Only the U.S. is known to have the 30,000-pound ‘bunker buster’ bombs needed to damage Iran’s Fordo nuclear enrichment facility, which is located 300 feet under a mountain, Fox News’ Sean Hannity wrote after the night that has caused the Middle East to re-estimate its sense of exposure. As the dust clears from the biggest B-2 operational strike in American history, regional capitals and security experts are dissecting what comes next not just for Iran’s damaged nuclear program, but for the complex system of proxy conflict and deterrence that constitutes the region’s security architecture.
The United States’ Operation Midnight Hammer represented a technology and strategy pivot point. More than 125 U.S. aircraft, including seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, carried out a tightly coordinated attack on Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The mission featured dozens and dozens of air refueling tankers, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine explained, and intricate deception scheme involving decoy flights into the Pacific. On the eve of the bombers entering Iranian territory, a U.S. submarine fired over two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles at Isfahan’s surface installations, firing from 400 miles away.
The technological highlight of the attack was the release of the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a missile capable of penetrating 60 feet of concrete or 200 feet of dirt before exploding. Fourteen MOPs were dropped on Fordow and Natanz, which were facilities designed to resist conventional air strikes. Satellite images of June 22 reveal six craters at Fordow, which represent likely points of entry for the bunker busters. The attacks not only destroyed the enrichment halls but also an air defense facility intended to cover the reactor, reports Al Jazeera’s fact-checking service.
But Iranian authorities were quick to declare that “no irreversible damage was sustained,” with officials saying they had cleared the areas in advance. The IAEE and Iran’s own atomic agency both said there was no rise in radiation or threat to local citizens. “There is no danger to residents around these sites. Safety remains stable,” Iran’s nuclear agency declared.
The uncertainty regarding the extent of the actual damage is more than an issue of national prestige it’s a matter of strategic calculation. As ISW-CTP’s June 22 report reports, early estimates are that the strikes did not ruin but “severely damaged” Fordow, removing it “off the table” for the time being. Natanz, which had already been attacked by Israeli bombardment just days before, lost more of its over-ground facilities and potentially more of its centrifuge arrays to power loss. Isfahan’s conversion and research laboratories were attacked, with satellite images showing further damage.
Iranian proxies: Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon retaliation calculus With its nuclear facilities under attack, Iran’s retaliation options are being weighed throughout the Middle East. The most direct lever is still its web of proxies. The Houthis in Yemen, after declaring the end to their ceasefire with America, are set to renew attacks on American and Israeli-tied shipping in the Red Sea.
Iraqi militias, well-armed and known to attack U.S. bases in the past, are now on high alert. In 2020, a missile strike by Iran on Ain al-Asad Airbase in Iraq injured more than 100 American personnel with traumatic brain injuries a precedent that casts a big shadow today in U.S. force protection planning.
Hezbollah inside Lebanon, Iran’s most potent proxy, has been hugely weakened by Israeli air strikes and targeted killings. Whereas the organization denounced the American action as “flagrant violation of international and humanitarian law,” it has thus far avoided direct confrontation, afraid to engage the beast that could kill it. Nevertheless, the specter of sleeper cells and asymmetric strikes in Europe or America remains. As the Council on Foreign Relations notes, Iran’s “asymmetric” playbook is cyberattacks and terrorism pathways that are hard to forestall through traditional military might.
Missile defense and regional posture As a precaution against retaliation, the U.S. and its allies have bolstered their missile defense systems. Israel’s Iron Dome and David’s Sling defenses, and U.S.-deployed Patriot missile batteries in the Gulf, have been tested time and again over recent weeks. Israeli air defenses shot down 30 one-way attack drones launched by Iran overnight, and Tel Aviv and Haifa were hit by a salvo of 22–30 ballistic missiles, injuring dozens. The U.S. has a presence at 19 locations in the region with some 40,000 troops based in the Middle East, so force protection becomes a logistical and operational imperative.
The Strait of Hormuz a chokepoint for nearly 20% of the world’s traded oil has become a flashpoint. Iran’s parliament has taken steps to shut the strait, and GPS disruption has been identified in the region. A temporary outage would be enough to cause a global price spike in oil, reminiscent of the 2019 drone attack that cut Saudi oil production by half. The U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, which is headquartered in Bahrain, can respond to any attempt to blockade the waterway but remains acutely vulnerable to escalation.
Diplomatic fallout and Western responses The Western diplomatic reaction has been careful but cautious. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer, declared, “Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon,” while calling for a return to diplomacy. France and Germany have appealed for restraint, with Chancellor Friedrich Merz calling on Iran to “immediately start negotiations.” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres denounced the strikes as “a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge,” citing “catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world.”
In the U.S., the operation has been a renewed cause of contention regarding war powers and the constitutional right to conduct such attacks. Senator Bernie Sanders cautioned, “The American people are being lied to again today. We cannot allow history to repeat itself.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, however, emphasized, “The United States does not seek war, but let me be clear, we will act swiftly and decisively when our people, our partners or our interests are threatened.”
Technical and strategic lessons The technical complexity of the operation mixing stealth, precision-guided bombs, and real-time intelligence is indicative of the changing character of contemporary air campaigns. The deployment of GBU-57s, which can blast through the world’s most heavily fortified bunkers, in conjunction with submarine-launched Tomahawks, indicates a readiness to engage the entire arsenal of U.S. strike capability. However, the limitations of airpower are revealed: even the most sophisticated bunker busters cannot necessarily decisively eliminate deeply buried targets, particularly if principal materials are pre-evacuated.
To Iran, the destruction of key infrastructure is a punch, but not a knockout. The regime’s resilience to change whether dispersing its nuclear capabilities, using proxies, or employing asymmetric means has not been breached. As everybody waits for Iran’s next step, the security calculus of the region is being rewritten in real-time, with technology, strategy, and political will intersecting in unforeseen manners.
