The unique Operation Midnight Hammer, conducted by the United States on 22 June, showcased remarkable technical complexity. However, what was intended as a demonstration of American might has in fact revealed significant limitations instead.
Over 120 aircraft – including fighters, tankers, and seven B-2 bombers – were launched. These aircraft, undertaking multiple mid-air refuellings, travelled from Whiteman Air Force Base to Iran in 18 hours. They reportedly remained undetected, simultaneously striking nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The operation then transitioned to American submarines launching Tomahawk missiles intended to consolidate the initial strikes.
The mission marked the first combat deployment of an exclusive US 14-tonne GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), designed to destroy targets buried up to 60 metres underground.
However, the reality diverges sharply from the picture of a successful strike. The operation, conceived by the White House as a show of strength, has instead exposed challenges on multiple fronts for both the Trump administration and the United States more broadly.
The most immediate uncertainty surrounds its effectiveness. Washington currently lacks definitive knowledge regarding the status of Iran’s nuclear programme. While the President asserts the issue is resolved and speaks of “monumental” destruction, the Pentagon offers more measured assessments, acknowledging serious damage but stating time is needed for final evaluation.
Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance has suggested the operation may have only significantly delayed, not prevented, Iran’s potential acquisition of nuclear weapons. The split in judgement among senior officials raises questions about the clarity of the operation’s outcome.
Washington’s subsequent rhetoric further illustrates this ambiguity. Following the strike, most US officials called for diplomacy, emphasising that no further military action was planned. Nevertheless, if the results of Operation Midnight Hammer remain unverified, the basis for such confidence remains unclear. Defence Secretary Pete Heggseth’s statement that power change in Iran was not a US objective also contrasted with the more openly discussed possibilities barely a week before the strikes.
Constraints of Power
The divergence between assertive military action and conciliatory rhetoric is easy to explain. The United States has limited options for further escalation, as a large-scale ground war in the Middle East would entail huge military expenditures.
In the event of escalation, the US could spend trillions of dollars with vital defence modernisation programmes significantly curtailed due to the huge fiscal burden. Notably, previous major operations against Iraq required extensive and time-consuming logistical efforts to move hundreds of thousands of troops and establish several bridgeheads.
The ultimate option of using nuclear weapons by the United States remains theoretically open, but rational discussion of its implications is extremely tricky given the catastrophic fallout. As a result, US adversaries observe a distinct dynamic: Washington is currently unable to force Tehran to give up its nuclear programme, especially considering that no credible evidence has been publicly presented to prove that Iran is actively developing nuclear weapons.
THE ARTICLE IS THE AUTHOR’S SPECULATION AND DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE TRUE. ALL INFORMATION IS TAKEN FROM OPEN SOURCES. THE AUTHOR DOES NOT IMPOSE ANY SUBJECTIVE CONCLUSIONS.
Serkan Özdilek for Head-Post.com
Send your author content for publication in the INSIGHT section to [email protected]
