nuclear

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said several Iranian nuclear scientists were killed in Israeli strikes. He also said a “new path of freedom” for Iran was approaching and told Iranians the country’s future ultimately depends on them.

Satellite imagery from Vantor shows that a site long linked to Iran’s nuclear program has been struck. A trio of very large impact points also raises the possibility that the hardened facility was hit by 30,000-pound GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker buster bombs. MOPs were first used operationally in U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities last year, dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer. The Taleghan 2 site was newly encased in a concrete shell and then covered with soil in the months leading up to the current conflict, which may have created a need to use munitions more capable of burrowing down into it to have a better chance of ensuring its destruction.

Vantor’s post-strike images of Taleghan 2, seen at the top of this story and below, were taken earlier today. As noted, three very large and precise impact points are visible on top of the facility.

Vantor also shared previous images of Taleghan 2 taken on March 6, 2026, and November 14, 2025. Other parts of Parchin were notably struck on March 6, but Taleghan 2 was left untouched at that time.

Taleghan 2 had already been covered in a new layer of concrete by mid-January of this year. Soil had also been added on top weeks before joint U.S.-Israeli operations began on February 28. Iran was also observed taking steps to further harden and/or seal up a host of other key facilities across the country in the lead-up to the current conflict, but not to this degree. TWZ highlighted similar activity at Iranian nuclear sites ahead of the Operation Midnight Hammer strikes last year.

We do not know what munitions were used to strike Taleghan 2, but the impact points are at least broadly consistent with what was seen at Iran’s Fordow and Natanz nuclear sites after Operation Midnight Hammer. During that operation, B-2 bombers dropped 12 GBU-57/Bs on Fordow and another two MOPs on Natanz.

When reached by TWZ, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) declined to comment on whether GBU-57/Bs had been dropped on Taleghan 2 or any other site in Iran in the course of the current campaign. The only aircraft currently certified to carry MOPs operationally is the B-2 bomber, with each one being able to carry two of the massive bombs at a time. B-2s have been striking Iran since the first night of the conflict.

From what can be seen via satellite imagery, Taleghan 2 does appear to be as deeply buried as either Fordow or the underground facility at Natanz. At the same time, it was very thoroughly and deliberately hardened against attack just in the past few months, which could have driven a decision to target it with GBU-57/Bs. That work was also done relatively quickly with a clear eye toward shielding the site from strikes.

Other aspects of the target may have factored in, as well. In the strikes on Fordow last year, B-2s dropped six MOPs each down two air shafts to achieve the desired penetration. Those air vents offered a weak channel through which the bombs could penetrate far deeper to get to the targeted chamber deep within the mountain. Though it may be shallower, there do not appear to be any similar inlets readily visible at Taleghan 2. Using 30,000-pound bombs would also have helped guarantee more total destruction of this high-priority facility. The determination that MOPs were required might also explain why it was not struck previously.

The video below is a montage of imagery from past GBU-57/B tests that the U.S. military released last year after Operation Midnight Hammer.

GBU-57 MOP test

It is possible that other munitions may have been used to strike Taleghan 2. Smaller bunker busters could be dropped in succession on the same aim point in order to create openings and then create significant effects inside. CENTCOM has previously confirmed B-2 strikes on deeply buried targets in Iran using salvos of 2,000-pound-class bunker buster bombs.

Striking Taleghan 2 otherwise fits with the U.S. military’s stated core objective of neutralizing Iran’s nuclear program. The site is tied to long-standing allegations of nuclear weapons-related work at Parchin, which Iranian officials have consistently denied. Taleghan 2 is specifically believed to have been a production facility for specialized conventional explosives required for nuclear weapons.

The Israelis previously struck Taleghan 2 in 2024 and then targeted Parchin again during the 12 Day War last year. In both cases, Iran subsequently rebuilt key facilities at the complex.

Whether the latest strike on Taleghan 2, whatever munitions may have been used, has taken it out for good remains to be seen.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The BBC war drama depicts a fictional nuclear attack on Britain by Russia and its devastating aftermath – and was so disturbing it was banned from broadcast for two decades

In the face of escalating conflicts worldwide – from the intensifying US-Israel joint operation against Iran in the Middle East, Israel’s ongoing war on Gaza following Hamas’ October 2023 attack, to the four-year-long Russia-Ukraine war still in progress – it’s no exaggeration to say we’re witnessing a catastrophic level of global unrest.

Amidst this turmoil, the looming threat of nuclear warfare is ever-present. The aftermath of such a conflict would bring about unimaginable destruction and devastation – the fallout is too horrific to contemplate.

This chilling scenario was portrayed in a BBC documentary from 1965, a film so disturbing it was banned from television broadcast for two decades by the British Broadcasting Corporation itself.

At the time, the corporation justified its decision to prohibit the documentary, stating: “The effect of the film has been judged by the BBC to be too horrifying for the medium of broadcasting. It will, however, be shown to invited audiences..”

The controversial pseudo-documentary finally aired in Great Britain on 31 July 1985, twenty years after its initial scheduled screening date of 6 October 1965. This broadcast coincided with the week leading up to the 40th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, reports the Express.

The War Game is currently available for free streaming on BBC iPlayer or can be bought for £5.99 on Amazon Prime Video.

Written, directed and produced by Peter Watkins for the BBC, The War Game depicted a fictional nuclear strike on Britain by the Soviets and its devastating consequences.

The docu-film’s official synopsis states: “In this British documentary, a hypothetical Chinese invasion of South Vietnam triggers a new world war between East and West. In the town of Rochester, Kent, the anticipation of a nuclear attack leads to mass evacuations.

When a stray missile actually explodes, the ensuing firestorm blinds all those who see it. It’s not long before the fabric of society is ripped apart owing to radiation poisoning, a lack of infrastructure and rioting for food and other necessities.”

On 13 April 1966, The War Game had its premiere at the National Film Theatre in London, where it screened until 3 May. Barred from broadcast, the 47-minute docu-drama subsequently appeared at numerous international film festivals, including Venice, where it secured the Special Prize.

The recognition continued – the prohibited BBC production went on to claim the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature in 1967, alongside two BAFTAs for Best Short Film and the UN Award.

Boasting a near-flawless 93% approval rating on review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes, The War Game has earned widespread acclaim from critics and viewers.

One reviewer commented on the docu-drama: “Nothing that you have heard or read can fully prepare you for Peter Watkins’ 1965 faux documentary on the aftermath of a nuclear attack on Great Britain.”

Another reviewer added: “One of the most disturbing, overwhelming, and downright important films ever produced.”

A third critic described it as essential viewing, noting: “It was produced by the British Broadcasting Corp. but never televised because it was felt its showing would be both horrifying and depressing. It is. It also is realistic, informative and shattering. It is a movie that everyone should see.”

Whilst one critic said: “Still packs a whallop. Will stick with you for life. Don’t say I didn’t warn you,” another commented on the nuclear war drama, “One of the most skillful documentary films ever made.”

Viewer reactions mirror this sentiment, with one audience member writing in an extensive review: “The War Game, although created as a TV movie for the BBC for the 20th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is easily the one of the most disturbing movies I have ever seen, on par only with Gus van Sant’s “Elephant. ” It accurately portrays the effects and aftermath of a nuclear attack and uses a handheld documentary style that makes everything chillingly real.

“There were several times during the film when I had to remind myself that Britain had never suffered a nuclear attack and the footage I was looking at was not real. There are very few films that have left me in the state that this one did when it was over. Much like “Schindler’s List” or “American History X,” this is the kind of movie I think everyone should watch because it is so incredibly informative and brings the viewer so much closer to understanding the pain and monstrosity of a nuclear attack.”

Another viewer described it as: “A harrowing punch in the gut that nothing prepared me for. Unforgettable.”

Meanwhile, one audience member remarked about Watkins’ drama: “Really shook me up and left me reeling for a while after seeing it. Peter Watkins ruined my 3 day weekend with this masterfully done piece of film. Needs to be required viewing for every being capable of understanding images and sound.”

The War Game can be streamed free of charge on BBC iPlayer until July 2026, or purchased for £5.99 through Amazon Prime Video.

PLANS to build a new railway station and more than 1,000 homes on the site of an apocalyptic bunker have been unveiled.

The proposals include building a range of affordable housing, shops, a secondary school, health centre and train station on the site of a former RAF base.

Part of a large housing development at Alconbury Weald in  Huntingdonshire, the new community will sit on top of a sprawling nuclear bunker, built in 1988.

RAF Alconbury was an active airbase from 1938 up to 1995, surviving attacks from Luftwaffe during World War Two.

The construction of the bunker began in the 1980s with the site “designed to withstand a direct nuclear attack”.

Sitting on a bed of gravel, the bunker is made of steel and reinforced concrete – costing £50 million to construct.

ON THE UP

Closed UK airport reveals latest plans to finally reopen after 12 years

PARK UP

Inside the world’s first Hey Duggee themed hotel rooms opening in the UK

One purpose of the site was to secretly analyse data collected by spy planes during the Cold War.

Blast-proof guillotine doors divide a number of corridors inside, and further underground is a power plant and communications hub with an entire wall filled with buttons and dials.

Already 6,000 new build homes now surround the former military base and bunker after a major development which saw the first residents set up home in 2020.

The developer, Urban&Civic, now plan to expand the Cambridgeshire by building more houses and new railway station, which has been backed by Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.

Mike Jenner, Development Manager from Urban&Civic, said: “Phase 4 has an important role to play in the delivery of Alconbury Weald, connecting green spaces and key infrastructure.

“The design of Phase 4 ensures walking, cycling and public transport links connect to the wider site seamlessly, and supports the aspirations of our local transport partners to progress a rail station, which will benefit many.”

In homage to the area’s history dedicated green space has been named Runway Park, which the proposed plans include adding “pockets of play space near a water body” to.

Embassy staffers and dependents evacuating, airlines suspending service, eyes in Iran warily turning skyward for signs of an attack.

The prospects of a showdown between the U.S. and Iran loom ever higher, as massive American naval and air power lies in wait off Iran’s shores and land borders.

Yet little of that urgency is felt in Iran’s government. Rather than quickly acquiescing to President Trump’s demands, Iranian diplomats persist in the kind of torturously slow diplomatic dance that marked previous discussions with the U.S., a pace that prompted Trump to declare on Friday that the Iranians were not negotiating in “good faith.”

But For Iran’s leadership, Iranian experts say, concessions of the sort Trump are asking for about nuclear power and the country’s role in the Middle East undermine the very ethos of the Islamic Republic and the decades-old project it has created.

“As an Islamic theocracy, Iran serves as a role model for the Islamic world. And as a role model, we cannot capitulate,” said Hamid Reza Taraghi, who heads international affairs for Iran’s Islamic Coalition Party, or Hezb-e Motalefeh Eslami.

Besides, he added, “militarily we are strong enough to fight back and make any enemy regret attacking us.”

Even as another round of negotiations ended with no resolution this week, the U.S. has completed a buildup involving more than 150 aircraft into the region, along with roughly a third of all active U.S. ships.

Observers say those forces remain insufficient for anything beyond a short campaign of a few weeks or a high-intensity kinetic strike.

Iran would be sure to retaliate, perhaps against an aircraft carrier or the many U.S. military bases arrayed in the region. Though such an attack is unlikely to destroy its target, it could damage or at least disrupt operations, demonstrating that “American power is not untouchable,” said Hooshang Talé, a former Iranian parliamentarian.

Tehran could also mobilize paramilitary groups it cultivated in the region, including Iraqi militias and Yemen’s Houthis, Talé added. Other U.S. rivals, such as Russia and China, may seize the opportunity to launch their own campaigns elsewhere in the world while the U.S. remains preoccupied in the Middle East, he said.

“From this perspective, Iran would not be acting entirely alone,” Tale said. “Indirect alignment among U.S. adversaries — even without a formal alliance — would create a cascading effect.”

The U.S. demands Iran give up all nuclear enrichment and relinquish existing stockpiles of enriched uranium so as to stop any path to developing a bomb. Iran has repeatedly stated it does not want to build a nuclear weapon and that nuclear enrichment would be for exclusively peaceful purposes.

The Trump administration has also talked about curtailing Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support to proxy groups, such as Hezbollah, in the region, though those have not been consistent demands. Tehran insists the talks should be limited to the nuclear issue.

After indirect negotiations on Thursday, Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi — the mediator for the talks in Geneva — lauded what he said was “significant progress.” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said there had been “constructive proposals.”

Trump, however, struck a frustrated tone when speaking to reporters on Friday.

“We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating and, again, they cannot have nuclear weapons,” he said.

Trump also downplayed concerns that an attack could escalate into a longer conflict.

This frame grab from footage circulating on social media shows protesters dancing and cheering around a bonfire during an anti-government protest in Tehran, Iran, on Jan. 9.

(Uncredited / Associated Press)

“I guess you could say there’s always a risk. You know, when there’s war, there’s a risk in anything, both good and bad,” Trump said.

Three days earlier, in his State of the Union address Tuesday, said, “My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon — can’t let that happen.”

There are other signs an attack could be imminent.

On Friday, the U.S. Embassy in Israel allowed staff to leave the country if they wished. That followed an earlier move this week to evacuate dependents in the embassy in Lebanon. Other countries have followed suit, including the U.K, which pulled its embassy staff in Tehran. Meanwhile, several airlines have suspended service to Israel and Iran.

A U.S. military campaign would come at a sensitive time for Iran’s leadership.

The country’s armed forces are still recovering from the June war with Israel and the U.S, which left more than 1,200 people dead and more than 6,000 injured in Iran. In Israel, 28 people were killed and dozens injured.

Unrest in January — when security forces killed anywhere from 3,000 to 30,000 protesters (estimates range wildly) — means the government has no shortage of domestic enemies. Meanwhile, long-term sanctions have hobbled Iran’s economy and left most Iranians desperately poor.

Despite those vulnerabilities, observers say the U.S. buildup is likely to make Iran dig in its heels, especially because it would not want to set the precedent of giving up positions at the barrel of a U.S. gun.

Other U.S. demands would constitute red lines. Its missile arsenal, for example, counts as its main counter to the U.S. and Israel, said Rose Kelanic, Director of the Middle East Program at the Defense Priorities think tank.

“Iran’s deterrence policy is defense by attrition. They act like a porcupine so the bear will drop them… The missiles are the quills,” she said, adding that the strategy means Iran cannot fully defend against the U.S., but could inflict pain.

At the same time, although mechanisms to monitor nuclear enrichment exist, reining in Tehran’s support for proxy groups would be a much harder matter to verify.

But the larger issue is that Iran doesn’t trust Trump to follow through on whatever the negotiations reach.

After all, it was Trump who withdrew from an Obama-era deal designed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, despite widespread consensus Iran was in compliance.

Trump and numerous other critics complained Iran was not constrained in its other “malign activities,” such as support for militant groups in the Middle East and development of ballistic missiles. The Trump administration embarked on a policy of “maximum pressure” hoping to bring Iran to its knees, but it was met with what Iran watchers called maximum resistance.

In June, he joined Israel in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, a move that didn’t result in the Islamic Republic returning to negotiations and accepting Trump’s terms. And he has waxed wistfully about regime change.

“Trump has worked very hard to make U.S. threats credible by amassing this huge military force offshore, and they’re extremely credible at this point,” Kelanic said.

“But he also has to make his assurances credible that if Iran agrees to U.S. demands, that the U.S. won’t attack Iran anyway.”

Talé, the former parliamentarian, put it differently.

“If Iranian diplomats demonstrate flexibility, Trump will be more emboldened,” he said. “That’s why Iran, as a sovereign nation, must not capitulate to any foreign power, including America.”

Oman’s Foreign Minister says most recent indirect talks between US, Iran ‘really advanced, substantially’ and diplomacy must be allowed do its work.

Iran agreed during indirect talks with the United States never to stockpile enriched uranium, said Oman’s top diplomat, who described the development as a major breakthrough.

Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi also said on Friday that he believed all issues in a deal between Iran and the US could be resolved “amicably and comprehensively” within a few months.

“A peace deal is within our reach … if we just allow diplomacy the space it needs to get there,” Al Busaidi said in an interview with CBS News in Washington, DC, after Oman brokered the third round of indirect talks between the US and Iran in Geneva on Thursday.

“If the ultimate objective is to ensure forever that Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb, I think we have cracked that problem through these negotiations by agreeing [on] a very important breakthrough that has never been achieved any time before,” Al Busaidi said.

“The single most important achievement, I believe, is the agreement that Iran will never ever have nuclear material that will create a bomb,” he said.

“Now we are talking about zero stockpiling, and that is very, very important because if you cannot stockpile material that is enriched, then there is no way that you can actually create a bomb,” he added.

There would also be “full and comprehensive verification by the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]”, he said, referring to the UN’s nuclear watchdog.

Oman’s top diplomat also said Iran would degrade its current stockpiles of nuclear material to “the lowest level possible” so that it is “converted into fuel, and that fuel will be irreversible”.

“This is something completely new. It really makes the enrichment argument less relevant, because now we are talking about zero stockpiling,” Al Busaidi said.

Regarding recent US demands regarding Iran’s missile programme, Al Busaidi said: “I believe Iran is open to discuss everything”.

Asked if he thought enough ground was covered in the most recent talks in Geneva to hold off a US attack on Iran, the minister said, “I hope so.”

“We have really advanced substantially, and I think, obviously, there remains various details to be ironed out, and this is why we need a little bit more time to really try and accomplish the ultimate goal of having a comprehensive package of the deal,” he said.

“But the big picture is that a deal is in our hands,” he added.

The foreign minister’s comment followed after he met earlier on Friday with US Vice President JD Vance and as US President Donald Trump continued to sabre-rattle while at the same time declaring he favoured a diplomatic solution with Tehran.

Trump said on Friday that he was not happy with the recent talks that concluded in Geneva.

“We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating,” Trump told reporters in Washington, adding that Iran “should make a deal”.

“They’d be smart if they made a deal,” he said.

Trump later said that he would prefer it if the US did not have to use military force, “but sometimes you have to do it”.

The US and Iranian sides are expected to meet again on Monday in Vienna, Austria, for more indirect negotiations.

Feb. 26 (UPI) — The third round of U.S.-Iran nuclear talks concluded Thursday in Geneva with signs of progress and plans for further negotiations, amid heightened tensions between Tehran and Washington as President Donald Trump threatens military action if a deal is not reached.

Oman said after the day-long talks that progress had been made and more talks are needed.

“We have finished the day after significant progress in the negotiation between the United States and Iran,” Minister Badr bin Hamad Albusaidi of Oman said in a statement.

“We will resume soon after consultation in the respective capitals.”

Minister Abbas Araghchi of Iran concurred with his Omani counterpart. Further progress had been made, he said.

“This round of talks was the most intense so far,” he said in a statement.

“It concluded with the mutual understanding that we will continue to engage in a more detailed manner on matters that are essential to any deal — including sanctions termination and nuclear-related steps.”

Technical-level discussions are scheduled to start in Vienna on Monday, officials said.

Representatives from the United States did not immediately comment.

The negotiations were indirect, with Iran and the United States communicating through Omani mediators.

There was a four-hour meeting in the morning followed by more than two hours of discussions in the afternoon, according to Araghchi, who said IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi’s involvement “was valuable for the technical discussions.”

“Regarding some issues, there is no understanding, and on others, it’s natural that we have differences,” Iran’s top diplomat said.

“However, there was perhaps more seriousness on both sides than before, with the aim of reaching a negotiated solution.”

Trump is seeking to secure a long-term deal aimed at preventing Iran from securing a nuclear weapon, a decades-long fear of Washington and Israel, and has threatened military action if negotiations falter.

The removal of sanctions appears to be Iran’s most pressing issue for Iran, as its economy has been under severe strain from years of sanctions imposed amid the years-long impasse over its nuclear program.

Ahead of the Thursday talks, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei of Iran told reporters that Tehran’s delegation had come fully prepared.

“Right now, the relevant experts in the fields of sanctions relief and economic issues, as well as nuclear and legal matters, are with us, and we are prepared to continue these talks as long as necessary,” he said, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-affiliated Fars News Agency reported.

“As far as we are concerned, we are here with full preparedness and seriousness in order to realize the country’s national interests.”

He added that they will be watching for “contradictory statements” between what U.S. officials say in the meetings and what they tell the press.

“These contradictions do not help advance this diplomatic process and increase doubts and suspicions about their purpose and intentions,” he said.

Grossi and Oman’s Albusaidi held a meeting Thursday before the talks officially kicked off on technical matters related to Iran’s nuclear dossier.

The second round of talks was held earlier this month, with Araghchi stating that an agreement had been reached “on general guiding principles.”

However, significant gaps remained between the United States and Iran.

Though it officially began Thursday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement that Araghchi met with Albusaidi on Wednesday night and conveyed Tehran’s views on nuclear-related issues and the lifting of sanctions.

Araghchi stressed to the representative of Oman that “the success of the negotiations depends on the seriousness of the other side and its avoidance of contradictory behavior and positions.”

Trump has pursued a new nuclear deal with Iran since early in his first term, when in 2018 he unilaterally withdrew the United States from a landmark Obama-era multinational accord aimed at preventing Tehran from securing a nuclear weapon.

The first Trump administration applied a maximum pressure campaign of sanctions and economic pressure to coerce Tehran back to the negotiating table. Under the economic coercion, Iran began breaching its nuclear commitments and advanced its enrichment program.

Then, under the Biden administration, the United States attempted to revive negotiations with Iran — an effort that stalled by the fall of 2022 and was shelved when Iran-backed Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

Last June, after Trump was elected to a second term, he ordered strikes on three known nuclear sites as the United States joined Israel’s military campaign against Tehran. The White House later claimed Iran’s facilities had been “obliterated,” though international inspectors have not been able to gain access to them to verify the extent of the damage.

Despite the assertion, Trump has expanded the United States’ military presence in the Middle East in recent weeks ahead of the talks, sparking worries it may precede another attack if negotiations falter.

During his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night, Trump said Iran is seeking to restart its program but also wants to make a deal with the United States.

“They are at this moment again pursuing their sinister ambitions,” he said without providing proof. “My preference — my preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world’s No. 1 sponsor of terror — which they are by far — to have a nuclear weapon. Can’t let it happen.”

Tehran, Iran – Another round of indirect talks between Iranian and United States officials ended with a mediator claiming “significant progress” but still no clear evidence that either side was willing to concede enough on their positions to avoid war.

After the conclusion of the talks in Geneva on Thursday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said further technical talks would be held next week in Vienna and progress had been “good”.

“These were the most serious and longest talks,” Araghchi said.

Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, who mediated the talks, said Iranian and US diplomats would consult with their governments before the Vienna talks.

Few details have emerged about the discussions, but Araghchi was reported to have met US envoy Steve Witkoff – if only briefly, according to Iran’s Tasnim news agency.

The Iranian team, led by Araghchi, handed over on Wednesday night Tehran’s written proposals to Al Busaidi, who also mediated previous rounds of talks in Geneva and Muscat.

The Omani diplomat then met with the US delegation on Thursday, led by Witkoff and US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. Al Busaidi mediated between the two teams throughout the day, and the US delegation also held separate talks over Ukraine.

Also taking part in the talks was Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which will have to undertake nuclear monitoring and verification duties in Iran in case of any agreement.

The UN watchdog will hold several days of board meetings starting on March 6, which is around the 10- to 15-day deadline floated by Trump last week for Iran to reach a deal.

Western media outlets have suggested the board could once again consider a move to censure Iran depending on the results of the Geneva talks. Iran has accused Grossi of taking politicised action and criticised the IAEA after Israel attacked Iran in June, one day after the agency passed a resolution saying Tehran was not complying with its commitment to nuclear safeguards.

Fundamental differences

The two sides have been at odds over key issues, including uranium enrichment and missiles.

Washington has repeatedly emphasised, in lockstep with Israel, that it will not accept any nuclear enrichment taking place on Iranian soil, even at civilian-use levels agreed during the 2015 nuclear deal that Iran agreed with world powers. Trump unilaterally abandoned that deal in 2018.

In the days leading up to the Geneva talks, US officials increasingly focused on Iran’s ballistic missile programme, saying the missiles threaten US military bases across the Middle East as well as Israel. Iran has refused to entertain any talks on its conventional weapons. Iranian officials, including President Masoud Pezeshkian, have repeatedly said they will never develop nuclear weapons.

Speaking to local officials during a provincial visit, Pezeshkian also shot back at Trump’s assertion during a lengthy State of the Union speech that Iran was “the world’s number one sponsor of terror”.

Pezeshkian said numerous Iranian officials and nuclear scientists have been assassinated over the decades, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the country’s 1979 Islamic revolution.

“If the realities are seen fairly, it will become clear that Iran is not only not a supporter of terrorism, but one of the main victims of terror in the region and across the world,” he said.

The Iranian government’s IRNA news agency said Tehran’s proposal was expected to gauge US “seriousness” in the talks because it contained “win-win” offers.

Iranian officials have not publicly discussed all the details of their proposals, but they are believed to include diluting part of the country’s 60-percent enriched uranium and keeping the uranium inside the country. Iranian authorities envisage that could be paired with economic opportunities for the US related to Iranian oil and gas and the purchase of airplanes.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has maintained his tough rhetoric against the US as well, casting doubt on the chances of any agreement. He also said Trump would be unable to overthrow Iran’s government after the US president said regime change would be “the best thing that could happen” in Iran.

Araghchi said during an interview on Wednesday that even if Khamenei is killed, the theocratic establishment in Iran would carry on because it has legal procedures in place to appoint a successor. Pezeshkian added on Thursday: “They can eliminate me, eliminate anyone. If they hit us, a hundred more like us will come up to run the country.”

Double-digit inflation as Iran braces for war

Iranian and US officials have been hailing supposed “progress” in the indirect talks this month, but many Iranians continue to prepare for war.

In Tehran and across the country, people are buying bottled water, biscuits, canned foods and other essentials in case of a war.

“A few days ago, I bought a power bank to keep the electronics charged. Now I’m looking for a short-wave radio so we can hear the news if the state shuts down the internet and electricity infrastructure is bombed,” said a 28-year-old resident of the capital who asked not to be named.

As bombs fell during the 12-day war with Israel in June, Iranian authorities cut off almost all internet access for several days, followed in January by an unprecedented 20-day total blackout imposed on about 92 million people as thousands of people were killed during nationwide protests.

The Iranian government, which blames “terrorists” armed and funded by the US and Israel for the protests, has rejected Trump’s claim that 32,000 Iranians were killed during the demonstrations. It said more than 3,000 people were killed, and rejects documentation by the United Nations and international human rights organisations that its security forces were behind the killings.

As the threat of war intensifies, not all Iranians are capable of stocking up on food and other necessities due to rising inflation that has gripped the country for more than a decade as a result of a mix of chronic local mismanagement and US and UN sanctions.

According to separate reports by the Statistical Centre of Iran and the Central Bank of Iran released on Thursday, inflation has now shot beyond 60 percent.

The Statistical Centre put annual inflation in the Iranian month of Bahman, which ended on February 19, at 68.1 percent, while the Central Bank said it was 62.2 percent.

Food inflation was by far the strongest driver at a whopping 105 percent. That included a 207-percent inflation rate for cooking oil, 117 percent for red meat, 108 percent for eggs and dairy products, 113 percent for fruit and 142 percent for bread and corn.

Iran’s national currency, the rial, stood at about 1.66 million rials to the US dollar on Thursday, near an all-time low.

Whether or not the U.S. Air Force’s new Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) will carry multiple warheads remains to be seen now that a key arms control treaty has expired. The service is otherwise hopeful that the Sentinel program is now on the right track after years of major delays and ballooning costs, driven heavily by costs and complexities associated with building new infrastructure. A particularly key issue has been the matter of silos, with the original plan to repurpose the ones that currently house Minuteman III ICBMs having been abandoned in favor of all-new construction.

Air Force and other U.S. military officials, as well as a representative from the Sentinel’s prime contractor, Northrop Grumman, shared new updates about the program with TWZ and other outlets at the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) annual Warfare Symposium today. Sentinel has been undergoing a complete restructuring since delays and cost overruns triggered a legal requirement for a full review back in 2024. The original plan had called for the new Sentinel ICBMs, also designated LGM-35As, to begin entering operational service in 2029. Minuteman III, of which there are 400 currently sitting in silos across five states, was to be phased out by 2036.

The setbacks also mean that ongoing work on Sentinel is now occurring free from the limits on America’s nuclear arsenal that were imposed by the New START treaty with Russia. That agreement sunset, as scheduled, earlier this month without a follow-on deal in place.

A Sentinel Program official declined to say how many warheads could be loaded onto a single Sentinel missile when asked at a press briefing earlier today. The publicly stated plan previously has been to load each missile with a single W87-1 warhead.

Each of the Minuteman III ICBMs in service today, which are also designated LGM-30Gs, is topped with either a single W78 or W87 warhead, the result of a succession of arms control agreements culminating in New START. The LGM-30G, which entered service in 1970, was originally designed to carry up to three warheads, and retains this so-called multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) capability.

“We have the ability to do that. That’s obviously a national-level decision that would go up to the President,” Navy Adm. Rich Correll, head of U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), told TWZ and others at a separate roundtable today, speaking generally about the prospect of the U.S. fielding ICBMs in a MIRV configuration again. “Those policy levers, if needed, provide additional resiliency within the capabilities that we have.”

“Nothing’s changed since [the] expiration of the New START treaty. The threat environment that existed before [the] expiration of the New START Treaty exists today,” Correll added. “So that decision space is open, and discussions will occur at a senior policy-making level to make decisions with respect to that. I would reserve any recommendations I have for that discussion within the Department.”

Earlier this month, Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC), under which the currently Minuteman III force falls, also told TWZ that it “maintains the capability and training to MIRV the Minuteman III ICBM force” and that it would be prepared to do so “if directed by the President.”

We do know that the Sentinel missile is a new design with a three-stage solid fuel rocket booster that has been described as slightly larger than the Minuteman III. Under the shroud on top is a payload bus with a liquid fuel propulsion system.

Enabling Peace Through Deterrence

“Our liquid propulsion system, this is what gives us the fine point that allows us to place the re-entry vehicle precisely on target, that greater accuracy that comes with the Sentinel system,” the Northrop Grumman official explained at today’s press briefing.

Beyond improved accuracy, the Air Force and Northrop Grumman have said that Sentinel will also offer greater range, as well as reliability and sustainability benefits, compared to the Cold War-era Minuteman III. Though more specific details about Sentinel’s capabilities are classified, developing a new ICBM does provide the opportunity to incorporate various new features and functionality, including when it comes to survivability.

“At this point, we have completed testing on all of the major elements of the missile system. … We met all of our primary objectives and are [on] a good course to first flight, which is why we have confidence that we’re going to hit that pad launch in 2027,” the Northrop Grumman official added. “What we’re working on now are additional tests just to give us confidence” when it comes to “reliability and integrating that system.”

The Air Force first announced it was targeting a Sentinel first flight in 2027, from a launch pad above ground, last week. The service has yet to share when it expects to conduct the first test launch from a silo. Northrop Grumman is now building a full-scale prototype silo facility in Promontory, Utah, but it is unclear whether that will be constructed in a way that would allow it to be used for test launches in the future. As an aside, the New START treaty had also imposed limits on deployed and non-deployed “launchers,” which included silos for ICBMs.

As mentioned, the topic of silos has been absolutely central to the Sentinel program and its troubles over the years. Originally, the Air Force expected to be able to reuse Minuteman III silos, but subsequently determined that this was not the optimal course of action. The plan now is to construct 450 entirely new silos. The Air Force hopes this will actually save time and money now, in part because of the ability to leverage modern modular construction methods from the start rather than trying to repurpose decades-old structures.

“The original acquisition strategy for Sentinel was to use and reuse the Minuteman III silos for the housing of the Sentinel missile, with some upgraded communication rooms and things next to it. Over the past year, we’ve gone through multiple assessments to figure out what the right strategy is as we look forward, and we’ve changed our acquisition strategy to go after building and constructing new silos for Sentinel,” the Sentinel Program official explained today. “That came out of really kind of two primary things. The first reason we looked at this is just the variability of refurbishing Minuteman III silos. The Minuteman III silos are amazing, and they are incredibly efficient at executing the mission today. But as we were going down the path of trying to plan, just like trying to renovate a house built in the [19]60s, there was variability in understanding how you would attack refurbishment, how you would understand the conditions, and the timing, and the cost associated with that.”

The Air Force also sees new silos as helping ease the transition process from Minuteman III to Sentinel. Both missiles will be in service simultaneously for a time to ensure the land-based leg of America’s nuclear deterrent triad remains credible throughout the process.

“As we were looking at opportunity space, we found a squadron at Malmstrom [Air Force Base in Montana], which was the first one, that was still owned Air Force land, but allowed us what I would call swing space,” the Sentinel Program official noted. “If we constructed there, how we sequence and how we choreograph, taking down Minuteman and bringing Sentinel up on alert, it allowed us the opportunity to do that without impacting operations today. And going after that swing space, it actually drove us to designing and constructing new silos, as there were not Minuteman III silos available to be reused on those sites.”

New silos “also captured a few things that we were working through on risk, primarily around human factors and some other things that were existing in the reuse of Minuteman, it allowed us to get those and reduce those as we went forward,” they added.

“We knew and had some assumptions at the beginning. We had to test out those assumptions,” they also said when asked about why these issues were not recognized earlier on. “As we’ve tested out those assumptions, some of them proved false, which is why we’ve been going down the path of laying in, prototyping, experimentation, and showing progress on how do we say, ‘Hey, this is a different way of approaching it.’”

“To suggest they weren’t thought about, I think that would be probably short-sighted. They were very much thought about. I think that we often forget that these are very challenging programs. This is something we have not done in over six decades,” Air Force Gen. Dale White, Director of Critical Major Weapon Systems and direct reporting portfolio manager to the Deputy Secretary of War, also said at the roundtable. “Some of the assumptions that did come to fruition have actually provided more operational advantages. We’ve made changes along the way.”

“With the decision to recapitalize the intersite communications and build new launch silos, it’s opened up a lot of additional possibilities,” AFGSC commander Air Force Gen. Stephen Davis also said at the roundtable. “And I would tell you, I don’t think we have the answer exactly how we’re doing that yet, but we have more flexibility.”

The aforementioned prototype silo in Utah is being built to help further burn down risk.

“There are many things that we’re looking to prove out through this risk reduction activity, excavation techniques, how we integrate the modular elements of the silo, too. How we protect from weather conditions and how we do transportation to and from the site – critically important,” the Northrop Grumman official said. “And we will ultimately use this as we start to integrate and perform operations around missile emplacement, those kinds of things.”

Despite the “swing space” found to exist on Air Force-owned land, the Sentinel program is still expected to require the use of other U.S. government-owned land and the acquisition of additional land from private entities. The full extent of those additional land requirements is still being assessed. What will happen to the decommissioned Minuteman III silos is still to be determined, as well.

Though they are the most important aspect, silos are only one part of the massive infrastructure development plans baked into the Sentinel program. A total of 24 new launch centers and three new missile wing command centers are also set to be built. The new ICBM force will be spread across 32,000 square miles in five states and linked together by more than 5,000 miles of new fiber optic lines.

“The wing command center is actually a new capability being provided by Sentinel that doesn’t exist today for Minuteman,” the Sentinel Program official said. “Today at Minuteman, the information is more siloed. The structure of Minuteman is built around the [missile] squadron, and there isn’t a sole place where the information is pulled together, to give you the battlespace awareness of the entire wing at one time.”

“So the wing command center is where that fiber backbone is incredibly important,” they continued. “The quantity of data that can be pushed on fiber, from my physical security monitoring for health and status of the missiles and of the launch facilities, all can be integrated here into a common picture that allows the operational commander the ability to see what is going on in the missile field and take the appropriate action and prioritize where they are using their resources, their Airmen, to tackle the problems and the solutions.”

The first of these facilities is now being built at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming. That base is also set to host initial prototyping efforts related to the fiber optic cable laying, which is set to be a huge undertaking led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The Air Force is now aiming to start fielding Sentinel sometime in the early 2030s. How long it will take to complete the transition from Minuteman III to the ICBMs is unclear. The service has said it is at least “feasible” to keep some number of Minuteman IIIs on alert until 2050, according to a past report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a congressional watchdog.

The U.S. military continues to stress that the new Sentinel ICBMs and modernized infrastructure that will come with them are top national security priorities. Despite debates in the past about the utility of the land-based leg of the triad, it does remain the fastest nuclear response option in the Pentagon’s strategic portfolio. It also has a continued purpose to act as a ‘warhead sponge’ that would force any opponent to expend substantial resources on trying to neutralize it in a future nuclear exchange.

US Air Force launches Minuteman III ICBM from Vandenberg in unarmed test

The global geostrategic environment has also evolved in ways that further bolster the case for Sentinel, particularly when it comes to China drastically expanding its nuclear arsenal. Other global crises, including Russia’s ongoing war with Ukraine, together with other proliferation and strategic weapons development concerns, are factors, as well.

“The fact of the matter is that both the offense and defensive threats … have evolved significantly” since Minuteman III was fielded, Gen. Davis said today. “We’ve gotten all the capability that we can out of the Minuteman, but Sentinel will bring Air Force Global Strike Command and USSTRATCOM important new capabilities that we need to keep up with the threat and to stay ahead of it.”

There are many questions the Sentinel program clearly still has to answer, including how many warheads each missile should carry, as it moves toward finally reaching an operational capability in the next decade.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

In his State of the Union address, US President Trump reiterated claims the US “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear programme last year, contradicting his special envoy Steve Witkoff, who said Iran is “one week away” from a nuclear bomb.

The White House’s comment comes days after a senior Trump aide said Iran is one week away from having material for nuclear bomb.

The White House has insisted that last year’s strikes against Iran destroyed the country’s nuclear programme despite a recent claim by a senior US official that Tehran is a week away from having bombmaking material.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House spokesperson, told reporters on Tuesday that the June 2025 attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, known as Operation Midnight Hammer, was an “overwhelmingly successful mission”.

The attack “did, in fact, obliterate Iran’s nuclear facilities“, Leavitt said.

But just this weekend, President Donald Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff suggested that Iran is close to having enough material to build a nuclear weapon.

“They’re probably a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material,” Witkoff told Fox News on Saturday.

Since last June’s strikes, Trump has repeatedly hailed the attack, arguing that it eliminated Iran’s nuclear programme and led to “peace” in the Middle East. Operation Midnight Hammer came towards the end of a 12-day war Israel initiated with Iran that month.

But eight months later, US and Iranian officials are once again holding talks to reach a nuclear deal and avert another war.

On Tuesday, Leavitt said the destruction of Iran’s nuclear programme had been “verified” by Trump and the United Nations’ watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

“That does not mean that Iran may never try again to establish a nuclear programme that could directly threaten the United States and our allies abroad, and that’s what the president wants to ensure can never happen again,” she added.

Last year, after the US attack, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said Iran could resume uranium enrichment “in a matter of months”.

But the UN agency’s inspectors have not been able to assess Iran’s nuclear sites since the US strikes.

The Pentagon’s public assessment was that the Iranian nuclear programme was set back by one to two years.

There has been no official confirmation of the US claims that Iran has restarted nuclear enrichment after the attack.

After a visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the US in December, Trump renewed his threats to attack Iran if it tries to rebuild its nuclear or missile programme.

Tensions have spiralled since then, with the US amassing military assets near Iran.

Still, Tehran and Washington are set to hold the third round of negotiations this year to push for a nuclear deal.

Iran, which denies seeking a nuclear weapon, has said it would agree to minimal uranium enrichment under strict IAEA supervision in exchange for lifting sanctions against its economy.

But Trump has repeatedly stressed that it is seeking zero enrichment.

Enrichment is the process of isolating and concentrating a rare variant, or isotope, of uranium that can produce nuclear fission.

At low levels, enriched uranium can power electric plants. If enriched to approximately 90 percent, it can be used for nuclear weapons.

Before the June 2025 war, Iran was enriching uranium at 60 percent purity.

Tehran had been escalating its nuclear programme since 2018, when Trump, during his first term, nixed a multilateral agreement that capped Iran’s enrichment at 3.67 percent. He instead started piling up sanctions on the Iranian economy, as part of a “maximum pressure” campaign.

The White House on Tuesday suggested the military option against Iran remains on the table.

“President Trump’s first option is always diplomacy. But as he has shown, he is willing to use the lethal force of the United States military if necessary,” Leavitt said.

Amid the steady drumbeat of reports pointing to the growing likelihood of strikes on Iran, there are indications that officials from Washington and Tehran will meet this week for another round of talks centered on the Iranian nuclear program. While the two sides remain generally at loggerheads, Iranian officials are now openly talking about possible concessions on their nuclear program in return for sanctions relief and the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

The Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, told CBS over the weekend that U.S. and Iranian negotiators would likely hold more discussions in Geneva on Thursday, with the aim of making “a fast deal.” Iran and the United States resumed negotiations earlier this month.

Now, Araghchi says that he thinks there is still a good chance of finding a diplomatic solution in planned talks with U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff. However, he added that “If the United States attacks us, then we have every right to defend ourselves.” Iran has repeatedly threatened to strike U.S. bases in the region if it is attacked.

Feb. 22 (UPI) — A nuclear deal will be the subject of negotiations between Washington and Iran Thursday, officials say.

Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner will meet with Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, in Geneva following receipt of the proposal, which is expected Tuesday.

“If Iran gives a draft proposal, the U.S. is ready to meet in Geneva in order to start detailed negotiations to see if we can get a nuclear deal,” officials said, per Axios.

President Donald Trump had previously suggested that failure to reach a deal would lead to “bad things.”

Araghchi is slated to finish that proposal by Monday, the outlet reported.

“So there is no need for any military buildup, and military buildup cannot help it and annot pressurize us,” Araghchi said, CBS News reported.

He added that “If the U.S. attacks us, then we have every right to defend ourselves. Our missiles cannot hit the American soil. So obviously we have to do something else. We have to hit, you know, the Americans’ base in the region.”

Few places in Ukraine have been spared from the impact of the Ukraine war, including the radioactive exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear plant. Al Jazeera’s Nils Adler has been seeing how the site of the world’s worst nuclear disaster has been affected by the war.

Iran launched naval drills in the Strait of Hormuz, Persian Gulf and Oman Sea, state TV reports, ahead of US-Iran nuclear talks in Geneva on Tuesday. Video shows Gen. Mohammad Pakpour, the head of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, overseeing the drills.

Iran’s top diplomat says he hopes to ‘achieve a fair and equitable deal’ before high-stakes talks are held on Tuesday.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has arrived in Geneva for high-stakes second round of nuclear talks with the United States aimed at reducing tensions and avert a new military confrontation that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has warned could turn into a regional conflict.

“I am in Geneva with real ideas to achieve a fair and equitable deal,” Araghchi wrote on X on Monday. “What is not on the table: submission before threats.”

Iran and the US renewed negotiations earlier this month to tackle their ⁠decades-long dispute over Tehran’s nuclear programme as US deploys warships, including a second aircraft carrier, to the region as mediators work to prevent a war.

Araghchi met with Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), on Monday, after saying his team nuclear experts for a “deep technical discussion”.

The United Nations nuclear watchdog has been calling for access to Iran’s main nuclear facilities that were bombed by the US and Israel during the 12-day war in June. Tehran has said there might be a risk of radiation, so an official protocol is required to carry out the unprecedented task of inspecting highly enriched uranium ostensibly buried under the rubble.

Speaking to state-run IRNA news agency on Monday, foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said the IAEA will play “an important role” in upcoming mediated talks between Iran and the US. But he also renewed Tehran’s criticism of Grossi for the director’s refusal to condemn military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites that are protected under agency safeguards as part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Araghchi also said he would meet his Omani counterpart, Badr bin Hamad al-Busaidi, who mediated the first round of talks between Iran and the US since the war earlier this month.

Iran has repeatedly emphasised that it will not agree to Washington’s demand for zero nuclear enrichment, and considers its missile programme a “red line” that cannot be negotiated.

Meanwhile, the US continues to build up its military presence in the region, with President Donald Trump saying a change of power in Iran “would be the best thing that could happen” and sending in a second aircraft carrier.

Trump is again likely to send his special envoy Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law Jared Kushner to represent the White House in the Geneva talks. Brad Cooper, the most senior US military commander in the region, had unexpectedly joined the US delegation during the Muscat talks on February 6.

The talks also come over a month after Iran’s deadly crackdown against nationwide protests, with Iranian officials claiming “terrorists” and “rioters” armed and funded by the US and Israel were behind the unrest.

The UN and international human rights organisations have blamed Iranian authorities for the widespread use of lethal force against peaceful protesters, which killed thousands, mainly on the nights of January 8 and 9.

But the hardliners in Tehran are more concerned about any potential concessions that could be given during upcoming talks with the US.

Addressing an open session on Monday, one of the most hardline lawmakers in Iran’s parliament cautioned security chief Ali Larijani against giving inspection access to the IAEA befire ensuring Iran’s territorial integrity, the security of nuclear sites and scientists, and use of peaceful nuclear energy for civilian purposes under the NPT.

“When US warships have opened their arms to embrace Iranian missiles, US bases have opened arms to take our missiles, and the homes of Zionist military personnel are anticipating the sound of the air raid sirens, it is obvious that such conditions cannot be met at the moment,” said Hamid Rasaei, a cleric close to the hardline Paydari (Steadfastness) faction.

In the other diplomatic track pursued in Switzerland on Tuesday, officials will be discussing ways of ending the Ukraine war, which is approaching the end of its fourth year after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.

But no immediate breakthrough appears in sight, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy telling the annual Munich Security Conference on Saturday that Kyiv has “too often” been asked to make concessions.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has outlined the conditions he considers necessary for any prospective deal between the United States and Iran, including the dismantling of all of Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure.

His comments on Sunday came as Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi headed to Switzerland for a second round of nuclear talks with the US.

Speaking at the annual Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Netanyahu said he was sceptical of a deal, but had told US President Donald Trump last week that any agreement must include several elements.

“The first is that all enriched material has to leave Iran,” he said.

“The second is that there should be no enrichment capability – not stopping the enrichment process, but dismantling the equipment and the infrastructure that allows you to enrich in the first place”.

The third, he said, was resolving the issue of ballistic missiles.

Netanyahu also called for sustained inspections of Tehran’s nuclear programme.

“There has to be real inspection, substantive inspections, no lead-time inspections, but effective inspections for all of the above,” he said.

Iran and the US resumed nuclear negotiations in Oman on February 6, months after previous talks collapsed when Israel launched an unprecedented bombing campaign against Iran last June, which started a 12-day war.

The US joined in the attacks, bombing three Iranian nuclear sites.

Netanyahu’s comments mark the first time he has spoken publicly on the discussions with Trump in Washington, DC, last Wednesday. The meeting was their seventh since Trump returned to office last year.

Trump told reporters afterwards that they had reached no “definitive” agreement on how to move forward with Iran, but that he had “insisted that negotiations with Iran continue to see whether or not a deal can be consummated”.

According to a report by Axios, the two leaders agreed to intensify economic strangleholds on Iran, mostly on its oil sales to China. More than 80 percent of Iranian oil exports current go to China.

The report, which cited US officials, said Netanyahu and Trump agreed in their meeting on the necessary end state: an Iran without the capability to obtain nuclear weapons. But they disagreed about how to get there.

Netanyahu told Trump it would be impossible to make a good deal, while Trump said he thought it was possible. “Let’s give it a shot”, Trump said, according to Axios.

Iran has long denied any intent to produce nuclear weapons, but has said it is prepared to discuss curbs on its atomic programme in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. It has ruled out linking the issue to missiles, however.

The CBS broadcaster, meanwhile, reported on Sunday that Trump had told Netanyahu during a meeting in Florida in December that he would support Israeli strikes on Iran’s ballistic missile programme if the US and Iran could not reach a deal.

The network cited two sources familiar with the matter.

There was no immediate comment from the US or Israel on the CBS report.

The renewed push for diplomacy comes after Trump threatened new attacks on Iran and sent a US aircraft carrier to the region, citing a deadly crackdown on antigovernment protesters in January.

Tensions in the region remain high, meanwhile.

On Friday, Trump said he was sending a second aircraft carrier to the Middle East, and openly discussed changing Iran’s government.

Asked if he wanted a government change in Iran, Trump responded that it “seems like that would be the best thing that could happen”.

Asked why a second aircraft carrier was headed to the Middle East, Trump said: “In case we don’t make a deal, we’ll need it … if we need it, we’ll have it ready.”

For its part, Iran has promised to retaliate to any attack, saying it will strike US bases in the Middle East.

The continued tensions have sparked fears of a wider regional war.

Looking like a scene in a sci-fi movie, and in what is clearly a unique mission, dubbed Operation Windlord, USAF C-17s have been tasked with transporting a micro nuclear reactor. The U.S. military’s role is to transport the elements of the Ward250 reactor, made by Valar Atomics, from March Air Reserve Base in Southern California to Hill Air Force Base in Utah. Once on the ground in Utah, it will be moved to Utah San Rafael Energy Lab (USREL) in Orangeville for extensive testing. Beyond its direct utility, this operation may very well serve as a glimpse of what’s to come as the Department of Defense looks to integrate micro nuclear reactors into the power grids of critical installations.

A total of three C-17s will bring the components of the Ward250, eight modules in total, to Utah. This is said to be the first time a nuclear reactor has been moved via Globemaster III. The delivery of the Ward250 to USREL is part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Nuclear Reactor Pilot Program, established in response to President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14301 last year.

DOE’s pilot program is looking to advance developments that could have commercial and military applications. The U.S. military has been pursuing its own micro-reactor efforts in recent years to help bring a resilient, safe, and scalable supply of electricity that is independent from local power grids to its bases. The vulnerability of America’s grid is palpable, and many military facilities are largely reliant on it. The use of micro reactors could also help remote installations that are dependent on their own power plants and future austere bases overseas that may have no direct access to a power grid at all.

You can read all about the Pentagon’s micro-reactor initiatives in our recent feature linked here.

The commercial aspects of micro reactors are also what Valar Atomics, and the associated scalable nuclear energy concepts it is perusing, seeks to address under executive order 14301, which jumpstarts a ‘nuclear renaissance’ of sorts for U.S. energy, including powering commercial industries. This could be especially relevant for helping to quench what is becoming an insatiable thirst for electricity from data centers spurred on by the artificial intelligence (AI) boom.

Valar Atomics’ Ward250 is a next-generation reactor design that uses helium coolant and graphite moderators. At its core is so-called tri-structural isotropic (TRISO) fuel that consists of “uranium kernels encased in ceramic layers,” according to a previous press release from USREL.

Using TRISO nuclear fuels is often described as a way to produce higher performance than would be offered by comparable amounts of traditional fissile material used in power plants today. It is also said to be safer to use and handle. Past reports have said that Valar is aiming for Ward250 to be capable of reaching a 100-kWt (kilowatts of thermal energy) power rating.

The combination of TRISO fuel, helium-cooling, and graphite moderation “enable safer operations over past nuclear technologies and offer the ability to operate at higher temperatures than traditional plants,” according to USREL.

The Most Ambitious Energy Project on Earth – Valar Atomics

The Modular Citadel | Valar Atomics

Isaiah Taylor, the founder of Valar Atomics, also stated the following about the company’s vision and its very aggressive timelines:

“For four decades, the United States has underinvested in domestic energy production while exporting energy-intensive industries overseas. This strategic error has left us vulnerable precisely when energy demand is accelerating at unprecedented rates. Now, as we work to reshore critical manufacturing and compete in the energy-demanding field of artificial intelligence, we face power requirements that dwarf anything in our industrial history.

The scale of this challenge cannot be overstated. Training a single large language model can consume as much electricity as a small city. Advanced manufacturing requires constant, reliable power measured in gigawatts. The industrial processes needed to compete with China in critical materials and manufacturing are extraordinarily energy-intensive. Meanwhile, our existing grid infrastructure, much of it built decades ago, strains even under current demands.

Renewable sources cannot meet these baseload demands with the reliability and density required. While extremely valuable assets which also should be allowed to grow, natural gas and coal lack the speed and fundamental economics needed to counter China. Only nuclear power offers the combination of low cost, rapid timeline, and operational reliability necessary to power America’s technological and industrial renaissance.

For the first time in decades, nuclear energy is being treated as what it truly is: a strategic national asset essential to our prosperity, security, and global influence.

…

We are honored to announce that Valar Atomics has been selected by the U.S. Department of Energy to achieve criticality on American soil by July 4th, 2026.”

It appears that this airlift mission is crucial to realizing that goal.

We first got wind of the air transport mission when Taylor started posting from the flightline at March ARB yesterday. The images he posted show the sci-fi-looking reactor being rolled onto the C-17, along with other containers and support equipment.

The Pentagon has since posted about the operation:

A Pentagon release on Operation Windlord reads, in part:

“This groundbreaking collaboration with Valar Atomics is directly aligned with President Trump’s Executive Order to reshape and modernize America’s nuclear energy landscape.

On Sunday, February 15, 2026, a next-generation nuclear reactor will be transported via C-17 from March Air Reserve Base in California to Hill Air Force Base in Utah. The reactor will then be transported to Utah San Rafael Energy Lab (USREL) in Orangeville, Utah, for testing and evaluation.

The successful delivery and installation of this reactor will unlock significant possibilities for the future of energy resilience and strategic independence for our nation’s defense, showcasing an agile, innovative, and commercial-first approach to solving critical infrastructure challenges. By harnessing the power of advanced nuclear technology, we are not only enhancing our national security but championing a future of American energy dominance.”

As to why the reactor was not transported to Utah on the ground, that is not clear. Security is a glaring issue with anything nuclear, so that was likely a factor. Then there is the Pentagon’s push for nuclear reactors, which could see movements like this become commonplace. As an aside, the USAF unit involved in the transport, the 62nd Airlift Wing, is the only one currently known to be certified to ferry routine nuclear weapons shipments. As a result, the 62nd is often involved in the movement of other kinds of nuclear material in cooperation with DOE.

On top of being part of an important effort to advance new nuclear power technologies, Operation Windlord would be a great proof of concept that will inform future micro reactor airlift operations.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

Foreign minister says regional powers have been ‘far more effective’ than European countries.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has derided the Munich Security Conference as a “circus”, accusing European powers of “paralysis and irrelevance” in efforts to revive nuclear negotiations with the United States.

Iranian officials were not invited to the annual security meeting in the German city.

“Sad to see the usually serious Munich Security Conference turned into the ‘Munich Circus’ when it comes to Iran,” Araghchi wrote on X on Sunday.

“The paralysis and irrelevance of the EU/E3 is displayed in the dynamics surrounding the current talks over Iran’s nuclear program. … Once a key interlocutor, Europe is now nowhere to be seen. Instead, our friends in the region [the Gulf] are far more effective and helpful than an empty-handed and peripheral E3.”

The E3 – which included France, the United Kingdom and Germany – were key players in the previous round of nuclear negotiations between world powers and Iran. That process culminated in 2015 with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a landmark agreement aimed at limiting the scope of Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief.

The US under the first administration of President Donald Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018 and ramped up sanctions on Iran. Since then, the process has largely stalled. Still, the E3 maintained a role as a go-between with Tehran and Washington.

But since negotiations resumed last year, Gulf countries, such as Oman and Qatar, have taken the lead in facilitating talks between the US and Iran.

Araghchi made the remarks before leaving Tehran to lead a diplomatic and technical delegation to Geneva for a new round of nuclear talks with the US. The talks follow last week’s indirect negotiations in Oman, which is mediating the process, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

During his visit, Araghchi is expected to meet his Swiss and Omani counterparts, as well as the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, and other international officials.

Abas Aslani, a senior research fellow at the Center for Middle East Strategic Studies, said Araghchi’s comments “indicate a policy shift from the Iranian side that the E3 mechanism … is no longer a valid channel for resolution”.

“This nuclear mediation has moved from Europe to the region, and now the heavy lifting in diplomacy is done by regional players,” he said.

On Tuesday, Oman is to host talks between the US and Iran in Geneva after previous indirect negotiations in Muscat on February 6. Those talks were attended by US envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner.

US and Iranian officials previously held several rounds of talks in the Omani capital to discuss Iran’s nuclear programme last year. But that process was halted as Israel launched a 12-day war with Iran in June, which the US briefly joined by bombing three Iranian nuclear facilities.

The new rounds of negotiations come as tensions in the region remain high, with Trump moving more US military assets to the Middle East. On Friday, the US president said he was sending a second aircraft carrier to the region while openly talking about a change in Iran’s government.

Despite the new push for diplomacy, the two sides have maintained their positions. Iran has shown flexibility in discussing its nuclear programme, but the US wants to widen the talks to include Iran’s ballistic missiles and its support for regional armed groups – two issues that Tehran says are nonnegotiable.