B-2 stealth bombers sent to hit Houthis and send a message to Iran

Dropping bombs sends messages. Overnight the United States sent B-2 Spirit strategic stealth bombers to hit underground Houthi weapons stores. The aim was to frighten Iran. Using America’s most potent bomber to hit bunkers controlled by a militia force which has no sophisticated air-defence systems might seem over the top – a superpower sledgehammer to crack an irritating nut. However, the early morning raid was far more than a strike on a militia force which has been a persistent threat to Israel and to western commercial shipping in the Red Sea, the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait and the Gulf of Aden. The Pentagon is not confirming what type of munition was dropped by the B-2s. But this bat-winged aircraft, part of the US strategic triad of nuclear delivery systems, is also the only platform in the US Air Force capable of carrying the mighty 30,000lb (15 tons) Massive Ordnance Penetrator or MOP which, with its dense steel casing, can plough through 200ft of earth, rock and reinforced concrete before exploding. The MOP, technically a GBU-57, has never been dropped in anger. Only 20 were ever built, and they were designed purely to be able to penetrate further underground than any other weapon on earth, apart from a nuclear bomb. So, whether or not one of these huge bombs – and each B-2 can carry two – was used against the underground Houthi target, the message was loud and clear to Tehran, backers and financiers and armourers to the Houthis: the B-2 stealth bomber with its immense conventional payload capacity is waiting in the wings. The timing of the B-2 raid, and the announcement of the stealth bombers’ involvement by the US defence secretary himself, Lloyd Austin, as opposed to a run-of-the-mill press release from Central Command, made the attack all the more significant. Iran, and Wasihngton, and the whole western world, is waiting for the Israelis to retaliate for the launching by Tehran of around 200 ballistic missiles against Israel on October 1. President Biden has pleaded with Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, not to attack either Iran’s nuclear facilities, for fear of uncontrollable escalatory repercussions, or its oil industry plants because of the potential consequences for oil prices; and Netanyahu has apparently given assurances that although the retaliation will be significant, his bombers won’t go for nuclear or oil targets. This is why last night’s B-2 raid on the Houthis was so much more than taking out underground bunkers stocked with Iran-supplied weapons. This was a direct message to Tehran., and a reminder to Netanyahu that if the time comes when Iran decides to leap ahead and build a nuclear bomb, the US, and only the US, has the means to deliver long-term damage to sites which are buried deep inside mountains. The statement from Lloyd Austin, a former commander of Central Command , drove home the message. “Today, US military forces, including US Air Force B-2 bombers, conducted precision strikes against five hardened underground weapons storage locations in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen. This was a unique demonstration of the United States’ ability to target facilities that our adversaries seek to keep out of reach, no matter how deeply buried underground, hardened or fortified.,” he said. “The employment of US Air Force B-2 Spirit long-range stealth bombers demonstrates US global strike capabilities to take action against these targets when necessary, anytime, anywhere.” Last night’s strike was the first time the B-2 had been used in an operation since the war in Afghanistan. If a MOP was dropped, it would not just be a demonstration of this weapon’s capability but it would also force Iran to review its calculations about the bomb’s penetration powers and whether their nuclear facilities would be vulnerable. Iran’s principal nuclear site at Natanz is burrowed in a mountain, and even the MOP might have difficulty in destroying the underground facility. The bomb was designed to target deeply-buried sites and has a 6,000lb high-explosive warhead. The key element of the bomb is its ability to delay detonation, with a modified fuse design, until it has reached the most vital part of the buried target. The Houthis also have weapons sites buried in mountains but they are not as sophisticated as Iran’s facilities, and their air-defence systems are crude by comparison with Iran’s Russian-built S-200s and S-300s which guard the facility at Natanz and at other nuclear plants. Yet, the US still went ahead with sending the B-2s which are housed at Whiteman Air Force base in Missouri, unless they had been forward-deployed to a location in the Gulf specifically for this mission. If the MOP wasn’t used on this occasion, the B-2s would have carried highly effective bunker-busting Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) with 2,000lb warheads and/or the GBU-72 bomb which has a 5,000lb warhead. They might have been sufficient to destroy the five sites mentioned by Austin. However, the deployment of B-2s against the Houthis, whatever weapons were on board, was supposed to strike fear in Iran. These bombers, each costing more than $1 billion, were designed to evade enemy air-defence radars and their use in combat in Kosovo, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan proved their worth as a unique bombing platform.

Trump's threat to use the military to quell enemy within

I don't know whether Donald Trump's threat to use the military to bash his opponents in the US is just rhetorical garbage but if he becomes president again it seems pretty likely he will not brook any criticism. This is why Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have been warning of an end to democracy in the US if Trump returns to the White House. In several interviews he has called his critics scum and evil people and has, among others, Nancy Pelosi in mind, a woman who has given her working life to public service. Normally the enemy within refers to domestically-grown terrorists or anarchists but Trump is thinking only of his political opponents, especially those who want him in jail, and he has ventured to suggest that if necessary he would call in the National Guard or the regular army to keep his opponents in check. It's worth reminding everyone that this is the United States of America he is talking about where the president, while powerful, still has to adhere to the law and the constitution and to uphold democratic and moral values. It's safe to say, I hope, that if Trump does become president again, if he tries to order military chiefs to sweep the streets of his critics, they will refuse to obey their commander-in-chief. Whoever is appointed chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff under a new Trump regime is going to have a tough time. But the time I have spent with the US military and with their top generals and admirals convinces me that none of them would agree to do anything against the law or the constitution within the territory of the United States. So, threaten away, Mr Trump, but don't expect your orders to be obeyed.

The fact that Trump is a convicted felon doesn't seem to matter

If Robert Jenrick or Kemi Badenoch, the two remaining candidates for the leadership of Britain's Conservative party, were convicted felons, would they stand a chance of becoming the next Tory leader? Indeed, would they even be allowed to stand as a candidate? The answer is surely no. But in the United States, the Republican presidential candidate, one Donald Trump, was convicted of 34 business fraud charges and yet he is closing in on winning the election next month. In the US, things are different! But it has to be said, all the talk not that long ago of Trump having to fight his campaign from a jail cell or being barred from standing because of his convictions has been forgotten. Indeed, the legal problems facing Trump, in particular the charge that he tried to interfere with the election result in 2020, are hardly even mentioned. There will be no more trials, no more appearances in court and no resolutions to any of the remaining charges until after, well after, the November election, if they happen at all. Why isn't Kamala Harris shouting from the rooftops that her Republican opponent should either be locked up or should be soundly defeated in November for the sake of the country's survival? It is extraordinary how the federal charges have been pushed to one side, as if they are of no consequence. Kamala has been too nice, she should be warning the country every day of the dangers of voting for a man who is a convicted felon and is facing other charges that could send him to prison. She seems to be frightened to go all out against Trump. After all, when he was facing Hillary Clinton as his presidential opponent in 2016, Trump spent a lot of his time shouting "Jail her, jail her" for breaching the rules about using her private phone for government work as secretary of state. He won and she lost. Why isn't Kamala shouting, "Jail him, jail him"?

Will America's enemies fear Kamala Harris?

Mike Johnson, the House Speaker in the US, put his finger on it in an interview over the weekend. He posed the question whether Kamala Harris would be feared as US president by America's enemies and rivals? His opinion was that America's enemies would not fear Kamala but they would and do fear Donald Trump. Johnson is a Republican, so he is bound to come to that conclusion. But it's still a relevant question especially for the next decade when the whole world is going to be in some sort of uproar and upheaval, from wars, climate change and mass migration. Who would best serve US and the western world's interests? A charming, smiley woman with experience in foreign affairs by being vice president for four years and a former prosecutor, or a morose-looking, late seventies former president with a reputation for dilettante foreign policy-making and a bullish, bullying tendency? On the face of it, it is probably true to say that America's enemies, and allies, would be far more wary of a President Trump Part Two, than a President Harris. But is it important for a president to be feared? Yes, if it acts as a deterrent to adversaries but no if it provokes potential enemies into rash actions. Is the US safer if the president is a tough guy who doesn't like to be crossed, or is it safer with a president who uses diplomacy, persuasion and compromise to bring about a positive conclusion to a crisis? It's difficult to know for sure, but Joe Biden adopted the latter approach and it has to be said that the Taleban walked all over him, Israel carried on with its wars against Hamas and Hezbollah, never mind what Biden recommended and advised, and Putin just raged on in Ukraine, ignoring Washington. Kamala, if she were to become president, might be wise to adopt an approach that would combine toughness and no-nonsense with conciliation. The US is still, just, the most powerful country in the world, and the president needs to BE the most powerful leader in the world.

Former top US general says Trump is a "Fascist to the core".

I don't know whether he has been quoted accurately or fairly, but according to Bob Woodward's latest revelatory book about the goings-on in Washington. General Mark Milley, the former chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of staff, consudered Donald Trump to be a Fascist to the core. I assume he said this privately and whoever was in the room at the time spilled the beans about his or her memory of the remark to the Washington Post journalist and author. Every time a Woodard book comes out - and they are regular - everyone who was anyone in the Washington establishment at the time of the period covered in the book must regret ever making any remark about Trump or anyone else in a senior office appointment. Private or public, it gets whispered to Woodward. I like General Milley, I think he's a good guy, a solid military fellow with integrity and toughness and a ton of experience. If he thinks Trump is a Fascist then I guess a helluva lot of snesible people think the same but wisely don'y say so in private. Poor Milley, if he said it, he presumably felt he wouldn't be betrayed by voicing his opinion of the former president within earshot of others. But Milley is an honourable man and must now be worried that the man with such extremist views could once again become president. Trump will claim this is all fake news and will deny he has any Fascist tendencies, yet he is authoritarian by nature, he holds extreme right-wing views and wants to kick out millions of immigrants. Whether that means he is Fascist to the core, I don't know, but I would trust Milley's opinion against Trump's any day of the week.

Spare a thought for Joe Biden

I wonder whether Joe Biden is bitterly regretting standing down. It's all too late now, but it must be pretty galling for him to watch Kamala Harris, still his vice president, gadding about the country talking about herself and her hopes for the country without actually spelling out all the wonderful achievements of her boss, President Biden, in his near-four years in office. Although she hasn't promised anything much beyond what Biden has also espoused to, Kamala is still not telling people that she was so lucky and privileged to serve under Biden as president. Or if she has, it hasn't made any headlines. So, he stumbles on, trying to stop the death and destruction in Gaza and Lebanon without having much, if any, impact, on Benjamin Netanyahu, continues to support Ukraine in its fight with Russian invaders without actually bringing any hopes of an end to the war, and waiting for the effects of his huge investment in climate-change industrial and energy policies to make an obvious difference. It must be tough to be Joe Biden, finishing off his last few months in the White House and trying to build his legacy while everyone in the country is either focusing on Kamala and Trump battling it out or trying to rescue their lives from the latest hurricane. Biden has three months left of his presidency and is still hoping that diplomacy will win the argument in the Middle East when patently Netanyahu is not interested in any such thing right now. So, spare a thought for poor old Joe.

A president who lies or a president who equivocates?

The latest polls show that the fight between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris is getting so close there is hardly any light between them, especially in key must-win states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And there are only three weeks to go. This should be seriously worrying for Kamala Harris and her campaign team. You would have thought that by now most voters will have made up their minds about who they are going to vote for, but this isn't the case. And the reason is that while the vast majority of voters, whether Republican or Democrat, will have strong views about Trump - either for or against - Kamala Harris is still seen as a relatively unknown person, and the undecided voters want more reasons why they should go for her. This is also seriously worrying for Kamala. The main reason, apart from the fact that she only became the Democratic nominee when Joe Biden agreed to step down in July, is that in the few interviews she has given to TV broadcasters and newspapers, she never seems to answer the difficult questions. Often she answers a question with a question or just skirts round it by giving an anodyne reply which satisfies no one. One could argue that this is what politicians do, they don't want to give precise answers to tricky questions in case they get for ever lumbered with a reply which then hits the headlines for the wrong reasons. But she is standing for the White House for goodness sake. Voters are entitled to know exactly what she thinks and what she will do if she wins. In the case of Trump he just answers in any way he fancies at the time, more often than not coming out with a blatant lie. He claims something which isn't true or says he has done something which he hasn't. Voters don't seem to mind, at least not Republican supporters. So with such a short time left, Americans have to decide whether they want a president who lies all the time or a president who refuses to give answers to what are highly topical questions. It's apparently democracy.