On June 22, 2025, the United States executed a significant military operation, dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer, targeting three key Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The operation marked the first direct U.S. military involvement in the escalating Israel-Iran conflict, which began with Israel’s unilateral strikes on June 13, 2025. The U.S. strikes were designed to cripple Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities, aligning with President Donald Trump’s stated objective to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
War Plan Details
Objective: Destroy Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity to halt its potential to develop nuclear weapons, which the U.S. and Israel viewed as an imminent threat.
Targets:
- Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant: A heavily fortified facility buried 300 feet under a mountain, designed to withstand conventional airstrikes. It was the primary target due to its role in high-grade uranium enrichment.
- Natanz Nuclear Facility: Iran’s main uranium enrichment site, previously targeted by Israel, capable of enriching uranium to 60% (near weapons-grade).
- Isfahan: An unspecified nuclear site, likely a research or enrichment facility, targeted with submarine-launched missiles.
Assets Deployed:
- Seven B-2 Spirit Stealth Bombers: Launched from Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, these bombers carried 14 GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs, each weighing 30,000 pounds, designed to penetrate deeply buried targets like Fordow.
- Submarines: Fired approximately two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles targeting the Isfahan site.
- Additional Aircraft: Over 125 U.S. military aircraft participated, including decoy flights sent west into the Pacific to mislead Iranian defenses.
Execution Timeline:
- The operation began at midnight on June 21, 2025, with B-2 bombers flying an 18-hour mission to Iran.
- Strikes occurred around 2:30 a.m. local time on June 22, 2025, with 75 precision-guided weapons, including 14 MOPs, targeting the three sites.
- Decoy flights and electronic warfare measures minimized Iranian air defense responses, with no reported return fire during the mission.
Coordination: The U.S. coordinated closely with Israel, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and senior Israeli officials involved in planning. The decision followed urgent Israeli requests on June 19, citing a narrow window to target vulnerable nuclear sites.
Execution Outcome
President Trump announced the strikes as a “spectacular military success,” claiming the facilities were “completely and totally obliterated.”
Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and General Dan Caine, reported “extremely severe damage” to all three sites, with initial battle damage assessments indicating significant destruction.
Satellite imagery from Maxar Technologies showed six fresh craters at Fordow, with debris scattered down the mountainside, confirming MOP impacts.
Iranian officials, including MP Manan Raeisi and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, disputed the extent of damage, claiming Fordow was not seriously harmed and that nuclear materials had been evacuated beforehand, preventing radioactive leaks
B-2 Strike Post-Analysis
The B-2 Spirit stealth bombers were central to the operation, marking the largest operational B-2 strike in U.S. history and the second-largest B-2 mission ever, surpassed only by post-9/11 operations.
Key Points of the B-2 Strike:
- Weaponry: The B-2s deployed 14 GBU-57 MOP bombs, specifically designed to penetrate hardened underground facilities like Fordow. Each MOP is precision-guided, detonating deep within the target to maximize destruction.
- Tactical Execution:
- The bombers flew 18-hour missions from Missouri, with some diverted to the Pacific as decoys to confuse Iranian air defenses.
- Mid-air refueling over the Indo-Pacific ensured operational range, with tankers reportedly operating from Guam.
- The stealth capabilities of the B-2s allowed penetration of Iran’s air defenses, including Russian-supplied S-300PMU-2 systems, with no reported losses.
- Damage Assessment:
- U.S. officials claim the strikes “devastated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities, potentially setting back its program by years.
- Satellite imagery confirms significant structural damage at Fordow, with craters indicating deep penetration, though Iranian claims suggest some underground centrifuges may remain operational.
- Natanz, already damaged by prior Israeli strikes, and Isfahan sustained heavy damage, but full assessments are ongoing due to the complexity of underground facilities.
- Strategic Impact:
- The strikes demonstrated U.S. military precision and the unique capability of the B-2/MOP combination, reinforcing deterrence against Iran and its allies.
- However, critics, including some U.S. Democrats and analysts like Trita Parsi, argue the strikes may push Iran to accelerate nuclear weapon development, reversing prior intelligence assessments that Iran was not actively pursuing a bomb.
Challenges and Uncertainties:
- The full extent of damage remains unclear, as underground facilities like Fordow are difficult to assess without on-ground inspections, which Iran is unlikely to allow.
- Iran’s claim of evacuating nuclear materials suggests some resilience, potentially preserving parts of its program.
- The operation’s success hinges on whether Iran’s enrichment capacity is permanently crippled, which may require follow-up strikes or covert actions.
Why China Is Out of This War
China has maintained a non-interventionist stance in the Israel-Iran conflict and the U.S. strikes, driven by strategic, economic, and diplomatic considerations:
- Energy and Economic Interests: China relies heavily on Middle Eastern oil, with 20% of global crude passing through the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran could disrupt. Beijing fears that escalation, such as Iran closing the strait, would spike oil prices and harm its economy.
- Balanced Diplomacy: China maintains pragmatic ties with both Iran and Israel, as well as Arab states like Saudi Arabia. Direct involvement risks alienating key partners and undermining its Belt and Road Initiative in the region.
- Opposition to Nuclear Proliferation: While a partner to Iran, China opposes nuclear proliferation, as it could destabilize the region and invite global sanctions that Beijing would not shield Iran from.
- Focus on Global Image: China positions itself as a champion of diplomacy, criticizing U.S. and Israeli actions while calling for de-escalation through international bodies like the UN. Direct military involvement would contradict this narrative
- Russia’s Influence: China’s strategic partner, Russia, has taken a stronger stance against the strikes, but its own war in Ukraine limits its ability to act. China avoids military entanglement to maintain focus on its rivalry with the U.S. and economic priorities.
- Covert Restraint: Chinese analysts have privately criticized Iran’s aggressive policies, and Beijing may tacitly tolerate U.S. actions that weaken Iran’s nuclear leverage without committing to direct support.
Stances of the UK, France, and India
United Kingdom:
- Official Stance: UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer described the U.S. strikes as an action to “alleviate the grave threat” posed by Iran’s nuclear program. He urged Tehran to pursue diplomacy and return to negotiations.
- Context: The UK’s support aligns with its historical concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its close alliance with the U.S. However, Starmer emphasized stabilizing the region, reflecting caution about escalation.
- Public Sentiment: British nationals have been advised to register for evacuation flights, indicating concern for citizen safety amid potential Iranian retaliation.
France:
- Official Stance: France, via EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas (representing broader European sentiment), urged all parties to de-escalate and return to the negotiating table. France has not explicitly endorsed the U.S. strikes, reflecting its preference for diplomacy under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
- Context: As a JCPOA signatory, France has pushed for reviving the nuclear deal. The strikes complicate this goal, and France’s cautious stance aims to avoid alienating Iran while maintaining Western alliances.
India:
- Official Stance: Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, advocating for “dialogue and diplomacy as the way forward.” India has not condemned the U.S. strikes outright but emphasized de-escalation.
- Context: India maintains strong economic ties with Iran, including oil imports and the Chabahar port project, but also has strategic partnerships with the U.S. and Israel. Its neutral stance reflects a balancing act to protect economic interests while avoiding entanglement.
- Speculative Claims: An X post suggested India allowed U.S. B-2 bombers to use its airspace en route to Iran, but this lacks corroboration from credible sources and contradicts India’s public call for diplomacy.
Financial Implications and Investment Opportunities
The U.S. strikes and the broader Israel-Iran conflict have significant economic ramifications:
- Oil Price Surge: Brent crude rose 8.5% to $75.38 per barrel due to fears of Strait of Hormuz disruptions.
- Market Volatility: Global markets saw declines, with Dow futures dropping 500 points, driving demand for safe-haven assets like gold and U.S. Treasuries.
- Investment Opportunities: Defense stocks, cybersecurity, and alternative energy sectors may see growth. Investors can explore these trends with YTC Ventures, leveraging AI-driven analytics to navigate market volatility.
Conclusion
The U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, executed with precision via B-2 bombers and Tomahawk missiles, have significantly disrupted Iran’s nuclear program, though the extent of damage remains contested. China’s non-involvement reflects its economic and diplomatic priorities, while the UK cautiously supports the U.S., France pushes for diplomacy, and India maintains neutrality. The conflict’s financial toll—$725M–$1B daily for Israel and $200M–$500M for Iran—underscores the need for investors to stay informed. Visit www.ytcventures.com for tailored investment strategies in this volatile landscape.
Comments