said more than just that the attack was a "big success".  He said
"Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated."
I doubt he has the information to make such a claim.)

Totally agree. At that point in time no "good" BDA could have been available. At that point all we would know was that the bombs hit the correct geographic position and the aircraft made it out without loss. The military effectiveness could not yet have been know. I suspect that as of 8:23 AM PDT that question still lacks a complete answer.

[dabigv13]

Hmmmmmmm

"Separately, a senior U.S. official who asked for anonymity acknowledged that the B-2 attack on the Fordo site did not destroy the heavily fortified facility but severely damaged it."

https://x.com/shashj/status/1936789874100617380

Iran said right after the strikes that they had dispersed nuclear material at Fordow before the strike.

[dabigv13]

Hmmmmmmm

"Separately, a senior U.S. official who asked for anonymity acknowledged that the B-2 attack on the Fordo site did not destroy the heavily fortified facility but severely damaged it."

https://x.com/shashj/status/1936789874100617380

Iran said right after the strikes that they had dispersed nuclear material at Fordow before the strike.

[MV72018]

I checked USGS’s earthquakes bigger than 2.5 an hour or two after the announcement and none were registered in Iran.

Quite possibly, the earthquake monitors are filtering out near-surface activity.

I’ve seen 1+ magnitude (depth of 0km) earthquakes registered in Santa Clara county mining ops clearly from man-made blasts. So I expected to see these bunker busters. 

I haven't seen a firm time of the bombing (I guess no one got invited to Signal!).  Trump posted his announcement at 7:46 EDT (Sat 23:46 UTC).

Looking at a list of earthquakes in the vicinity of Iran (> 1, apparently)
lat/long  day GMT  Mag  depth
(no earlier quakes on Sat GMT)
29.31N 53.07E Sat 20:08:11 GMT  2.5  5km
31.45N 57.13E Sat  23:47:59 GMT  2.6  8km
27.879 56.702 Sun 04:53:37 GMT 4.4  10km
27.800 56.790 Sun  05:05:19 GMT 3.0 10km
36.740 49.790  Sun 06:15:40 GMT  3.7  8km
32.23N 56.09E Sun 06:51:19 GMT 2.5  9km

Saturday was oddly quiet for Iran in terms of recorded earthquakes.  Hmmmm.....

For reference
Fordo: 34.2605° N, 50.9042° E
Natanz: 33.5074, 51.9137
Isfahan: 32.6539° N, 51.6660° E

Relevant article:  Identifying attacks in the Russia–Ukraine conflict using seismic array data

Very relevant article! Quite interesting work being done in the middle of a conflict. The sensor array available to the authors of the paper is undoubtedly much "better" than whatever could be directed against the MOP strikes in Iran, even if the "normal" arrays were augmented by a few sensors placed much closer to the target and "optimally" located to estimate its depth. OTOH the authors of the paper were trying to detect explosions that were much smaller than the MOP would produce. The paper outlined a methodology to estimate the time, location and explosive size of typical "military" weapons. The largest "weapon's grade" they considered "reasonable" was the 700 kg Iskander warhead. The explosive payload of the MOP was presumably about 2423 kg which means its "footprint" would be more like a mining explosion.
 
Estimating the dept of the MOP explosion is in some ways a much easier problem in that the location is known quite exactly. The actual time of detonation is not known exactly but is known well enough to eliminate the detection problems the authors of the paper had to solve. OTOH the goal of estimating the depth of the MOP explosion to adequate accuracy with a less-than-optimal array requires "good" precision. The MOP is supposedly rated to penetrate 60 m of earth before exploding. Knowing how deep it actually did go therefore would require real good resolution. Of course there may be clues in the actual seismic waveform that would separately reveal the collapse of a substantial interior void.

(Trump said more than just that the attack was a "big success".  He said
"Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated."
I doubt he has the information to make such a claim.)

Totally agree. At that point in time no "good" BDA could have been available. At that point all we would know was that the bombs hit the correct geographic position and the aircraft made it out without loss. The military effectiveness could not yet have been know. I suspect that as of 8:23 AM PDT that question still lacks a complete answer.

Trump lied (about the success of the bombings)? I'm shocked!

[MV72018]

I checked USGS’s earthquakes bigger than 2.5 an hour or two after the announcement and none were registered in Iran.

Quite possibly, the earthquake monitors are filtering out near-surface activity.

I’ve seen 1+ magnitude (depth of 0km) earthquakes registered in Santa Clara county mining ops clearly from man-made blasts. So I expected to see these bunker busters. 

I haven't seen a firm time of the bombing (I guess no one got invited to Signal!).  Trump posted his announcement at 7:46 EDT (Sat 23:46 UTC).

Looking at a list of earthquakes in the vicinity of Iran (> 1, apparently)
lat/long  day GMT  Mag  depth
(no earlier quakes on Sat GMT)
29.31N 53.07E Sat 20:08:11 GMT  2.5  5km
31.45N 57.13E Sat  23:47:59 GMT  2.6  8km
27.879 56.702 Sun 04:53:37 GMT 4.4  10km
27.800 56.790 Sun  05:05:19 GMT 3.0 10km
36.740 49.790  Sun 06:15:40 GMT  3.7  8km
32.23N 56.09E Sun 06:51:19 GMT 2.5  9km

Saturday was oddly quiet for Iran in terms of recorded earthquakes.  Hmmmm.....

For reference
Fordo: 34.2605° N, 50.9042° E
Natanz: 33.5074, 51.9137
Isfahan: 32.6539° N, 51.6660° E

Relevant article:  Identifying attacks in the Russia–Ukraine conflict using seismic array data

Very relevant article! Quite interesting work being done in the middle of a conflict. The sensor array available to the authors of the paper is undoubtedly much "better" than whatever could be directed against the MOP strikes in Iran, even if the "normal" arrays were augmented by a few sensors placed much closer to the target and "optimally" located to estimate its depth. OTOH the authors of the paper were trying to detect explosions that were much smaller than the MOP would produce. The paper outlined a methodology to estimate the time, location and explosive size of typical "military" weapons. The largest "weapon's grade" they considered "reasonable" was the 700 kg Iskander warhead. The explosive payload of the MOP was presumably about 2423 kg which means its "footprint" would be more like a mining explosion.
 
Estimating the dept of the MOP explosion is in some ways a much easier problem in that the location is known quite exactly. The actual time of detonation is not known exactly but is known well enough to eliminate the detection problems the authors of the paper had to solve. OTOH the goal of estimating the depth of the MOP explosion to adequate accuracy with a less-than-optimal array requires "good" precision. The MOP is supposedly rated to penetrate 60 m of earth before exploding. Knowing how deep it actually did go therefore would require real good resolution. Of course there may be clues in the actual seismic waveform that would separately reveal the collapse of a substantial interior void.

(Trump said more than just that the attack was a "big success".  He said
"Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated."
I doubt he has the information to make such a claim.)

Totally agree. At that point in time no "good" BDA could have been available. At that point all we would know was that the bombs hit the correct geographic position and the aircraft made it out without loss. The military effectiveness could not yet have been know. I suspect that as of 8:23 AM PDT that question still lacks a complete answer.

Trump lied (about the success of the bombings)? I'm shocked!

[M T]

Hmmmmmmm

"Separately, a senior U.S. official who asked for anonymity acknowledged that the B-2 attack on the Fordo site did not destroy the heavily fortified facility but severely damaged it."

https://x.com/shashj/status/1936789874100617380

Iran said right after the strikes that they had dispersed nuclear material at Fordow before the strike.

All sides knew that the storage of nuclear material would not be at the site where it could be refined.  The bombing was intended to destroy/severely damage the refining facility, not the nuclear material. 

The optimum damage would be the collapse of the underground chambers. Next best would be to damage the rock structure so as to make it too unstable to use the facility. Much less good would be to destroy all tunnels and shafts  so they are unusable and new ones must be made. 

In this case, BDA might be made by dropping seismometers around the facility and then dropping a bomb or two near it to get good views of the seismic reflections. 
(I wouldn’t know if such an array of seismometers waa not in place before the big bombs struck. I would think including such an array as being dropped minutes before the bomb would be a worthwhile addition to the payload)


However, even if the bunker busters were able to collapse the facility at 100m, wouldn’t a new  facility be constructed 400m below ground?

[M T]

Hmmmmmmm

"Separately, a senior U.S. official who asked for anonymity acknowledged that the B-2 attack on the Fordo site did not destroy the heavily fortified facility but severely damaged it."

https://x.com/shashj/status/1936789874100617380

Iran said right after the strikes that they had dispersed nuclear material at Fordow before the strike.

All sides knew that the storage of nuclear material would not be at the site where it could be refined.  The bombing was intended to destroy/severely damage the refining facility, not the nuclear material. 

The optimum damage would be the collapse of the underground chambers. Next best would be to damage the rock structure so as to make it too unstable to use the facility. Much less good would be to destroy all tunnels and shafts  so they are unusable and new ones must be made. 

In this case, BDA might be made by dropping seismometers around the facility and then dropping a bomb or two near it to get good views of the seismic reflections. 
(I wouldn’t know if such an array of seismometers waa not in place before the big bombs struck. I would think including such an array as being dropped minutes before the bomb would be a worthwhile addition to the payload)


However, even if the bunker busters were able to collapse the facility at 100m, wouldn’t a new  facility be constructed 400m below ground?

[BostonCard]

Not surprisingly, perhaps, but smart people have derived an empiric formula for how deep a bomb penetrates ground based on its mass, cross sectional area and the type of material it is penetrating.

https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1936389270341582959

BC

[BostonCard]

Not surprisingly, perhaps, but smart people have derived an empiric formula for how deep a bomb penetrates ground based on its mass, cross sectional area and the type of material it is penetrating.

https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1936389270341582959

BC

[gocard14]

Hmmmmmmm

"Separately, a senior U.S. official who asked for anonymity acknowledged that the B-2 attack on the Fordo site did not destroy the heavily fortified facility but severely damaged it."

https://x.com/shashj/status/1936789874100617380

Iran said right after the strikes that they had dispersed nuclear material at Fordow before the strike.

All sides knew that the storage of nuclear material would not be at the site where it could be refined.  The bombing was intended to destroy/severely damage the refining facility, not the nuclear material. 

The optimum damage would be the collapse of the underground chambers. Next best would be to damage the rock structure so as to make it too unstable to use the facility. Much less good would be to destroy all tunnels and shafts  so they are unusable and new ones must be made. 

In this case, BDA might be made by dropping seismometers around the facility and then dropping a bomb or two near it to get good views of the seismic reflections. 
(I wouldn’t know if such an array of seismometers waa not in place before the big bombs struck.  I would think including such an array as being dropped minutes before the bomb would be a worthwhile addition to the payload)


However, even if the bunker busters were able to collapse the facility at 100m, wouldn’t a new  facility be constructed 400m below ground?

Even if seismically feasible (that's a lot of weight on your roof), there's a lot to be said about dealing with the problem in front of you. Sure they can dig deeper next time. That just bought you 10 years of construction and billions in expense. Maybe by that time we're sending micro-drones down the air vents instead of bunker busters. You're also only as vulnerable as your entrance/exit routes.

[gocard14]

Hmmmmmmm

"Separately, a senior U.S. official who asked for anonymity acknowledged that the B-2 attack on the Fordo site did not destroy the heavily fortified facility but severely damaged it."

https://x.com/shashj/status/1936789874100617380

Iran said right after the strikes that they had dispersed nuclear material at Fordow before the strike.

All sides knew that the storage of nuclear material would not be at the site where it could be refined.  The bombing was intended to destroy/severely damage the refining facility, not the nuclear material. 

The optimum damage would be the collapse of the underground chambers. Next best would be to damage the rock structure so as to make it too unstable to use the facility. Much less good would be to destroy all tunnels and shafts  so they are unusable and new ones must be made. 

In this case, BDA might be made by dropping seismometers around the facility and then dropping a bomb or two near it to get good views of the seismic reflections. 
(I wouldn’t know if such an array of seismometers waa not in place before the big bombs struck.  I would think including such an array as being dropped minutes before the bomb would be a worthwhile addition to the payload)


However, even if the bunker busters were able to collapse the facility at 100m, wouldn’t a new  facility be constructed 400m below ground?

Even if seismically feasible (that's a lot of weight on your roof), there's a lot to be said about dealing with the problem in front of you. Sure they can dig deeper next time. That just bought you 10 years of construction and billions in expense. Maybe by that time we're sending micro-drones down the air vents instead of bunker busters. You're also only as vulnerable as your entrance/exit routes.

[GK3]

Hmmmmmmm

"Separately, a senior U.S. official who asked for anonymity acknowledged that the B-2 attack on the Fordo site did not destroy the heavily fortified facility but severely damaged it."

https://x.com/shashj/status/1936789874100617380

Iran said right after the strikes that they had dispersed nuclear material at Fordow before the strike.

All sides knew that the storage of nuclear material would not be at the site where it could be refined.  The bombing was intended to destroy/severely damage the refining facility, not the nuclear material. 

The optimum damage would be the collapse of the underground chambers. Next best would be to damage the rock structure so as to make it too unstable to use the facility. Much less good would be to destroy all tunnels and shafts  so they are unusable and new ones must be made. 

In this case, BDA might be made by dropping seismometers around the facility and then dropping a bomb or two near it to get good views of the seismic reflections. 
(I wouldn’t know if such an array of seismometers waa not in place before the big bombs struck.  I would think including such an array as being dropped minutes before the bomb would be a worthwhile addition to the payload)


However, even if the bunker busters were able to collapse the facility at 100m, wouldn’t a new  facility be constructed 400m below ground?

Even if seismically feasible (that's a lot of weight on your roof), there's a lot to be said about dealing with the problem in front of you. Sure they can dig deeper next time. That just bought you 10 years of construction and billions in expense. Maybe by that time we're sending micro-drones down the air vents instead of bunker busters. You're also only as vulnerable as your entrance/exit routes.

This ISW article contains some food for thought.

Saber rattling by the Russians with a rather far out claim that several countries are prepared to directly supply Iran with Nucs.  Who would they be?
The obvious candidates would be Russia, China, Pakistan, India and North Korea. I would think only NK would be crazy enough to do that.

Another question, does Iran have ability to permanently shut down the Strait of Hormuz?  Doing that might get them even more attacks which I wonder they could even survive.

[GK3]

Hmmmmmmm

"Separately, a senior U.S. official who asked for anonymity acknowledged that the B-2 attack on the Fordo site did not destroy the heavily fortified facility but severely damaged it."

https://x.com/shashj/status/1936789874100617380

Iran said right after the strikes that they had dispersed nuclear material at Fordow before the strike.

All sides knew that the storage of nuclear material would not be at the site where it could be refined.  The bombing was intended to destroy/severely damage the refining facility, not the nuclear material. 

The optimum damage would be the collapse of the underground chambers. Next best would be to damage the rock structure so as to make it too unstable to use the facility. Much less good would be to destroy all tunnels and shafts  so they are unusable and new ones must be made. 

In this case, BDA might be made by dropping seismometers around the facility and then dropping a bomb or two near it to get good views of the seismic reflections. 
(I wouldn’t know if such an array of seismometers waa not in place before the big bombs struck.  I would think including such an array as being dropped minutes before the bomb would be a worthwhile addition to the payload)


However, even if the bunker busters were able to collapse the facility at 100m, wouldn’t a new  facility be constructed 400m below ground?

Even if seismically feasible (that's a lot of weight on your roof), there's a lot to be said about dealing with the problem in front of you. Sure they can dig deeper next time. That just bought you 10 years of construction and billions in expense. Maybe by that time we're sending micro-drones down the air vents instead of bunker busters. You're also only as vulnerable as your entrance/exit routes.

This ISW article contains some food for thought.

Saber rattling by the Russians with a rather far out claim that several countries are prepared to directly supply Iran with Nucs.  Who would they be?
The obvious candidates would be Russia, China, Pakistan, India and North Korea. I would think only NK would be crazy enough to do that.

Another question, does Iran have ability to permanently shut down the Strait of Hormuz?  Doing that might get them even more attacks which I wonder they could even survive.

[Goose]

This ISW article contains some food for thought.

Saber rattling by the Russians with a rather far out claim that several countries are prepared to directly supply Iran with Nucs.  Who would they be?
The obvious candidates would be Russia, China, Pakistan, India and North Korea. I would think only NK would be crazy enough to do that.

Indeed it seems improbable that even North Korea would do that. If any of these countries wanted to arm Iran with nuclear weapons they could have already done so. Nothing that has happened recently changes the arguments for and against doing so, except perhaps now Iran is even less capable of delivering a quid pro quo.

Another question, does Iran have ability to permanently shut down the Strait of Hormuz?  Doing that might get them even more attacks which I wonder they could even survive.

In this case permanence is relative :-). The merchant ships (oil and LNG tankers) that transit the Strait of Hormuz have a low risk tolerance. Iran has all kinds of missiles that can be fired from many places inside Iran and reach the Straits of Hormuz. These are the same missiles the Houthis uses plus even more advanced longer range types. After all, the Houthis get their missiles from Iran. The Strait of Hormuz is even narrower than the Red Sea. Ships have much less room to maneuver and are therefore very vulnerable in those confined waters. Iran can also mine the straits (as the previously have done). In theory they could also use surface ships and aircraft to stop traffic in the Straits of Hormuz, but I doubt they have enough capability to make it worthwhile trying.

Iran however has the problem that their tankers from Bandar Abbas and Kharg Island have to pass through these same straits. This traffic is over 90% of Iran's oil exports. The US certainly wouldn't let that happen if Iran was closing the straits to others. The US would also then start bombing missile launching sites (and various other things) in Iran. Eventually Iran will be unable to threaten missile damage on ships using the straits. How long that will take and how many casualties will be inflicted on both sides would be TBD.
 
Iran also exports oil from a facility at Jask, which is "past" the Strait of Hormuz. That won't help them much. The US would simply bomb it and end its functionality. It is also actually pretty much in the same area so the carriers wouldn't have to redeploy to interdict it.

[Goose]

This ISW article contains some food for thought.

Saber rattling by the Russians with a rather far out claim that several countries are prepared to directly supply Iran with Nucs.  Who would they be?
The obvious candidates would be Russia, China, Pakistan, India and North Korea. I would think only NK would be crazy enough to do that.

Indeed it seems improbable that even North Korea would do that. If any of these countries wanted to arm Iran with nuclear weapons they could have already done so. Nothing that has happened recently changes the arguments for and against doing so, except perhaps now Iran is even less capable of delivering a quid pro quo.

Another question, does Iran have ability to permanently shut down the Strait of Hormuz?  Doing that might get them even more attacks which I wonder they could even survive.

In this case permanence is relative :-). The merchant ships (oil and LNG tankers) that transit the Strait of Hormuz have a low risk tolerance. Iran has all kinds of missiles that can be fired from many places inside Iran and reach the Straits of Hormuz. These are the same missiles the Houthis uses plus even more advanced longer range types. After all, the Houthis get their missiles from Iran. The Strait of Hormuz is even narrower than the Red Sea. Ships have much less room to maneuver and are therefore very vulnerable in those confined waters. Iran can also mine the straits (as the previously have done). In theory they could also use surface ships and aircraft to stop traffic in the Straits of Hormuz, but I doubt they have enough capability to make it worthwhile trying.

Iran however has the problem that their tankers from Bandar Abbas and Kharg Island have to pass through these same straits. This traffic is over 90% of Iran's oil exports. The US certainly wouldn't let that happen if Iran was closing the straits to others. The US would also then start bombing missile launching sites (and various other things) in Iran. Eventually Iran will be unable to threaten missile damage on ships using the straits. How long that will take and how many casualties will be inflicted on both sides would be TBD.
 
Iran also exports oil from a facility at Jask, which is "past" the Strait of Hormuz. That won't help them much. The US would simply bomb it and end its functionality. It is also actually pretty much in the same area so the carriers wouldn't have to redeploy to interdict it.

[dabigv13]

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/22/nx-s1-544...xperts-say

U.S. officials say that strikes conducted on three key Iranian nuclear sites have devastated its nuclear program, but independent experts analyzing commercial satellite imagery say the nation's long-running nuclear enterprise is far from destroyed.

"At the end of the day there are some really important things that haven't been hit," says Jeffrey Lewis, a professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, who tracks Iran's nuclear facilities. "If this ends here, it's a really incomplete strike."
.....
But as evidence that the strikes may have missed the uranium stocks, both Albright and Lewis point to commercial satellite imagery from the days before the strike. The images show trucks at two key sites — Isfahan and Fordo. The trucks appear to be sealing tunnels that serve as entrances to underground facilities used to store uranium, possibly in anticipation of an American attack.
.....
Although Albright believes the program has been substantially set back, he thinks it could still be reconstituted.

Albright says Iran may also have thousands of uranium-enriching centrifuges that were never installed in Natanz and Fordo. It might be possible to move the uranium to another, covert facility, where it could be enriched to the required 90% for a nuclear weapon in a relatively short period of time. Even then, Iran would have to take further steps to fashion the uranium into a weapon.

More from Jeffery Lewis here..

https://bsky.app/profile/armscontrolwonk...ageddlpk2l

The 400 kg of HEU was largely stored in underground tunnels near the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility. Despite extensive Israeli and US attacks the facility, there does not seem to have been any effort to destroy these tunnels or the material that was in them.
.......
No one even knows where the HEU is now! IAEA DG Grossi says Iran moved it. Lil' Marco Rubio says nothing can move in Iran. But trucks are moving in Iran. Trucks and heavy equipment showed up at least two days ago to seal the tunnels to protect them. @planetlabs.bsky.social took a picture.
.....
Trucks also showed up at the Fordow FEP the day before the strike, possibly to relocate sensitive equipment, and certainly to cover those entrances with dirt. Iran just isn't a no-drive zone at the moment.

[dabigv13]

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/22/nx-s1-544...xperts-say

U.S. officials say that strikes conducted on three key Iranian nuclear sites have devastated its nuclear program, but independent experts analyzing commercial satellite imagery say the nation's long-running nuclear enterprise is far from destroyed.

"At the end of the day there are some really important things that haven't been hit," says Jeffrey Lewis, a professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, who tracks Iran's nuclear facilities. "If this ends here, it's a really incomplete strike."
.....
But as evidence that the strikes may have missed the uranium stocks, both Albright and Lewis point to commercial satellite imagery from the days before the strike. The images show trucks at two key sites — Isfahan and Fordo. The trucks appear to be sealing tunnels that serve as entrances to underground facilities used to store uranium, possibly in anticipation of an American attack.
.....
Although Albright believes the program has been substantially set back, he thinks it could still be reconstituted.

Albright says Iran may also have thousands of uranium-enriching centrifuges that were never installed in Natanz and Fordo. It might be possible to move the uranium to another, covert facility, where it could be enriched to the required 90% for a nuclear weapon in a relatively short period of time. Even then, Iran would have to take further steps to fashion the uranium into a weapon.

More from Jeffery Lewis here..

https://bsky.app/profile/armscontrolwonk...ageddlpk2l

The 400 kg of HEU was largely stored in underground tunnels near the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility. Despite extensive Israeli and US attacks the facility, there does not seem to have been any effort to destroy these tunnels or the material that was in them.
.......
No one even knows where the HEU is now! IAEA DG Grossi says Iran moved it. Lil' Marco Rubio says nothing can move in Iran. But trucks are moving in Iran. Trucks and heavy equipment showed up at least two days ago to seal the tunnels to protect them. @planetlabs.bsky.social took a picture.
.....
Trucks also showed up at the Fordow FEP the day before the strike, possibly to relocate sensitive equipment, and certainly to cover those entrances with dirt. Iran just isn't a no-drive zone at the moment.

[fullmetal]

There are rumors that the US informed Russia of the strikes ahead of time and that Russia informed Iran.

[fullmetal]

There are rumors that the US informed Russia of the strikes ahead of time and that Russia informed Iran.

[Goose]

There are rumors that the US informed Russia of the strikes ahead of time and that Russia informed Iran.

I am not surprised that the US would inform Russia of the strikes. Iran is very close to Russian territory. Informing Russia that B-2s would be operating against Iran would hopefully ensure that if Russia detected the bombers it would not assume it was a US strike directed at Russia. To what extent Russia would be able to detect the B-2s is unknown (by me anyway), but given their attempts at bi-static UHF radar it is probable they have some capability.
 
As far as Russia "informing" Iran, if it happened I would put it under the category of stating the obvious. Iran had to assume the US was going to attack these nuclear sites and been on "full alert" until it became clear we weren't going to do it. The administration's "within the next two weeks" for the "decision" would have meant exactly nothing to the Iranians. Iran could do nothing about the strike itself however, so knowing it was imminent would be of almost zero utility to them.
 
I find it somewhat amusing that the pundits are giving the administration all kinds of "credit" for a deception campaign to confuse the Iranians. The only people being deceived was the US and European public. Operationally Iran had to know that such a strike was possible at any time. There wouldn't necessarily have been an "announcement" preceding it. Furthermore Iran certainly didn't know the location of every one of our 19 B-2s with any accuracy. Give that, a strike could be executed at any time and Iran had to "be prepared" under that assumption. It appears they took what preparatory steps they could well before the strike was launched. After doing that, there was little more Iran could do. They so far apparently have shot down no Israeli planes, gen 4 or gen 5. They had nothing flying that could threaten a B-2. When the strike did arrive, I am sure was not at all "surprised".

[Goose]

There are rumors that the US informed Russia of the strikes ahead of time and that Russia informed Iran.

I am not surprised that the US would inform Russia of the strikes. Iran is very close to Russian territory. Informing Russia that B-2s would be operating against Iran would hopefully ensure that if Russia detected the bombers it would not assume it was a US strike directed at Russia. To what extent Russia would be able to detect the B-2s is unknown (by me anyway), but given their attempts at bi-static UHF radar it is probable they have some capability.
 
As far as Russia "informing" Iran, if it happened I would put it under the category of stating the obvious. Iran had to assume the US was going to attack these nuclear sites and been on "full alert" until it became clear we weren't going to do it. The administration's "within the next two weeks" for the "decision" would have meant exactly nothing to the Iranians. Iran could do nothing about the strike itself however, so knowing it was imminent would be of almost zero utility to them.
 
I find it somewhat amusing that the pundits are giving the administration all kinds of "credit" for a deception campaign to confuse the Iranians. The only people being deceived was the US and European public. Operationally Iran had to know that such a strike was possible at any time. There wouldn't necessarily have been an "announcement" preceding it. Furthermore Iran certainly didn't know the location of every one of our 19 B-2s with any accuracy. Give that, a strike could be executed at any time and Iran had to "be prepared" under that assumption. It appears they took what preparatory steps they could well before the strike was launched. After doing that, there was little more Iran could do. They so far apparently have shot down no Israeli planes, gen 4 or gen 5. They had nothing flying that could threaten a B-2. When the strike did arrive, I am sure was not at all "surprised".

[BostonCard]

1750109085[/url]']

1750108023[/url]']
https://x.com/markito0171/status/1934707887370281142

Many prisoners or inpatient drug rehab patients have escaped a facility in Western Iran. Claims of both online, nothing very reliable I have seen yet.

I wonder if Israel will enable a jailbreak from Evin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evin_Prison

BC

Called it.

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/iran-is...pCUxRf1jqd

BC

[BostonCard]

1750109085[/url]']

1750108023[/url]']
https://x.com/markito0171/status/1934707887370281142

Many prisoners or inpatient drug rehab patients have escaped a facility in Western Iran. Claims of both online, nothing very reliable I have seen yet.

I wonder if Israel will enable a jailbreak from Evin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evin_Prison

BC

Called it.

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/iran-is...pCUxRf1jqd

BC

[Goose]

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/23/...93c37a624b

Well, so much for the idea Iran would not strike bases in Islamic countries across the Persian Gulf. However, the strike was quite small, almost as if it was a pro-forma attack (optimistic view) or an initial strike to identify defensive capabilities (pessimistic view). Qatar is loudly protesting, among other things, the violation of their air space by Iran.

Somewhat surprisingly (to me anyway) is that the US cavalierly violated the airspace of Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. As far as I know the US did not ask for and obtain permission from any of these nations. In theory, the US is at peace with all of them. At least Lebanon and Iraq could be classified as "friendly" states with Syria a bit TBD. In the past the US would violate the airspace of "hostile" states when it was "convenient".  We did however refrain from violating the airspace of "friendly" nations who would not give us their permission to cross their territory. In some cases this was quite inconvenient.
 
This violation of friendly nation air space could have been avoided by approaching from the IO, which was absolutely possible and only marginally more difficult. There may be problems with the terms of the lease (from the UK) of Diego Garcia that would have required UK permission, but certainly the US has used Diego Garcia for similar offensive actions before. Our choice to ignore friends sovereignty when we could avoid doing so IMO is a very bad look. Just because Israel does it doesn't mean that should become US policy. Their situation is quite different from that of the US. It appears the administration thinks it should be our policy.

[Goose]

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/23/...93c37a624b

Well, so much for the idea Iran would not strike bases in Islamic countries across the Persian Gulf. However, the strike was quite small, almost as if it was a pro-forma attack (optimistic view) or an initial strike to identify defensive capabilities (pessimistic view). Qatar is loudly protesting, among other things, the violation of their air space by Iran.

Somewhat surprisingly (to me anyway) is that the US cavalierly violated the airspace of Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. As far as I know the US did not ask for and obtain permission from any of these nations. In theory, the US is at peace with all of them. At least Lebanon and Iraq could be classified as "friendly" states with Syria a bit TBD. In the past the US would violate the airspace of "hostile" states when it was "convenient".  We did however refrain from violating the airspace of "friendly" nations who would not give us their permission to cross their territory. In some cases this was quite inconvenient.
 
This violation of friendly nation air space could have been avoided by approaching from the IO, which was absolutely possible and only marginally more difficult. There may be problems with the terms of the lease (from the UK) of Diego Garcia that would have required UK permission, but certainly the US has used Diego Garcia for similar offensive actions before. Our choice to ignore friends sovereignty when we could avoid doing so IMO is a very bad look. Just because Israel does it doesn't mean that should become US policy. Their situation is quite different from that of the US. It appears the administration thinks it should be our policy.

[BostonCard]

Yeah, when the B2's headed west, that's what I thought they were planning on doing.  That's why I think reports that this was a big diversion was a bit too clever by half.  While flying east from the base is shorter than flying west, generally flying west can be done without infringing on anyone's sovereignty by flying over the Pacific and Indian oceans.  Flying east necessarily involved going over land somewhere.  So my conclusion when I heard that the B2's were flying west from the base is that they were either being positioned for or going in on a bombing run.

BC

[BostonCard]

Yeah, when the B2's headed west, that's what I thought they were planning on doing.  That's why I think reports that this was a big diversion was a bit too clever by half.  While flying east from the base is shorter than flying west, generally flying west can be done without infringing on anyone's sovereignty by flying over the Pacific and Indian oceans.  Flying east necessarily involved going over land somewhere.  So my conclusion when I heard that the B2's were flying west from the base is that they were either being positioned for or going in on a bombing run.

BC

[GK3]

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/23/...93c37a624b

Well, so much for the idea Iran would not strike bases in Islamic countries across the Persian Gulf. However, the strike was quite small, almost as if it was a pro-forma attack (optimistic view) or an initial strike to identify defensive capabilities (pessimistic view). Qatar is loudly protesting, among other things, the violation of their air space by Iran.

Somewhat surprisingly (to me anyway) is that the US cavalierly violated the airspace of Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. As far as I know the US did not ask for and obtain permission from any of these nations. In theory, the US is at peace with all of them. At least Lebanon and Iraq could be classified as "friendly" states with Syria a bit TBD. In the past the US would violate the airspace of "hostile" states when it was "convenient".  We did however refrain from violating the airspace of "friendly" nations who would not give us their permission to cross their territory. In some cases this was quite inconvenient.
 
This violation of friendly nation air space could have been avoided by approaching from the IO, which was absolutely possible and only marginally more difficult. There may be problems with the terms of the lease (from the UK) of Diego Garcia that would have required UK permission, but certainly the US has used Diego Garcia for similar offensive actions before. Our choice to ignore friends sovereignty when we could avoid doing so IMO is a very bad look. Just because Israel does it doesn't mean that should become US policy. Their situation is quite different from that of the US. It appears the administration thinks it should be our policy.

None of this is that surprising from my view point.  I don't see anyway that the Iranian government could do absolutely nothing after our attack  They can now at least tell their people they "tried".
The fact that we ignored obvious channels of communications with our "friends" and "allies" is not surprising considering how our we have been operating.  Sometimes it would seem to pay to keep your allies in the loop even when you don't need to that.

I also fail to see why we didn't take out all possible targets, or at least try.  It seems we have ignored some that seem we should have hit.

[GK3]

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/23/...93c37a624b

Well, so much for the idea Iran would not strike bases in Islamic countries across the Persian Gulf. However, the strike was quite small, almost as if it was a pro-forma attack (optimistic view) or an initial strike to identify defensive capabilities (pessimistic view). Qatar is loudly protesting, among other things, the violation of their air space by Iran.

Somewhat surprisingly (to me anyway) is that the US cavalierly violated the airspace of Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. As far as I know the US did not ask for and obtain permission from any of these nations. In theory, the US is at peace with all of them. At least Lebanon and Iraq could be classified as "friendly" states with Syria a bit TBD. In the past the US would violate the airspace of "hostile" states when it was "convenient".  We did however refrain from violating the airspace of "friendly" nations who would not give us their permission to cross their territory. In some cases this was quite inconvenient.
 
This violation of friendly nation air space could have been avoided by approaching from the IO, which was absolutely possible and only marginally more difficult. There may be problems with the terms of the lease (from the UK) of Diego Garcia that would have required UK permission, but certainly the US has used Diego Garcia for similar offensive actions before. Our choice to ignore friends sovereignty when we could avoid doing so IMO is a very bad look. Just because Israel does it doesn't mean that should become US policy. Their situation is quite different from that of the US. It appears the administration thinks it should be our policy.

None of this is that surprising from my view point.  I don't see anyway that the Iranian government could do absolutely nothing after our attack  They can now at least tell their people they "tried".
The fact that we ignored obvious channels of communications with our "friends" and "allies" is not surprising considering how our we have been operating.  Sometimes it would seem to pay to keep your allies in the loop even when you don't need to that.

I also fail to see why we didn't take out all possible targets, or at least try.  It seems we have ignored some that seem we should have hit.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-announc...00775.html

In so far as this turns out to be "real" it is great news. I myself am a bit of a skeptic. It may be possible to arrange a ceasefire but IMO arranging a "peace" agreement between Israel and Iran is going to be another thing entirely. Iran absolutely insists that it must be allowed to enrich uranium, allegedly for peaceful purposes. Israel is literally dead set against allowing Iran to do so. The US administration has vacillated between the two, but at last count we were in agreement with Israel. I see no way to square that circle. Even if the leadership of the two countries could reach a compromise, neither will do so because of the effect it would have on domestic politics. Since Iran is a dictatorship, maybe it could give in and survive the public opinion hit. While the Israeli public certainly wants peace, they tolerated this war because Netanyahu said no enrichment was a necessity. If he backs away from that position, I don't see how his government survives.
 
The second big problem is that Israel will insist that Iran stop supporting its proxies. Unless there is regime change, Iran isn't going to agree to that, and even if they did they would violate that agreement in the next week. I am not sure how one can forge a peace out of that fundamental difference in goals.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-announc...00775.html

In so far as this turns out to be "real" it is great news. I myself am a bit of a skeptic. It may be possible to arrange a ceasefire but IMO arranging a "peace" agreement between Israel and Iran is going to be another thing entirely. Iran absolutely insists that it must be allowed to enrich uranium, allegedly for peaceful purposes. Israel is literally dead set against allowing Iran to do so. The US administration has vacillated between the two, but at last count we were in agreement with Israel. I see no way to square that circle. Even if the leadership of the two countries could reach a compromise, neither will do so because of the effect it would have on domestic politics. Since Iran is a dictatorship, maybe it could give in and survive the public opinion hit. While the Israeli public certainly wants peace, they tolerated this war because Netanyahu said no enrichment was a necessity. If he backs away from that position, I don't see how his government survives.
 
The second big problem is that Israel will insist that Iran stop supporting its proxies. Unless there is regime change, Iran isn't going to agree to that, and even if they did they would violate that agreement in the next week. I am not sure how one can forge a peace out of that fundamental difference in goals.

[GK3]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-announc...00775.html

In so far as this turns out to be "real" it is great news. I myself am a bit of a skeptic. It may be possible to arrange a ceasefire but IMO arranging a "peace" agreement between Israel and Iran is going to be another thing entirely. Iran absolutely insists that it must be allowed to enrich uranium, allegedly for peaceful purposes. Israel is literally dead set against allowing Iran to do so. The US administration has vacillated between the two, but at last count we were in agreement with Israel. I see no way to square that circle. Even if the leadership of the two countries could reach a compromise, neither will do so because of the effect it would have on domestic politics. Since Iran is a dictatorship, maybe it could give in and survive the public opinion hit. While the Israeli public certainly wants peace, they tolerated this war because Netanyahu said no enrichment was a necessity. If he backs away from that position, I don't see how his government survives.
 
The second big problem is that Israel will insist that Iran stop supporting its proxies. Unless there is regime change, Iran isn't going to agree to that, and even if they did they would violate that agreement in the next week. I am not sure how one can forge a peace out of that fundamental difference in goals.

If there is actually a peace treaty, my guess it will very ephemeral.  Without a change in the status quo it makes no sense unless there is some sort of regime change.

[GK3]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-announc...00775.html

In so far as this turns out to be "real" it is great news. I myself am a bit of a skeptic. It may be possible to arrange a ceasefire but IMO arranging a "peace" agreement between Israel and Iran is going to be another thing entirely. Iran absolutely insists that it must be allowed to enrich uranium, allegedly for peaceful purposes. Israel is literally dead set against allowing Iran to do so. The US administration has vacillated between the two, but at last count we were in agreement with Israel. I see no way to square that circle. Even if the leadership of the two countries could reach a compromise, neither will do so because of the effect it would have on domestic politics. Since Iran is a dictatorship, maybe it could give in and survive the public opinion hit. While the Israeli public certainly wants peace, they tolerated this war because Netanyahu said no enrichment was a necessity. If he backs away from that position, I don't see how his government survives.
 
The second big problem is that Israel will insist that Iran stop supporting its proxies. Unless there is regime change, Iran isn't going to agree to that, and even if they did they would violate that agreement in the next week. I am not sure how one can forge a peace out of that fundamental difference in goals.

If there is actually a peace treaty, my guess it will very ephemeral.  Without a change in the status quo it makes no sense unless there is some sort of regime change.

[M T]

Hmmm….  No chance to do seismic BDA now.  I sure hope we have evidence as to how effective the MOPs were against something not in their spec 

Or the US can just keep saying they obliterated their targets.   Only the Iranians know for sure.

[M T]

Hmmm….  No chance to do seismic BDA now.  I sure hope we have evidence as to how effective the MOPs were against something not in their spec 

Or the US can just keep saying they obliterated their targets.   Only the Iranians know for sure.