Trump’s Strike on Iran: Tactical Precision Meets Strategic Risk

An operational timeline of a strike on Iran is displayed during a news conference with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Commentary

In a bold escalation on June 21, President Donald Trump authorized Operation Midnight Hammer, a coordinated U.S. military strike against Iran’s most fortified nuclear facilities. The targets—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—were selected for their central role in uranium enrichment and weapons research. According to Pentagon officials, the mission inflicted “extremely severe damage” to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and significantly delayed Tehran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon.

Tactical Excellence and Strategic Timing

The strike followed a week of Israeli air assaults and was conducted based on meticulous planning. Seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers launched from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, flying an 18-hour mission to deliver 14 Massive Ordnance Penetrators, the U.S. military’s largest non-nuclear bombs, deep into hardened underground sites. More than 125 aircraft participated, supported by sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles targeting the Isfahan facilities. The operation employed deception—including sending decoy bombers west—to mislead Iranian defenses. Tehran’s air defense systems failed to detect the real threat, preserving the element of surprise.

Notably, the strike was launched directly from U.S. territory rather than the nearer Diego Garcia base. Diplomatic sensitivities with Britain, reportedly reluctant to be implicated, influenced the decision—further underscoring the administration’s willingness to act unilaterally if necessary.

President Trump hailed the operation as a “spectacular military success” and warned Tehran that if it did not choose peace, future attacks would be “far greater and a lot easier.” The timing—days after Trump publicly vowed a decision within two weeks—reinforced his signature doctrine of calibrated unpredictability.

Fordow: A Mountain Fortress Breached

Fordow, Iran’s most secure nuclear site, lies 260 feet under a mountain and was once considered impervious to conventional strikes. The site housed advanced centrifuge cascades enriching uranium to near weapons-grade levels. The IAEA confirmed visible craters and above-ground damage; subsurface assessments remain incomplete. Iran claimed no radiation leaks occurred—a sign of a clean, surgical strike.

Although Trump declared the sites “obliterated,” full verification of the destruction is pending. Whether this means total structural collapse or merely functional destruction, the regime has yet to disprove his claim—perhaps because it cannot.

Intelligence, Legality, and Congressional Debate

The administration made its case for the strike in clear, uncompromising terms: Waiting was no longer an option. Intelligence from multiple sources, including the IAEA, confirmed that Iran was approaching nuclear breakout—possibly within weeks—and had begun reconfiguring centrifuges at hardened sites like Fordow for rapid enrichment. It also has the delivery mechanism—ballistic missiles and an ICBM development program.

Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued that a narrow window remained to act before the regime crossed a threshold that could ignite a regional arms race—or worse, a nuclear conflict. The White House maintains the president acted under his constitutional authority to protect national security, with post-action congressional notifications falling well within the War Powers Act framework. Officials emphasized that diplomacy had been attempted and off ramps offered, but Tehran refused to step back. The credibility of American deterrence, already tested by years of Iranian provocation, was on the line. “This was not preemptive,” Rubio stated. “It was overdue.”

Critics in Congress, including Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), challenged the constitutional basis of the strikes, arguing that they occurred without prior congressional approval. The Pentagon countered that leaders were notified once U.S. aircraft had exited Iranian airspace, in accordance with the War Powers Act.

A small faction of progressive Democrats, led by Rep. Al Green, introduced a one‑article resolution to impeach President Trump over Operation Midnight Hammer, asserting the attack violated the Constitution’s war powers provisions. The effort was swiftly brought to a vote—and resoundingly shelved by a House majority of 344–79, with a surprising coalition of Democrats and Republicans voting to table it. As Senator John Fetterman later remarked, the move “isn’t going anywhere,” underscoring its symbolic intent rather than any serious legislative challenge.

Iran’s Response: Weak Retaliation, Strong Signal?

Iran’s retaliatory strike—a symbolic missile barrage at a U.S. base in Qatar—caused no casualties and was reportedly pre-warned, echoing the Soleimani aftermath under the previous Trump term. This restrained response suggests the regime has, at least for now, accepted the Trump administration’s offer of an “off ramp”: cease nuclear development and avoid escalation.

But history warns us: Regimes like Tehran’s often use cease-fires to regroup. Their silence may mask an effort to buy time—hoping future U.S. leadership will reverse course, as occurred after 2020.

The current supreme leader, in his 80s and reportedly battling cancer, must choose—if he’s still in charge—between continuing a decades-long nuclear quest or preserving the regime through de-escalation, i.e., giving up its nuclear arms program completely. This dilemma echoes the 1988 cease-fire in the Iran–Iraq war, when Ayatollah Khomeini agreed to a cease-fire, calling it “like drinking a cup of poison,” but also perhaps preserving the regime.

Domestically, Iran is a now black box. With many senior military figures eliminated and leadership in flux, it remains unclear who truly governs and whether that leadership is cohesive. Some fear factional infighting could erupt. The taboo against striking inside Iran is broken. Successors to slain generals now know they, too, are vulnerable.

A Regime in the Balance

Trump has most recently said he opposes regime change in Iran as he says it would bring “chaos.” But he has also at times hinted at wanting a regime change in Iran, in his usual manner of strategic uncertainty. In a Truth Social post, he mused that if Iran’s current rulers can’t restore the country’s greatness, maybe it’s time for new ones. Yet, he and other regional powers understand that regime collapse might invite chaos. A failed-state Iran—split among sects, militias, or warlords—could prove worse than the current threat.

Israel, for its part, has openly called on the Iranian people to overthrow the regime. But such a movement has not materialized. The exiled crown prince remains a distant possibility, lacking grassroots momentum within Iran.

Still, the elimination of top leadership, the lack of effective retaliation, and muted international support may trigger an internal reckoning. Whether that results in reform, collapse, or continuity remains unknown.

Global Reactions: CCP, Russia, and the Limits of Loyalty

The strike exposed the fragility of Iran’s alliances. China and Russia offered rhetorical support but no substantive help. Beijing, heavily dependent on Persian Gulf oil, likely warned Tehran not to escalate—lest it provoke a regional crisis that disrupts energy flows. The silence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) may be the most revealing indicator: When push came to shove, they prioritized access to oil over ideology.

Russia, meanwhile, condemned the attack but stayed inert—despite recent arms deals and drone purchases. This abandonment may force Tehran to reassess the utility of its so-called allies. If neither China nor Russia will back Iran when it’s bombed, what are those partnerships really worth?

Deterrence and Credibility Restored

Critics long painted Trump as an isolationist. But that label increasingly rings hollow. As this episode makes clear, he is not anti-war—he is anti-failure. While past events such as the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan raised questions globally about America’s reliability, Operation Midnight Hammer seems to have shifted that perception. The clear, bold use of force—combined with strategic messaging and defined objectives—has restored a sense of deterrence and credibility. Allies and adversaries alike are now recalibrating, realizing the new reality that exists under this administration.

Reports of Trump’s fury after Israel’s attempted retaliatory strike post-cease-fire suggest either a genuine misalignment—or a carefully choreographed message of balance. Either way, it underscores that once Washington commits, others must align or risk exclusion. Even close allies are learning—or re-learning—that American support comes with strategic expectations.

What Comes Next

With Israel coming back to normalcy and regional actors hoping for de-escalation, the cease-fire may hold—for now. But much depends on what happens inside Iran’s opaque corridors of power.

If the regime chooses to abandon its nuclear quest and accept Trump’s offer, a historic shift may occur. If not, the next chapter in the drama may unfold.

This is not just a test for Iran. It is a global test case—one that is also shaping how the CCP positions itself in the Indo-Pacific, how Russia calculates its next moves, and how the U.S. is viewed as a strategic power.

As ever with Trump, unpredictability is part of the strategy. But if the past weeks have shown anything, it’s that this administration means what it says on the strategic level, even as it obfuscates tactically, and that those who misjudge that may learn too late.

It remains to be seen whether the administration manages to continue to evaluate situations and adversaries correctly, and thus act effectively.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.