Operation Midnight Hammer: Inside the Largest US Airstrike on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities
Chronicles of Devastation
As reported, the operation involved seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers flying an 18-hour mission from Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, maintaining radio silence and minimal communications to avoid detection.To mislead Iranian defenses, a decoy group of B-2 bombers flew west toward Guam, while the actual strike force flew east across the Atlantic and Mediterranean, refueling mid-air multiple times.The strike package included over 125 US military aircrafts, dozens of aerial refueling tankers, fighter jets acting as decoys, and a guided missile submarine launching more than two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Isfahan site just before the bombers entered Iranian airspace.The bombers dropped 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs), 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs, on deeply buried targets at Fordow and Natanz, marking the first operational use of these weapons.
Failure of Iranian Countermeasures
Iranian air defenses did not engage, no Iranian fighter jets flew, and surface-to-air missile systems apparently failed to detect the US strike package, preserving the element of surprise. Initial battle damage assessments indicated extremely severe destruction at all three targeted nuclear sites, significantly damaging Iran’s nuclear program – even though according to the latest reports the attacks have not let the nuclear ambitions of Iran down.
The mission was highly classified, with very few officials in Washington aware of its timing or details until after the strike, underscoring the operational security and deception employed. The US military described the mission as an overwhelming success, with all aircraft returning safely and no US casualties or losses reported.
Iran and The Nuclear Skirmish of Middle East
Iran has always been instrumental in gaining the edge in the nuclear power game going on in the Middle East. Meanwhile the USA has allegedly been instrumental to let those spirits down – well before what the world sees today. Let’s have a look at Iran’s silent shifts from nuclear power 5% or 20% U-235 production to nuclear weaponry – and how forces have tried to stop Iran from accomplishing its masterplan.
Natanz Stuxnet Attack Incident – 2010
Stuxnet was a sophisticated cyberweapon discovered in 2010, designed to sabotage Iran’s uranium enrichment at the Natanz facility, one of the targets of the Operation Midnight Hammer, by targeting Siemens industrial control systems managing centrifuges. The malware caused physical destruction by manipulating centrifuge speeds, damaging approximately 1,000 IR-1 centrifuges (about 10-20% of Natanz’s capacity) between late 2009 and early 2010, leading to significant but not total disruption of uranium enrichment.
The attack exploited multiple zero-day Windows vulnerabilities and spread via infected USB drives and local networks, enabling it to cross the air gap of the isolated nuclear facility. Stuxnet’s operators initially infected Iranian industrial contractors linked to Natanz, such as Foolad Technic and Beh Pajooh, to gain access to the nuclear site’s control systems.
The malware included complex code targeting specific Siemens PLC models (S7-315 and S7-417), with the most damaging attack sequence aimed at the centrifuge cascades of 164 units each, matching Natanz’s configuration.
Despite the damage, Iran quickly replaced destroyed centrifuges and cleaned infected systems, limiting Stuxnet’s long-term impact on low-enriched uranium production.
Stuxnet marked the first known cyberattack causing physical destruction at a nuclear facility and demonstrated the potential of cyberwarfare in disrupting nuclear programs covertly.The attack delayed Iran’s nuclear progress and consumed centrifuge resources, but did not fully halt enrichment or Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA)
The JCPOA, signed in 2015 by Iran and world powers including the U.S., placed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
Iran agreed to limit uranium enrichment, reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium, and allow extensive inspections by the IAEA to prevent weaponization.The deal aimed to extend the time Iran would need to develop a nuclear weapon to at least one year, reducing regional conflict risks.
Key participants included the P5+1 (U.S., UK, France, Russia, China, Germany) and the EU. Sanctions relief included lifting nuclear-related sanctions but many other U.S. sanctions on Iran remained. The deal had sunset clauses, which meant that some restrictions would expire after 10-15 years.
After President Trump withdrew the U.S. in 2018, Iran began violating limits, enriching uranium to higher levels and limiting inspections. The deal now stands at a big question mark – as Iran and the US proceed to direct conflict, and Ali Khamenei being fully ignorant to any calls taken by Trump since the attack. The future of the deal is quite uncertain, yet the rest of the participants are also none to spare.
Analysis on Fordow Nuclear Site Pre-Operation
Heather Williams, Director, Project on Nuclear Issues and Senior Fellow, Defense and Security Department at Centre for Strategic and International Studies spoke of the risque an attack on Fordow carries with it – which can be to some extent a driving factor for any country at skirmish with Iran to target first to prevent a potential nuclear fallout.
Here are some crucial pointers from her commentary:
- Fordow is a deeply buried, hardened Iranian nuclear enrichment site near Qom, about 80 meters underground, housing roughly 3,000 centrifuges in a 54,000-square-foot facility.
- Israel lacks the conventional ordnance to destroy Fordow fully due to its depth and fortification; its bombs (GBU-28, BLU-109) can only target above-ground or lightly buried parts, likely leaving the facility operational.
- The U.S. possesses the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a 30,000-pound bunker buster capable of penetrating Fordow’s depth; multiple strikes by U.S. B-2 bombers could destroy the facility.
- Use of the GBU-57 by the U.S. carries risks including incomplete destruction due to unknown underground complexity, exposure of U.S. personnel and assets to Iranian retaliation, and potential escalation into a wider regional conflict.
- Cyberattacks (like the Stuxnet operation), power cuts, or on-the-ground commando missions—have been effective in the past and present a lower risk of escalation while potentially achieving significant damage to Fordow.
- Israel might have nuclear weapons capable of destroying Fordow, but use or signaling of nuclear options would carry severe humanitarian, environmental, and geopolitical risks, including regional proliferation and international condemnation.
- Diplomatic efforts remain the preferred long-term solution internationally, requiring more robust agreements with intrusive monitoring, but face challenges due to Iran’s unwillingness to accept unconditional surrender and ongoing nuclear ambitions.
- Military options, while potentially setting back Iran’s nuclear program decisively, risk escalation, incomplete destruction, and complicate diplomatic solutions by removing face-saving options for Iran.
While this analysis has been quite on point as per the reported details – which depict that Iran has still kept up the damage sites and Khamenei is still hopeful for Iran’s nuclear journey – shows that Iran has indeed devised high protection to the attacks possible, maybe due to the untoward experience it has had during Stuxnet operation.
Russian Stance After Operation
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei sent Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi to Moscow to request increased assistance from Russian President Vladimir Putin following the largest U.S. military strikes on Iran since 1979.
The U.S. and Israeli officials have publicly discussed options including assassination of Khamenei and regime change, which Russia views as highly destabilizing for the Middle East. Putin condemns Israeli airstrikes but has so far refrained from directly criticizing U.S. attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, instead calling for restraint and offering Moscow’s mediation services. Araqchi delivered a letter from Khamenei seeking stronger Russian backing against both the U.S. and Israel; Tehran is reportedly dissatisfied with Russia’s current level of support and wants it to increase, though specific aid requested was not detailed. Putin described the U.S. strikes as “unjustified” and “unprovoked” aggression and emphasized Russia’s efforts to support the Iranian people amid escalating tensions.
The Kremlin confirmed a meeting between Putin and Araqchi but did not disclose details; Russian officials stated Russia and Iran are aligning their positions in response to regional tensions. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Russia is ready to help Iran but that Tehran must specify its needs; Russia has offered mediation and expressed willingness to support Iran diplomatically.
Despite close ties and a strategic partnership agreement, Russia has not committed to military support or a mutual defense pact with Iran.Putin warned that U.S. and Israeli actions risk pushing the world toward greater instability and conflict, emphasizing the need for de-escalation.
The Red Alert on Strait of Hormuz
Iran’s threat to block the Strait of Hormuz in response to U.S. strikes on its nuclear sites poses a serious risk to global oil exports. The strait is a vital passage for about 20% of the world’s daily oil supply, and any disruption could sharply increase oil prices, trigger global inflation, and destabilize energy markets. While a full closure is unlikely due to potential military escalation, even partial disruptions would strain supply chains and impact major oil-importing economies. This threat, combined with Iran’s rejection of the ceasefire, heightens regional tensions and complicates efforts to stabilize both the geopolitical and energy landscapes.
Potential Changes and Evolutions
Operation Midnight Hammer has apparently delayed Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities. These attacks have heightened tensions, especially as Iran rejected the U.S.-proposed ceasefire announced by President Trump, signaling a hardened stance and complicating diplomatic efforts.
Iran’s refusal to halt hostilities suggests it may accelerate nuclear development or pursue covert enrichment, reducing its willingness to comply with original JCPOA terms and demanding stricter guarantees. The strikes expose the limitations of current enforcement mechanisms, pushing the U.S. and allies to consider more robust verification and revised diplomatic frameworks. Additionally, Iran may deepen ties with Russia and China to counterbalance U.S. pressure which has already started, and is supposed to continue, further complicating negotiations.
Conclusion
Overall, the operation marks a critical escalation that could either force Iran back to the negotiating table under tougher conditions or deepen divisions and prolong conflict amid rising regional instability. As of now, the negotiations are far-fetched when Trump and Khamenei are concerned.
(All events updated as on June 24, 2025)
