Summary
Irans Nuclear Ambitions Obliterated by US Strikes Declares Hegseth details the June 2019 United States military operation targeting Iran’s key nuclear facilities, a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict over Tehran’s nuclear program. The strikes, conducted under the codename “Operation Midnight Hammer,” involved precision airstrikes on the Fordo uranium enrichment plant, Natanz nuclear site, and Isfahan nuclear complex, aiming to degrade Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons. The operation, which included seven B-2 stealth bombers and at least one submarine, was ordered by President Donald Trump and publicly supported by then-Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who declared that Iran’s nuclear infrastructure had been “obliterated.”
The background to these strikes lies in years of deteriorating U.S.-Iran relations marked by Iran’s uranium enrichment activities surpassing limits set by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) following the U.S. withdrawal from the agreement. Despite mixed intelligence assessments regarding Iran’s weaponization intent, the U.S. government framed the strikes as a necessary preemptive measure to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, which it views as a direct threat to regional and global security. The attacks elicited widespread condemnation from Iran, which denounced them as violations of international law and the United Nations Charter, and promised retaliation.
The military operation sparked significant controversy domestically and internationally. Within the United States, Republican leaders largely supported the strikes as a decisive step to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, while many Democrats criticized the action as unconstitutional due to the lack of explicit Congressional authorization. Globally, reactions were mixed; allied nations such as Israel and some European governments cautiously endorsed the move, whereas others, including the United Nations and countries like New Zealand and the United Arab Emirates, urged restraint and a return to diplomacy to avoid further regional destabilization.
Beyond immediate military and political ramifications, the strikes intensified an already volatile Middle East environment, provoking Iranian missile and drone retaliations against Israeli targets and increasing fears of wider conflict. The operation highlighted ethical and legal debates over the use of preemptive force, the challenges of verifying the true extent of damage to deeply buried nuclear infrastructure, and the fragile balance between military action and diplomatic engagement in addressing nuclear proliferation. The leadership of Secretary Hegseth, a former military officer and conservative media figure, played a pivotal role in shaping the U.S. response, reflecting the Trump administration’s assertive stance on Iran’s nuclear program.
Background
Tensions between the United States and Iran escalated significantly in the early 2020s, largely due to Iran’s nuclear activities. After the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and the targeted killing of a top Iranian nuclear scientist in 2020, Iran accelerated its uranium enrichment efforts beyond the limits set by the agreement. The enrichment of uranium to near weapons-grade levels raised international alarm, with UN inspectors reporting that Iran had enriched trace amounts of uranium close to weapons-grade standards. Despite these developments, some U.S. intelligence assessments suggested that Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon, and that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had not authorized a nuclear weapons program since suspending it in 2003.
In response to increased Iranian nuclear activity and the associated regional instability, the United States conducted airstrikes on Iranian-backed facilities in Iraq and Syria in late 2023 and early 2024, targeting Iran-affiliated militant groups. This military pressure culminated in U.S. strikes against three Iranian nuclear sites in June 2025. Satellite imagery revealed unusual vehicular activity at the Fordow fuel enrichment facility in the days leading up to the attacks, indicating heightened operational movements at the site. Subsequent satellite images showed serious damage to multiple buildings at key nuclear sites including Fordow and the Natanz Nuclear Facility.
Iran condemned the U.S. attacks as grave violations of international law and the United Nations Charter, calling for intervention by international bodies such as the UN Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iranian officials argued that the strikes undermined ongoing diplomatic efforts to limit Iran’s nuclear program and called the attacks “unforgivable.” Meanwhile, the Pentagon characterized the strikes as significantly degrading Iran’s nuclear capabilities, with U.S. officials emphasizing the devastating impact on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
US-Iran Relations
US-Iran relations have long been characterized by tension and confrontation, frequently teetering on the edge of direct military conflict. The Iranian government has repeatedly expressed hostility toward the United States, including the well-known slogan “Death to America,” and has engaged in retaliatory actions such as strikes on American bases in Iraq following the US assassination of Iran’s top general. Despite this fraught history, both nations had engaged in diplomatic talks aimed at curtailing Iran’s uranium enrichment in exchange for the easing of crippling US economic sanctions. However, these negotiations faltered amid escalating hostilities.
The relationship further deteriorated as the US imposed intensified sanctions in late 2020, prompting Iran to increase uranium enrichment beyond the limits established by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The outbreak of conflict between Israel, a key US ally, and Iran-backed militant groups in October 2023 heightened fears of a broader US-Iran confrontation. Iran-backed proxies launched numerous attacks against US and Israeli targets in Iraq and Syria, leading to a US military response with airstrikes targeting Iran-affiliated facilities on October 26, 2023, and again in February 2024.
The US military escalation culminated in a significant strike on three Iranian nuclear sites, an operation that involved seven B-2 Stealth Bombers and at least one submarine, marking the largest B-2 strike mission to date, codenamed “Operation Midnight Hammer”. This unprecedented action signaled a major escalation in the ongoing conflict and underscored the US commitment to prevent Iran’s nuclear program from advancing unchecked. British and European leaders have expressed cautious support for the US actions, emphasizing the need for a diplomatic resolution and calling on Iran to return to negotiations.
In response, Iran condemned the US strikes as a grave violation of international law and the UN Charter, accusing Washington of unprovoked aggression against its peaceful nuclear facilities. Iranian officials warned of the severe consequences stemming from this “lawless” attack but provided limited details on the damage inflicted. Meanwhile, international voices, including New Zealand and the United Nations, have urged restraint and the resumption of diplomatic efforts to avoid further escalation. The ongoing conflict thus remains precarious, with military actions and diplomatic efforts continuing in parallel as both sides navigate this high-stakes confrontation.
The June 2019 US Strikes on Iranian Nuclear Facilities
In June 2019, the United States carried out a series of precision airstrikes against three major Iranian nuclear sites, marking the first direct military attack by the U.S. on Iran. The targeted facilities were the Fordo uranium enrichment plant, Natanz nuclear site, and the Isfahan nuclear complex, all of which are integral to Iran’s nuclear program.
The operation, known as “Operation Midnight Hammer,” involved 125 U.S. military aircraft, including seven B-2 stealth bombers, and was ordered by President Donald Trump. The strikes aimed to significantly degrade Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and send a strong message urging Tehran to negotiate a peace settlement. According to Trump, the sites were “completely and totally obliterated,” with Defense Secretary Hegseth emphasizing that the attacks targeted only nuclear facilities, not Iranian troops or civilians.
Fordo, one of the primary targets, is a heavily fortified uranium enrichment plant buried approximately 300 feet underground in a remote mountainside near Tehran. It is considered vital to Iran’s nuclear ambitions and is protected by anti-aircraft defenses, making it vulnerable only to bunker-buster bombs such as the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator. Natanz, the country’s main enrichment site located about 220 kilometers southeast of Tehran, had previously been targeted by cyberattacks and airstrikes attributed to Israel. The Isfahan facility, located southeast of Tehran, hosts research reactors and laboratories central to Iran’s atomic program and employs thousands of nuclear scientists.
The strikes significantly escalated the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel, which had intensified since early June 2019. Israel coordinated closely with the U.S. in planning the operation and supported the decision. In contrast, Iran acknowledged that the sites were struck but downplayed the damage, denying any major blow to their nuclear program.
International reactions were mixed. Israel praised the U.S. action, while the United Nations and European Union called for de-escalation and a return to diplomatic negotiations. In the United States, the strikes received support from some Republican leaders but faced criticism from several Democrats, who questioned the legality of the military action without explicit Congressional approval.
President Trump’s subsequent televised address warned that future attacks would be “far greater” unless Iran engaged in diplomacy, signaling a readiness for further military operations if necessary. This operation underscored a new phase in U.S. involvement in the Middle Eastern conflict, breaking from previous policies that sought to avoid direct military confrontation with Iran.
Damage Assessment and Impact on Iran’s Nuclear Program
The U.S. airstrikes targeted three critical Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan, aiming to significantly degrade Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities and halt the perceived nuclear threat posed by Tehran. Satellite imagery analyzed before and after the strikes revealed substantial damage to at least two buildings at the Natanz facility, though much of Iran’s most sensitive infrastructure is deeply buried underground, complicating full damage evaluation. Initial U.S. military assessments described the strikes as having inflicted “extreme damage and destruction” across all three sites, with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth asserting that Iran’s nuclear capabilities were “devastated” by the operation.
Contrastingly, Iranian officials downplayed the extent of the damage. The Iranian Atomic Energy Organization condemned the bombings as a “barbaric violation” of international law, and the deputy political director of Iran’s state broadcaster claimed that the targeted sites had been evacuated well before the strikes, with no increase in radiation levels detected by either Saudi Arabia or the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasized that the attack itself, regardless of damage level, was an unforgivable breach of international norms and warned that Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty and interests.
Despite the destruction of infrastructure, experts note that enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels is only the initial step in nuclear weapons development; further processes such as weapon design, testing, and delivery system integration could still require months or longer, suggesting that the strikes, while impactful, do not completely eliminate Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Moreover, the strikes escalated tensions between the U.S. and Iran, with Tehran responding via missile and drone attacks on Israeli cities and threatening retaliation against U.S. forces.
The strikes came amid stalled diplomatic efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear program, with the IAEA having previously confirmed Tehran’s breaches of nonproliferation obligations. The operation was characterized by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a necessary measure to neutralize an existential threat to Israel, promising continued action as needed. In response, international reactions varied: while the UK and EU urged a return to negotiations, the UN Secretary-General warned of the dangerous escalation the strikes represented.
Subsequent US Military and Intelligence Operations
Following the initial strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, the United States undertook additional military and intelligence operations to further curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions. According to General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the U.S. deployed seven B-2 Stealth Bombers in what was termed “Operation Midnight Hammer,” marking the largest B-2 strike in U.S. history. This operation also included at least one submarine, underscoring the scale and complexity of the mission targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
The coordination between U.S. military leaders played a significant role in the execution of these operations. Sources indicate a notably close relationship between CENTCOM commander Kurilla and Pentagon chief Hegseth, with the latter consistently approving Kurilla’s requests for additional military assets without pushback. This dynamic facilitated rapid and robust deployment of resources to counter Iran’s nuclear activities.
Intelligence assessments preceding the strikes revealed unusual activity at Iranian sites. Satellite imagery from Maxar showed increased truck and vehicular movements at the Fordow fuel enrichment facility in the days leading up to the U.S. attacks, signaling potential efforts by Iran to protect or accelerate its nuclear program. Subsequent strikes targeted key Iranian nuclear sites including Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow, as well as individuals involved in nuclear research and development. Early analyses suggest the damage inflicted was significant at least in two of these locations.
The strikes also had broader geopolitical ramifications. U.S. officials informed senior Democratic leaders shortly before the attacks, though notification timing for senior Republican leaders remained unclear. The military action sparked domestic controversy, with prominent Democrats criticizing the operation as a violation of constitutional war powers by bypassing Congressional approval.
Moreover, these U.S. military operations occurred amid escalating tensions in the region. Iran, denying any pursuit of nuclear weapons and asserting its right to peaceful nuclear technology under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, retaliated with rocket and drone attacks on Israel. Israel, meanwhile, intensified its own strikes against Iranian command and control centers and military leadership, aiming to delay Iran’s nuclear progress. This ongoing conflict risked overshadowing Israel’s simultaneous war in Gaza, with concerns about broader regional escalation including potential actions in the West Bank and against Palestinian factions supported by Iran.
Reactions and Responses
The United States’ precision strikes on three key Iranian nuclear facilities—Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan—prompted a wide spectrum of international reactions, reflecting the complexity and volatility of the Middle East conflict. The attacks, described by President Trump as aimed at destroying Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and curbing what he called “the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror,” marked a significant escalation in U.S. military involvement in the region.
United States Domestic Response
Domestically, the strikes elicited sharply divided opinions among U.S. lawmakers and political leaders. Top Republicans largely rallied behind President Trump, framing the military action as a necessary measure to check Iran’s nuclear ambitions and enhance regional security. House Speaker Mike Johnson, for example, emphasized that Iran had been given every opportunity to negotiate a nuclear disarmament agreement but refused.
Conversely, senior Democrats and some Republican lawmakers criticized the strikes as an unconstitutional overreach. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries condemned the President for bypassing congressional authorization, warning that the risk of a broader and potentially disastrous war in the Middle East had dramatically increased. Notification of the strike had been reportedly limited, with senior Democratic leadership informed only shortly before Trump’s social media announcement, contributing to the controversy over the decision-making process.
Iranian and Regional Reactions
Iran denounced the strikes as acts of aggression against peaceful facilities, with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps vowing “regrettable responses” and emphasizing Iran’s right to defend its sovereignty and interests. Iranian officials reiterated their readiness to respond militarily if necessary, signaling the potential for further escalation. The Iranian foreign minister underscored the country’s “legitimate right” to retaliate and warned that all options remained on the table.
The conflict immediately intensified as Iran launched missile and drone attacks against Israel, marking the beginning of a new, more dangerous phase in the longstanding regional tensions. Israeli authorities reported multiple casualties and continued their own series of retaliatory strikes targeting Iranian military infrastructure to delay Iran’s nuclear timeline.
International Community
Global reactions reflected deep concern about the escalation and calls for de-escalation. The United Arab Emirates expressed deep worry over the ongoing tensions and urged an immediate end to the escalation to prevent further instability in the region. The UAE called on the United Nations and Security Council to actively engage in resolving the chronic regional issues that now posed a growing threat to international peace and security.
New Zealand also voiced its apprehension, stressing the importance of diplomacy over military action. It urged all parties to return to negotiations, highlighting that diplomatic solutions would provide a more enduring resolution than further conflict.
Military Leadership and Strategic Impact
Within the U.S. military and defense leadership, the operation—dubbed “Operation Midnight Hammer”—was noted as the largest B-2 stealth bomber strike in U.S. history
Legal, Ethical, and Political Controversies
The U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities sparked significant legal, ethical, and political debates. Iranian officials condemned the attacks as violations of international law, with Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, describing the strikes as an “unforgivable violation” and calling for intervention by the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iran maintains its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and denies seeking nuclear weapons, asserting its rights under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran’s legal stance emphasizes its sovereignty and the legitimacy of responding in self-defense, with Iranian authorities reserving “all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people” in accordance with the UN Charter.
From the U.S. and Israeli perspectives, the strikes were portrayed as necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, which are seen as a significant threat to regional stability and specifically to Israel’s security. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth described the military action as aimed at destroying Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and halting the threat posed by what the U.S. identifies as the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism. Israeli officials claimed the strikes inflicted significant damage to key nuclear sites at Natanz and Isfahan, though the full extent of the damage remains partly unclear due to the underground nature of Iran’s facilities and contrasting reports from Iran.
Ethically, the attacks raised questions about the use of preemptive military force and the broader consequences for diplomacy and regional peace. Critics argued that the strikes could jeopardize ongoing negotiations intended to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, potentially escalating conflict rather than resolving it. The controversy also touched on the qualifications and decision-making processes of key U.S. officials involved, as some nominees, such as Secretary Hegseth, faced criticism regarding their suitability for handling such high-stakes foreign policy challenges.
Politically, the incident intensified tensions between the U.S. and Iran, bringing the two nations closer to open conflict. Iranian leaders and opposition groups called for regime change, while the U.S. administration emphasized its resolve to respond to threats decisively. The situation highlighted the fragile balance of power in the Middle East and underscored the risks of military intervention as a tool of foreign policy in addressing nuclear proliferation concerns.
Profile of Pete Hegseth
Pete Hegseth is a former U.S. Secretary of Defense and media personality known for his conservative views and strong support of former President Donald Trump. Before his tenure as defense secretary, Hegseth gained national recognition as a cohost of Fox & Friends Weekend from 2017 to 2024, where he was noted for his outspoken conservative commentary. His career also includes significant military service; he was deployed three times, serving at Guantánamo Bay, leading a platoon in Iraq, and teaching counterinsurgency tactics in Afghanistan.
Following his military service, Hegseth was involved with veterans’ organizations, including leadership roles as executive director at Vets for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America. He began contributing to Fox News in 2014 and later served as an advisor to President Trump, having supported his 2016 presidential campaign.
As Secretary of Defense, Hegseth became a central figure in the Trump administration’s foreign policy, particularly during heightened tensions involving Iran. Despite criticism from Democratic lawmakers and left-wing commentators who questioned his qualifications, Hegseth remained a staunch defender of the administration’s strategies and decisions. He was recognized for his close alignment with military leadership, notably accommodating all requests from CENTCOM commander Michael Kurilla for additional military assets, reflecting a cooperative dynamic uncommon in previous administrations.
Hegseth’s tenure was marked by his involvement in major foreign policy challenges, including responding to the Israel-Iran conflict and overseeing U.S. military actions targeting Iranian nuclear facilities. His public statements often emphasized a strong stance against Iran’s nuclear ambitions, underscoring the administration’s commitment to countering what he described as an “apocalyptic threat” posed by Iran’s nuclear program.
Aftermath and Future Outlook
The U.S. precision strikes on Iran’s key nuclear facilities at Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan marked a significant escalation in the ongoing regional conflict, targeting Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities and signaling a tougher stance against what the U.S. identifies as the primary state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East. This military action has intensified tensions across the region, prompting Iran-aligned Houthi forces in Yemen to enter a state of high alert, with warnings that any further escalation could plunge the entire Middle East into widespread war.
The strikes have drawn widespread international concern. The United Arab Emirates condemned the escalation, urging an immediate halt to prevent dangerous repercussions and regional instability, while calling on the United Nations and Security Council to actively engage in resolving the chronic issues threatening peace and security. Similarly, New Zealand emphasized the importance of diplomacy over further military action, advocating for renewed talks as the most effective path to a durable resolution.
Diplomatic efforts remain ongoing despite the heightened military tensions. A sixth round of nuclear negotiations between the U.S. and Iran continues amid multiple challenges, including Iran’s nuclear advancements and its involvement in broader conflicts such as those in Gaza and Ukraine. However, the strikes have introduced a new phase of uncertainty, complicating the delicate balance maintained in the region following earlier Israeli airstrikes against Iranian targets. Israel regards Iran as an existential threat and has justified its recent operations as necessary to prevent Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, though the Iranian government accuses these attacks of causing significant civilian casualties.
The global reaction has been mixed, with voices like Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel condemning the U.S. bombing as a dangerous escalation that could drag the world into a broader crisis. Meanwhile, U.S. officials have indicated that any future response will be proportional or exceed the current scale of military action, signaling the possibility of continued confrontation if Iran fails to alter its nuclear ambitions.
The content is provided by Harper Eastwood, Fact-Nest
