While Israel has expressed its intent to disrupt Iran's nuclear program, the complete destruction of Iran's most heavily fortified underground nuclear facilities, particularly the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, is widely believed to be beyond Israel's current independent capabilities. Here's why: * Fاقرأ المزيد
While Israel has expressed its intent to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program, the complete destruction of Iran’s most heavily fortified underground nuclear facilities, particularly the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, is widely believed to be beyond Israel’s current independent capabilities.
Here’s why:
* Fordow’s Depth and Hardening: The Fordow facility is buried deep within a mountain, reportedly 80-90 meters (260-300 feet) underground, and is heavily reinforced. This makes it extremely difficult to penetrate with conventional weaponry.
* “Bunker Buster” Limitations: While Israel possesses some “bunker buster” bombs (like the GBU-28 and BLU-109), these have a shallower penetration range and are not considered powerful enough to reach Fordow’s deepest sections.
* US-Exclusive Capability: The only weapon widely believed to be capable of destroying Fordow is the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a 30,000-pound (13,600kg) precision-guided bomb. The United States is the only country that possesses the GBU-57, and it can only be delivered by a US B-2 stealth bomber.
* Need for Multiple Strikes: Even with the MOP, experts suggest that multiple sequential strikes would likely be needed to achieve full destruction of such a deeply buried and hardened facility.
What Israel can and has targeted:
Israel has reportedly focused its strikes on other Iranian nuclear and military sites, including:
* Natanz enrichment plant: This is Iran’s main enrichment site, and while parts of it are underground, it’s considered less deeply buried than Fordow. Israeli strikes have reportedly damaged its subterranean centrifuge halls.
* Centrifuge workshops near Tehran.
* Laboratories in Isfahan.
* Arak heavy water reactor: Recent reports indicate damage to key buildings at this facility.
In summary:
While Israel is actively seeking to degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities, completely destroying heavily fortified underground “fortresses” like Fordow likely requires the deployment of the US’s most advanced “bunker buster” bombs and the aircraft to deliver them. Without direct US involvement or the transfer of these specific capabilities, a full destruction of Fordow by Israel alone is considered highly improbable.
العربية 
English
India's foreign policy is complex and driven by its desire for strategic autonomy. While there are signs of India attempting to stabilize or even improve relations with China, it's not a straightforward move and is influenced by various factors, including its relationship with the US and Russia. Herاقرأ المزيد
India’s foreign policy is complex and driven by its desire for strategic autonomy. While there are signs of India attempting to stabilize or even improve relations with China, it’s not a straightforward move and is influenced by various factors, including its relationship with the US and Russia.
قراءة أقلHere’s a breakdown of the factors at play:
1. “Disappointment with Trump” and its impact on China relations:
* Trade Tensions with the US: The current US administration under Donald Trump has employed trade leverage against India, imposing tariffs and pushing for specific trade deals. This has created some friction and a sense of unpredictability in the US-India relationship.
* Shifting US Focus: Some analyses suggest that Trump’s approach might be leading India to reassess its full alignment with the US, particularly if the US is perceived as an unreliable partner or if its policies are detrimental to India’s economic interests. This could indirectly push India to explore better ties with other major powers, including China.
* Hedging Bets: India, like many countries, seeks to diversify its partnerships to avoid over-reliance on any single nation. A challenging relationship with the US under Trump could lead India to strategically “hedge its bets” by seeking rapprochement with China.
2. India’s Approach to China:
* Border Disputes Remain Central: Despite efforts to de-escalate, the long-standing and often tense border disputes, particularly along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), remain a significant obstacle to full normalization of ties. India consistently emphasizes the need for de-escalation on the border as a prerequisite for progress in bilateral relations.
* Economic Interdependence: China has been India’s largest trading partner for many years, leading to significant economic interdependence. India faces a large trade deficit with China. While there have been efforts to reduce reliance on Chinese imports, economic realities often necessitate continued engagement.
* Strategic Rivalry: India views China’s growing influence in South Asia and the Indian Ocean Region, including its strong ties with Pakistan, as a major security concern. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is also a point of contention for India.
* Recent Thaw, but with Caution: There have been recent diplomatic engagements, including India’s External Affairs Minister’s visit to China. This signals a cautious attempt to improve relations and find areas of cooperation, especially on global issues. However, India is clear that contentious bilateral issues, like the border dispute, must be addressed.
3. Trade Arms and Russia’s Role:
* Long-standing Russia-India Ties: India has a deep and historic defense relationship with Russia, relying on it for a significant portion of its military equipment. Russia has been a reliable supplier of arms and has been willing to share technology and co-produce weapons with India, unlike some Western nations.
* Strategic Autonomy: India’s continued strong ties with Russia, despite US objections, are a testament to its commitment to strategic autonomy. India views Russia as a crucial source of arms and energy, and a key member of international groupings like BRICS and SCO where both India and China are members.
* Russia as a Bridge? Russia has an interest in maintaining good relations with both India and China. While Russia’s increasing dependence on China due to Western sanctions might complicate this, there’s a possibility that Russia could, in some contexts, facilitate dialogue or cooperation between India and China, for example, within forums like the RIC (Russia-India-China) troika.
In conclusion:
India is not necessarily “trying to improve relations with China” in a way that suggests a full alignment or a shift away from its other partnerships. Instead, it’s pursuing a strategy of “multi-alignment” or “strategic autonomy” in a complex geopolitical landscape.
* The “disappointment with Trump” administration’s unpredictable policies and trade pressures might be prompting India to explore ways to reduce its vulnerability by diversifying its relationships.
* While a full resolution of the border dispute with China remains elusive and a major impediment, India is seeking to stabilize the relationship and find common ground on global issues.
* India’s enduring defense ties with Russia are a critical component of its strategic autonomy and indirectly influence its balancing act between the US and China.
Ultimately, India’s foreign policy is about protecting its national interests, securing its borders, and enhancing its global standing in a multipolar world. This often involves a delicate balancing act and pragmatic engagement with all major powers.