After the United States’ overnight strikes on Iran’s secretive nuclear program, the most important question is at least a “known unknown” – that is, what remains of it. The answer could define the region for decades to come, and be the ultimate arbiter of US President Donald Trump’s decision to embark on another conflict in the Middle East.

It is also an answer bedevilled by the elliptical and fickle nature of intelligence. On the one hand, public discussion of nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan should have left Tehran unwilling to let all of its nuclear secrets reside there. (Iran has said its program is entirely peaceful, although the UN’s nuclear watchdog reported finding uranium particles enriched up to 83% – just short of weapons grade).

If, as Israel maintains, Iran’s nuclear program has a hidden element, then surely that would not be housed in the same places where UN inspectors roam, and in the case of Fordow, over which there has been a public discussion for days of what American bombs might penetrate its deep caverns.

The raw materials needed for a nuclear bomb can be small: 20 kilograms of highly enriched uranium would suffice. The ingredients for several devices would fit into a minivan. This could be hidden anywhere in Iran. The technology needed to create a weapon is fiddlier, and requires human expertise, which Israel has been decimating over both the past 10 days, with strikes targeting key personnel, and also picking off more persistently over the past 10 years.

It is hard to imagine Iran suddenly being able to make this leap while under the intense bombardment of Israel’s air force, now with the open involvement of the US and its vast surveillance machinery too.

But this is an unknown, and Israel cannot have it both ways. If you insist Iran’s program is advanced and secretive, then there is also the risk something is happening that you are unaware of. Could Iran have assembled all the elements it needs, or even an atomic bomb, at another site, and just be waiting? Only time will tell.

The counterargument is also persuasive. Israel has been able to kill Iran’s nuclear scientists and military command as they slept in their homes – specific rooms in apartment blocks hit in the first wave of strikes on June 13. This suggests the wide and impressive penetration of vast parts of Tehran’s command structure and its most guarded secrets. No operation is perfect; it is possible Washington and Tel Aviv combined knew a lot.

It was not just the mountain fortress of Fordow that was struck, either. It is likely, as the dust clears and satellite images provide greater clarity in the battle damage assessment, that we will learn of targets being hit that we did not know about a week ago. For the opponents of Iran’s nuclear ambitions – just about everybody bar a handful of Iranian hardliners – that should provide some comfort.

But it is likely the Saturday night strikes did not take out everything – not every expert, or every piece of fissile material. The struggle will now be to chase what is left – to pursue the survivors and look for opportunities if panicked elements of the nuclear project make mistakes as they scatter or pick through the rubble.

What will remain will likely be the parts of Iran’s program which were unknown, if there are any. Tehran may decide that it would be better to reveal or progress this greatest secret only once the threat of Israeli strikes recedes. Does it make sense to rush it out now, at the height of surveillance and bombardment?

Diplomacy may – as Trump has suggested with his overnight post on Truth Social that “NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!” – now re-emerge. But the face of it has changed entirely compared to a week ago. Iranian officials had hinted to the media it might be willing to give up enrichment during talks in the past week. The demands placed upon it may now center on its ballistic missile program, which US hawks have long demanded be dismantled. That is happening, it seems, at a fast rate already, through its intense use of missiles to target Israel, and as a result of Israeli strikes that claim to have taken out the majority of its launchers.

The fact that Iran’s wish list for negotiations is now significantly altered – as much of what it’s hoped to keep has been destroyed or used – reveals the challenge of this moment to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. His skies are owned by a hostile air force, his nuclear program heavily damaged, and his military infrastructure and command shattered, constantly having to adapt and replace to survive. This limits his immediate, favorable options for a response. Flat-out strikes against US bases will simply augur a violent US retaliation, and may, after this much telegraphing, prove ineffective.

Iran has generally turned to asymmetrical responses, to compensate for its smaller budgets and capabilities. We may see this in the capital cities of Europe and in the Strait of Hormuz in the coming days. It needs to both display some sort of deterrent but also de-escalate, in order to survive.

But Iran’s capacity to see the longer-view, and its strategic patience, will work in its favor. There are no real electoral cycles to beset the Ayatollah’s decision-making. The Iranians have time to regroup, and respond when the heat is lower.

The United States, however, has a poor track record of success and application in the region. Last night, it gained the dubious distinction of having bombed a full cartographical sweep of nations from Syria through to Afghanistan in just 20 years. But it failed to dislodge the Assad regime of Syria, and despite years of trying were observers when last year’s sweeping changes removed one of Iran’s main regional proxies. And its longest war, in Afghanistan, ended in stark humiliation. Iraq, too, began with disputed information about weapons of mass destruction, and ended in failure after years of destruction and loss.

Iran is not Iraq and last night was not March 20, 2003, when America’s ill-fated invasion of that country began. There is no ground element to Trump’s ambition in Iran, and its goal was something widely supported by allies, and possibly within reach. But the US’ questionable track record and the hubristic atmosphere around Trump’s overwhelming use of force, should amplify alarm in the region over the unknowns to come.

Warplanes. Submarines. Cruise missiles. Bombs that weigh 30,000 pounds.

After initially favoring diplomacy, US President Donald Trump resorted to an extraordinary use of force against Iran on Saturday night, striking three of the regime’s key nuclear sites.

Trump claimed Iran’s nuclear facilities had been “obliterated,” but some Iranian officials downplayed the impact of the strikes – just as they did when Israel first struck Iran’s facilities on June 13.

With satellite imagery of the overnight strikes beginning to emerge, here’s what we know about the damage the US inflicted on Iran’s nuclear program.

Fordow

Fordow is Iran’s most important nuclear enrichment facility, buried deep inside a mountain to guard it from attacks.

The main halls are believed to be some 80 to 90 meters (262 to 295 feet) below ground. Analysts have long said that the US is the only military in the world with the kind of bomb required to burrow that deeply – the enormous, 30,000-pound GBU-57.

The images, captured by Maxar, showed six separate impact craters in two nearby locations at Fordow. The craters are visible along a ridge running over the underground complex.

“Of course, one cannot exclude (the possibility) that there is significant damage there,” he said.

“Total destruction of the underground hall is quite possible,” Albright said, while stressing that a full assessment of the damage will take time.

N.R. Jenzen-Jones, a munitions specialist and director of the research company Armament Research Services (ARES), concurred that there are at least six entry points in Fordow following the US strikes.

“This is consistent with the theory of an attack on such a deeply buried target as the Fordow site, which would require multiple precisely delivered, and carefully calibrated, penetrating munitions to essentially ‘smash’ and blast their way through to the deeper, more protected areas of the site,” he added.

Satellite imagery also showed significant changes to the color of the mountainside where the facility is housed, indicating a vast area was covered with a layer of grey ash in the aftermath of the strikes.

Although Iran’s foreign minister said the US had crossed a “very big red line,” other Iranian leaders downplayed the strikes’ impact. Manan Raeisi, a lawmaker representing the city of Qom, near Fordow, said the damage from the attack was “quite superficial.”

Natanz

Natanz is the site of Iran’s largest nuclear enrichment center and was targeted in Israel’s initial attack on Iran on June 13. The site has six above-ground buildings and three underground structures, which house centrifuges – a key technology in nuclear enrichment, turning uranium into nuclear fuel.

The above-ground facilities were damaged in Israel’s initial attack. The IAEA said the strikes damaged electrical infrastructure at the plant.

Although it is not clear if Israel’s strikes caused direct damage to the underground facilities, the IAEA said the loss of power to the underground cascade hall “may have damaged the centrifuges there.”

The US also targeted Natanz in its Saturday night operation. A US official said a B-2 bomber had dropped two bunker-busting bombs on the site.

US Navy submarines also fired 30 TLAM cruise missiles at Natanz and Isfahan, the third Iranian site targeted by the US.

Isfahan

Isfahan, in central Iran, is home to the country’s largest nuclear research complex.

The facility was built with support from China and opened in 1984, according to the nonprofit Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI). Some 3,000 scientists are employed at Isfahan, NTI says, and the site is “suspected of being the center” of Iran’s nuclear program.

Albright said initial reports suggested that the US also struck tunnel complexes near the Isfahan site, “where they typically store enriched uranium.”

If confirmed, Albright said this would show that the US was trying to take out Iran’s stocks of uranium that had been enriched to 20% and 60%. Weapons-grade uranium is enriched to 90%.

At a Pentagon news conference Sunday, Gen. Dan Caine, US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a US submarine had “launched more than a dozen Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles against key surface infrastructure targets” at the Isfahan site.

The smile on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s face was impossible to hide.

Minutes after President Donald Trump announced that the US had bombed three of Iran’s nuclear facilities, Netanyahu effusively praised the American leader as someone whose decisions could lead the region to a “future of prosperity and peace.”

Since Israel launched its attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities and other targets, Netanyahu and the country’s other political echelon had been careful not to be perceived as dragging Trump into another war in the Middle East. In the end, the US joining the campaign – and taking credit for the results – is arguably an even bigger success for Netanyahu, who brought the world’s superpower into what had been Israel’s mission.

Netanyahu has talked about the threat of Iran for much of his political career, parading out visual aids on occasion – like a cartoon of a bomb at the UN General Assembly in 2012 – to help his audience. But the longstanding criticism was that Netanyahu’s rhetoric was all bark, no bite.

For all the talk of the threat Iran posed to Israel and the wider region, Netanyahu never pulled the trigger on a major military operation. Instead, he authorized sporadic high-risk, high-reward operations from Israel’s Mossad spy agency, including the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and the stealing of the country’s nuclear archive.

But Iran’s nuclear program survived largely unscathed, and Netanyahu was left for years with no measurable achievement against an issue he came to see as an existential threat to Israel.

The last 10 days rewrote the script.

Aviv Bushinsky, who worked with Netanyahu during his first term in the late-90s, called the attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities “no doubt his greatest accomplishment.”

Israel’s initial waves of attacks and its establishment of air superiority over Iran began a clear string of military successes, which the Trump administration ultimately joined.

The scale of the success is so great that Bushinsky argued it made Netanyahu’s one of the country’s top two or three leaders since the country’s founding in 1948. The “stain” of failing to stop the Hamas-led attack on October 7 remains with Netanyahu, Bushinsky said, but the attack on Iran has immediately become part of his legacy.

“Netanyahu has a signature of taking down the nuclear capabilities of the Iranians,” he said.

Now Netanyahu immediately faces another challenge: deciding what to do next. At least publicly, the US has made it clear that it sees the Iran strikes as finished as long as Iranian forces don’t attack US troops in the region.

But after starting the campaign alone, Israel is still pressing its advantage. Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spokesman Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin said Sunday that Israel was preparing for the “campaign to prolong.” Before the weekend, Israel had conducted the military campaign against Iran on its own, and it has since carried out more strikes after the US bombing of the nuclear facilities.

“If the war was designed to obliterate Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, and the president of the United States says they destroyed the three facilities, then why isn’t Israel announcing mission accomplished?” former Israeli consul general Alon Pinkas asked rhetorically. “This military solution for everything is fine, as long as you understand that it is aligned with political goals. And I don’t see them.”

Since the start of the Trump administration, the friction between Trump and Netanyahu has been on full display as the White House pursued a series of steps in the region that left Israel sidelined. Trump’s first trip to the Middle East blew right past Israel without stopping, the American president signed a ceasefire deal with the Houthis in Yemen that cut out Israel, and he surprised Netanyahu in April by announcing nuclear negotiations with Iran.

The US decisions raised questions about whether Netanyahu was able to handle a second Trump administration, especially one with a far more vocal isolationist wing.

All of those questions disappeared in a puff of bunker buster smoke in the aftermath of the US strikes as the two leaders heaped praise on one another

The issue of Iran had broad consensus among much of Israeli society, with a majority of the country viewing a nuclear Iran as an existential threat.

According to a survey from the Israel Democracy Institute done before the US strikes, approximately 70% of Israelis supported the campaign against Iran, while nearly as many believe it was right to launch the strikes without a guarantee of US involvement.

That level of support has drawn accolades for Netanyahu even from his detractors.

“You don’t have to like Netanyahu in order to admit yes, he achieved something,” said Ben-Dror Yemini, a political analyst for Israel’s prominent Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

But the current moment – one in which Israel and the US have carried out punishing strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities – requires sensitive diplomacy and a willingness to back off the military successes that appear to have come so easily, Yemini said.

The decision to act and the decision to wait each involved its own elements of risk, according to former US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro.

“There’s risk in any use of forces and certainly in a major decision like this one from the United States,” Shapiro said. “But there was risk in not acting and leaving Iran within weeks of a nuclear bomb at the time of their choosing.”

But having made the critical choice to go after Iran’s nuclear facilities, Shapiro said it would be a grave mistake to assume the conflict is over.

Asked if the Middle East was safer now than it was before US involvement in the strikes against Iran, Shapiro said it depends on whether the bombing campaign destroyed or significantly damaged Iranian nuclear facilities. It also depends on how Iran chooses to respond, which he said requires the international community to lead Iran away from escalation.

“It’s too early to celebrate the achievement.”

At least 20 people have been killed and 52 more are injured after a “terrorist attack” on a Greek Orthodox church in the Syrian capital on Sunday, according to the country’s health ministry.

He opened fire on the congregation of Mar Elias Church in Damascus, before “detonating himself using an explosive vest,” the ministry said in a statement.

A mass was being held at the church at the time of the attack, according to Syria’s state news agency SANA.

A video circulating on Syrian social media from inside the church shows dead bodies, significant destruction, shattered glass and broken chairs in the area where mass was being held, with blood visible throughout the scene.

Syria’s civil defense, popularly known as the White Helmets, said emergency teams were working to transfer the bodies to hospitals and secure the area.

“The treacherous hand of evil struck” on Sunday, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch said in a statement, writing that “an explosion occurred at the entrance of the church, resulting in the deaths of numerous martyrs and causing injuries to many others who were inside the church or in its immediate vicinity.”

“We offer our prayers for the repose of the souls of the martyrs, for the healing of the wounded, and for the consolation of our grieving faithful. We reaffirm our unwavering commitment to our faith and, through that steadfastness, our rejection of all fear and intimidation,” the church said.

The United Nations Special Envoy for Syria, Geir O. Pedersen, expressed “outrage” at the “heinous crime,” his office said in a statement.

“Mr. Pedersen calls on all to unite in rejecting terrorism, extremism, incitement and the targeting of any community in Syria. He sends his deepest condolences to the families of the victims and his hope for the recovery of those injured,” the statement said.

The United States’ Special Envoy for Syria, Thomas Barrack, called the attack an act of “cowardice,” saying in a statement that it has “no place in the new tapestry of integrated tolerance and inclusion that Syrians are weaving.”

The foreign ministries of Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Israel, Greece, Cyprus, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority, Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, Ukraine, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands also spoke out in condemnation of the attack.

US President Donald Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities puts the Middle East in a volatile position, with all eyes now on Tehran’s next move.

Speaking in Istanbul, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Sunday his country has “a variety of options” when deciding how to respond to the US attacks.

From striking US bases in the region, to possibly closing a key waterway to global shipping, Iran is likely mulling its next moves. All carry inherent risks for the Islamic Republic, Israel and the United States.

Here’s what to know:

Iran could hit US military interests in the region

Direct US involvement in the conflict could see Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) activate what remains of its proxies across Iraq, Yemen and Syria, groups which have previously launched attacks on American assets in the region.

While Iran’s strongest ally in the region was once Lebanon’s Hezbollah, that group has been significantly weakened by Israeli attacks.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) says the US maintains a presence at 19 sites in total across the region, with eight of those considered by analysts to have a permanent US presence. As of June 13, the CFR estimated some 40,000 US troops were in the Middle East.

In Iraq, for example, there were 2,500 US troops as of late last year. An Iranian attack on these forces is not inconceivable. In 2020, an Iranian missile attack on a US garrison left more than 100 soldiers with traumatic brain injuries.

A resurgence of attacks from Yemen against US assets is already on the table. Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels previously vowed to attack American ships in the Red Sea should the US join Israel’s conflict with Iran. A prominent Houthi official said in a social media post early Sunday that “Trump must bear the consequences” of the US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

It is unclear if this marks the end of a US-Houthi ceasefire struck in May, in which Washington said it would halt its military campaign against the Houthis in exchange for the group stopping its attacks on US interests in the region.

Knowing that it can’t outright win a conflict against Israel and the US, experts have said that Tehran could seek to engage in a war of attrition, where it tries to exhaust its adversary’s will or capacity to fight in a drawn-out and damaging conflict, which Trump at the outset of his presidency said he wanted to avoid.

Iran could disrupt global oil trade

Iran also has the power to influence the “entire commercial shipping in the Gulf,” Ravid said, should it decide to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil shipping route.

There have so far been no material disruptions to the global flow of oil. But if oil exports are disrupted, or if Iran tries to block the Strait of Hormuz, the global oil market could face an existential crisis.

The strait links the Persian Gulf to the open ocean and is a key channel for oil and liquefied natural gas exports from the Middle East to the global market. About 20 million barrels of oil flow through the strait each day, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

A prominent adviser to Iran’s supreme leader has already called for missile strikes and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

“Following America’s attack on the Fordow nuclear installation, it is now our turn,” warned Hossein Shariatmadari, the editor-in-chief of the hardline Kayhan newspaper, a well-known conservative voice who has previously identified himself as a Khamenei “representative.”

Iran could race to build a bomb

Some experts say that Iran is very likely to race for a nuclear bomb now, even if the current regime collapses and new leaders come in place.

“Trump just guaranteed that Iran will be a nuclear weapons state in the next 5 to 10 years,” Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute in Washington, DC, said on X. “Particularly if the regime changes.”

Parsi has said that even if the regime collapses and new military elements assume power, they are likely to be much more hawkish than the current regime and race toward a nuclear weapon as their only deterrent.

Experts have previously said that Iran likely moved its stocks of enriched uranium from its key nuclear facilities amid Israeli strikes.. Nuclear power plants that generate electricity for civil purposes use uranium that is enriched to between 3.5% and 5%. When enriched to higher levels, uranium can be used to make a bomb Israel and the US accuse Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons; Tehran insists its program is peaceful.

Iran is also likely to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or the NPT, under which it has pledged not to develop a bomb.

“Iran’s response is likely not just limited to military retaliation. NPT withdrawal is quite likely,” Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, said on X.

Iran could just keep hitting Israel for now

Iran’s first response to the US’ attack on its nuclear sites was to attack Israel, not US bases.

Iranian missiles hit a group of buildings in Tel Aviv, where 86 people were admitted to hospital with injuries overnight and on Sunday morning, according to Israel’s ministry of health.

Knowing it may not be able to sustain a full-on confrontation with the US, and hoping that Trump will scale back on his involvement following Sunday’s strike, Iran may merely seek to perpetuate the status quo, fighting only Israel.

Trump at the time wanted to “send a big message, get the headlines, show US resolve, but then avoid a wider war,” Shabani said.

While Iran may feel it has to retaliate to save face, it may be a bloodless response, similar to what happened in 2020, when it launched a barrage of missiles at US bases in Iraq, which resulted in traumatic brain injuries to personnel but no deaths.

Iran could resort to cyberattacks or terrorism

Two military analysts have said Iran could resort to “asymmetric” measures – such as terrorism or cyberattacks – to retaliate against the US because Israeli attacks have reduced Iran’s military capabilities.

“I think (the IRGC is) going to be a little bit careful, and I suspect that’s going to take us to all of the asymmetric things they can do: cyber, terrorism. I think that they’re probably going to be looking for things where the US cannot just put up the traditional defenses,” he added.

But, “albeit wounded,” the IRGC still has “some tremendous capacity,” he said. “It has capabilities that are already within the region and then outside the region. We are vulnerable… around the world, where the IRGC has either influence or can make things happen asymmetrically.”

Iran could resume nuclear talks

Iran has refused to return to the negotiating table while under Israeli attacks.

On Sunday, Araghchi said he does not know how “much room is left for diplomacy” after the US military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

“They crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities. … We have to respond based on our legitimate right for self-defense,” Araghchi said.

Parsi said that by doing so, “the Iranians have cornered themselves.”

“Their aim is to force Trump to stop Netanyahu’s war, and by that show his ability and willingness to use American leverage against Netanyahu,” Parsi wrote. “But the flip side is that Tehran has given Israel a veto on US-Iran diplomacy – by simply continuing the war, Israel is enabled to block talks between the US and Iran.”

Iranian and European officials met Friday in Geneva for talks, which an Iranian source said started out tense but became “much more positive.”

Speaking Sunday, Araghchi said the US had decided to “blow up” diplomacy.

“Last week, we were in negotiations with the US when Israel decided to blow up that diplomacy. This week, we held talks with the E3 (group of European ministers)/EU when the US decided to blow up that diplomacy,” Araghchi said on X.

“The more likely situation is that the talks are over for now.”

Large crowds gathered at the Enqelab Square in central Tehran on Sunday evening, protesting the strikes. Footage published by the state-affiliated Fars News Agency showed people waving Iranian flags and punching the air, carrying signs that read: “Down with the USA, down with Israel.”

Hamid Rasaee, a politician, said even people critical of the regime were protesting.

Trump ordered attacks on three of Iran’s most important nuclear facilities early Sunday morning – a move that has placed the US in the center of the conflict between Israel and Iran.

Iranians had faced the possibility of US intervention ever since Israel launched its strikes on nuclear and military targets last week – but many believed any action was days away.

That’s in part because Trump said Thursday he would decide whether to strike Iran within two weeks, seemingly opening a window for negotiations. That all changed early Sunday, when American bombers dropped more than a dozen massive “bunker buster” bombs on Iran’s Fordow and Natanz nuclear facilities, and Tomahawk missiles launched from the sea struck Isfahan.

“We do not have nuclear weapons, so why does he strike us?” he added, alluding to the Iranian regime’s insistence the country’s nuclear program is peaceful. Trump has claimed Iran was weeks away from acquiring a nuclear weapon, dismissing assessments from his own intelligence community that Iran was still years away from a weapon.

Qom residents slept through the attacks

While Trump has claimed the three sites struck by the US were “totally obliterated,” his defense secretary has said the full impact is still being assessed. And unlike the strikes by Israel in recent days, some of which targeted densely populated areas, the US attacks were concentrated in locations off-limits to most civilians.

Residents of Qom, a city some 30 kilometers (18 miles) from the Fordow nuclear site, woke to the sound of emergency vehicles’ sirens and the news that the secretive complex had been bombed a few hours earlier.

Five people living in Qom said they were surprised to learn what had happened when they got up, having heard nothing overnight.

Qom does not have an aerial attack warning system, so residents would have had no warning before the strikes.

Qom is considered a holy city, home to Iran’s largest and most famous Shia seminary. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei studied at the Qom Seminary, as did several of Iran’s former presidents.

Similarly, people living in a village some 35 kilometers (22 miles) from the Natanz facility said they heard nothing overnight.

In Tehran, far from the targeted nuclear sites, many were calling for Iran to respond with force. Fars released a compilation of short interviews with people on the streets of the capital Sunday.

Each of the eight people featured urged a retaliation – with most saying Iran should strike US bases in the region and close down the Strait of Hormuz on Iran’s southern shore, through which a third of global seaborne oil trade passes.

In Iran, signs of dissent tend to be quickly quashed, making it dangerous for people to express disagreement with the regime.

But Mohsen Milani, an Iranian scholar who has lived in the US for decades, said the US attack on Iran could spark more genuine support for the regime.

“It could ignite a new wave of nationalism, damage the future of U.S.-Iran relations more than the 1953 coup, accelerate Tehran’s pivot to Russia and China, and fundamentally reshape Iran’s defense, deterrence, and nuclear posture,” he said in a post on X.

Some of this sentiment was already on show in Tehran on Sunday.

“I will stay here and I will sacrifice my life and my blood for my country,” she said.

Everywhere around her, people were protesting the US, many holding anti-Trump signs and posters. Some of the posters ended up on the ground, where people stamped on them.

“We were living our normal lives and they attacked us. If someone strikes the United States, would they not answer? Of course they would,” she said.

Another person living in Tehran said they believed the regime was greatly weakened by the US strikes – because its opponents would now be able to call its bluff.

“The claims that the Iranian regime has always made – that it will attack all American bases and close the Strait of Hormuz – they made all these claims and the whole world saw that (the US) came and easily hit the Fordow and Natanz sites … but Iran was completely silent and no fighter planes took off and (it) used no defenses or missiles,” the person said, adding that if there is no response in the coming days, the regime’s supporters could abandon it.

“No sane person will stand by someone who is in a weak position, not even their own supporters,” they said.

A British-flagged luxury superyacht that sank off Sicily last year, killing UK tech magnate Mike Lynch and six others, completed its final trip to the Sicilian port of Termini Imerese Sunday, a day after recovery crews finalized the complex operation to lift it out of the water.

The white top and blue hull of the 56-meter (184-foot) Bayesian, covered with algae and mud, was kept elevated by the yellow floating crane barge off the port of Porticello, before being transferred to Termini Imerese, where it docked in the early afternoon.

On Monday, the delicate recovery operation will be concluded, as the vessel will be transported to shore and settled in a specially built steel cradle.

Then it will be made available for investigators for further examinations to help determine the cause of the sinking.

The Bayesian sank Aug. 19 off Porticello, near Palermo, during a violent storm as Lynch was treating friends to a cruise to celebrate his acquittal two months earlier in the US on fraud charges. Lynch, his daughter and five others died. Fifteen people survived, including the captain and all crew members except the chef.

Italian authorities are conducting a full criminal investigation.

The vessel was slowly raised from the seabed 50 meters (165 feet) deep over three days to allow the steel lifting straps, slings and harnesses to be secured under the keel.

The Bayesian is missing its 72-meter (236-foot) mast, which was cut off and left on the seabed for future removal. The mast had to be detached to allow the hull to be brought to a nearly upright position that would allow the craft to be raised.

British investigators said in an interim report issued last month that the yacht was knocked over by “extreme wind” and couldn’t recover.

The report said the crew of the Bayesian had chosen the site where it sank as shelter from forecast thunderstorms. Wind speeds exceeded 70 knots (81 mph) at the time of the sinking and “violently” knocked the vessel over to a 90-degree angle in under 15 seconds.

It’s a Monday night in June and hundreds have braved the haze of Canadian wildfires to gather in a cavernous sports facility in the city of Red Deer, Alberta.

An Alberta team, the Edmonton Oilers, are taking on the Florida Panthers in a National Hockey League finals game tonight. The atmosphere is heavy with anticipation.

But these people aren’t here for hockey. This is a rally for Alberta independence.

It might be hard to believe, given Canadian sports fans’ recent booing of “The Star Spangled Banner,” but not all Canadians took offense to US President Donald Trump’s questioning of their country’s sovereignty.

In oil-rich Alberta, where a movement for independence from Canada appears to be gathering steam, many see in Trump a powerful and important ally whose haranguing of their former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was as welcome as his calls to “drill baby, drill.”

Though some see US statehood as a step too far, many in the Red Deer crowd believe the US president – as a fellow pro-oil conservative – would recognize a breakaway Alberta should a vote on independence go their way.

“Donald Trump is not the savior of the world,” says Albert Talsma, a welding contractor from Bentley. “But right now he’s North America’s best asset.”

With their “Make Alberta Great Again” hats, “Alberta Republic” T-shirts and posters declaring “Albertans for Alberta!” it’s not hard to see parallels to the US president’s MAGA movement and the forces that inspired it.

Separatists here have long argued that Canada’s federal system fails to represent their interests; that the federal government’s efforts to stymie climate change are holding back Alberta’s lucrative oil industry (the largest in Canada); that they pay more than they get back through federal taxation; that their conservative values are drowned out by the more liberal eastern provinces.

“Alberta hasn’t been treated fairly since 1905, when we joined Confederation. They basically used the west as a colony, to take wealth from the west to support the east,” says Kate Graham, a singing grandmother from Calgary.

She opens the rally with a rendition of Janis Joplin’s “Mercedez Benz,” the lyrics modified to promote independence. Like Janis, she sings it a cappella, before spending much of the rest of the event at a booth by the door, selling merch emblazoned with the slogan “I AM ALBERTAN.”

Similar disenchantment is voiced by a steady stream of Albertans, each venting against their mother country on a stage flanked by a large provincial flag strung across a soccer goal.

“They want to stifle our (oil) industry,” says Mitch Sylvestre, a businessman from Bonnyville and one of the rally’s chief organizers, his hoarse voice echoing over the PA system.

“We have cancer. We have a problem,” says Sylvestre. “We have it large.”

Hopes for a vote in ‘one of God’s treasures’

In a strange twist, the push to get Alberta out of Canada has gained momentum just as much of the country has united in patriotism in the face of Trump’s tariffs and threats of annexation.

Soon after Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberals rode a wave of anti-Trump sentiment to win the 2025 federal election in April, the Alberta Legislature passed a law making it easier to organize a referendum on independence.

Under the new law, petitions for a province-wide vote now require just 177,000 signatures – down from 600,000 previously – and those signatures can be gathered over a period of four months rather than three. The province is home to nearly 5 million people, according to Statistics Canada, representing more than a tenth of the population of the entire country.

One of the most vocal advocates for a referendum is Jeffrey Rath, a lawyer and co-founder of the Alberta Prosperity Project (APP), which organized the Red Deer rally.

Rath, well over six feet tall in a cowboy hat and boots, has a ranch just outside of Calgary. He raises race horses there and follows the sport closely, especially the Kentucky Derby – where this year, he notes with a grin, “’Sovereignty’ beat ‘Journalism.’”

“If you wanna know what’s special about Alberta, just look around, right?” Rath says with a sweep of his hand.

The view from the rise above Rath’s horse pasture is superb: quaking aspen, white pine and green rolling hills.

“It’s one of God’s treasures on earth. And the people here are very distinct people that have a very distinct culture and that are interested in maintaining that culture.”

In Rath’s eyes, Trump’s attitude toward Canada is an opportunity. His group is counting on US government support in the event of success at the ballot box.

“Trump’s election has given us a lot of hope,” Rath says. “If anybody is going to have the guts to recognize an independent Alberta, (it) would be the Trump administration.”

Western alienation

Separatism is not new in Canada, but it’s only had real political power in the predominantly Francophone province of Quebec, which has numerous pro-independence parties and voted in two referendums on independence in the past 50 years, rejecting it by a 60/40 margin in 1980 and by around one percentage point in 1995.

In Alberta, enthusiasm for separation has waxed and waned for decades, fueled initially by “Western alienation” – resentment felt in western Canada against a federal system dominated by the more populous eastern provinces. More recently, the movement has attracted Albertans who were angered by federally mandated lockdowns during the Covid pandemic. Among them was Rath, who has in the past faced controversy for suggesting government officials should face murder and negligent homicide charges over what he claims are the ill-effects of the Covid vaccine.

A recent poll by the Angus Reid Institute found about a third of Albertans currently support independence, though that support does not break down equally throughout the population.

Some of the loudest critics of the idea come from Alberta’s indigenous communities, whose treaties with the Canadian crown are older than the province itself. Under pressure from that community, the government added a provision to the referendum bill that guarantees their treaty rights whatever the result.

While Smith’s party proposed the referendum bill, she says she is against separation herself, preferring to “get Alberta to exert its sovereignty within a united Canada.”

“We have had, from time to time, these kinds of initiatives flare up,” says Smith. “And they’re almost always in response to a federal government that’s out of control. But they have all subsided when the federal government got back in its own lane.”

“I think that it’s a notice to Ottawa that they’ve got to take this seriously,” Smith adds. “The question is, what can we do to address it?”

The 51st state?

One of the more explosive questions surrounding secession is whether an independent Alberta might join the United States.

In February, a billboard appeared along the highway between Calgary and Edmonton, with text urging onlookers to tell Premier Smith that Alberta ought to “Join the USA!” superimposed over a picture of her shaking hands with Trump.

“I don’t think Albertans are very keen to trade a bad relationship with Ottawa with a bad relationship with Washington,” Smith says when asked about the possibility.

But others, like construction worker Stephen Large of Czar, Alberta, feel it would be good to have the might of the US on their side – particularly if negotiations fail in the event of a “yes” vote for independence.

“The minute something happens here toward independence, our federal government is going to be furious,” says Large, who wears a red “Make Alberta Great Again” cap.

“They will pull out all the stops, military and police and whatever they can find to lock us down, lock us in.”

Large points to how former Prime Minister Trudeau briefly invoked the Emergencies Act when Canadian truckers blockaded downtown Ottawa to protest cross-border vaccine mandates in 2022.

The statute, which had never been used before, allowed Canadian law enforcement to take extraordinary measures to restore public order – including freezing the bank accounts of certain protesters and banning public assembly in parts of Ottawa. The law also allows the government to deploy troops within Canada to enforce the law, though Trudeau did not invoke that part of the provision in 2022.

“We’re gonna need some support from somewhere, and the only place on Earth that is worthy of their support is the United States military,” Large says.

A woman sitting in front of Large overhears him and turns around, nodding in agreement.

“I’m with him,” she says, introducing herself as Evelyn Ranger of Red Deer. “I’m not sure that Alberta or the western provinces, even together, can make it on their own. So, the States is still the better way to go, because you’ve got the military, you’ve got the trade and everything already set there.”

For his part, Rath refuses to consider whether the federal government might invoke the Emergencies Act or use other measures to put down his movement if it were to unilaterally declare Alberta independent in the event of a “yes” vote.

“We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it, but we don’t see that happening,” Rath says.

Asked if he would be up for an interview at that point, he grins.

“Yeah,” Rath replies, before letting out a laugh. “It might be from a jail cell.”