America Has Bombed Iran: Analysis of the Strike, Targets, and What Comes Next

Watch the Episode

Video originally published on June 22, 2025.

In a dramatic escalation of Middle Eastern tensions, the United States has conducted airstrikes against the Islamic Republic of Iran, targeting critical nuclear infrastructure. At approximately 2:30 in the morning local time in Iran, B-2 stealth bombers and nuclear submarines launched coordinated attacks against three facilities central to Iran's nuclear program. According to U.S. officials, these sites have been destroyed, while Iranian authorities have vowed retaliation. This strike represents a significant turning point in the ongoing conflict, raising urgent questions about the effectiveness of the operation, the strategic calculations behind it, and the potential for further escalation in a region already on edge.

Key Takeaways

The United States conducted coordinated airstrikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities using B-2 stealth bombers and submarine-launched cruise missiles at approximately 2:30 AM local time in Iran.

The targets were the enrichment centers at Natanz and Fordo, and the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility, struck with at least six Massive Ordnance Penetrator bunker-buster bombs (thirty-thousand-pound munitions) and thirty Tomahawk cruise missiles.

President Trump claimed complete destruction of targets and called for immediate peace negotiations while threatening further strikes if Iran retaliates.

Iran has announced that reprisals are coming and all American personnel in the Middle East will be considered legitimate targets.

The strikes appear designed to disrupt Iran's ability to produce weapons-grade nuclear material for the long term by cutting off the supply chain at multiple points.

Iranian retaliation is expected to target Israeli and American assets in the Middle East, potentially using coordinated missile and drone strikes to overwhelm air defenses.

The Attack: Timing and Operational Details

The information presented here is accurate as of the midmorning hours of June 22, 2025, local time in Tehran and Jerusalem. Given the rapidly evolving nature of this crisis, events occurring after this timestamp are not reflected in this analysis.

The American airstrikes were conducted under cover of darkness on Sunday, when B-2 bombers would be virtually invisible to both the naked eye and Iranian air defenses. The operation was launched under a veil of secrecy hours before the actual attack, with the bombers sent to strike in clandestine fashion. Simultaneously, a separate group of B-2s embarked on a highly visible journey from the United States across the Pacific Ocean. These bombers flew with their transponders activated, allowing their movements to be easily tracked by global open-source intelligence and other governments. As of current understanding, this visible deployment appears to have served as a diversion from the actual strike force.

The real attack targeted three Iranian nuclear facilities of critical importance. Two were nuclear enrichment centers—one at Natanz and another at Fordo—while the third was the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility, where powdered yellowcake uranium is converted into a form suitable for enrichment. The enrichment facility at Fordo, buried deep underground, appears to have been the primary target for the B-2 bombers, which unleashed six of America's most powerful bunker-buster munitions against it.

These weapons, designated as Massive Ordnance Penetrators, represent the pinnacle of conventional bunker-busting technology. Each bomb weighs thirty thousand pounds in total and carries a five-thousand-pound warhead. They are specifically designed to burrow deep through reinforced concrete to expose and destroy some of the most hardened bunkers in the world. The use of six Massive Ordnance Penetrators indicates that at least three B-2 bombers participated in the strike, as the B-2 is the only aircraft capable of carrying these weapons—which only the United States possesses—and each bomber can carry two in its internal weapons bays.

Elsewhere in the region, American submarines surfaced at a distance reported by news outlets to have been approximately four hundred miles from their targets at the Natanz and Isfahan facilities. These submarines launched thirty subsonic cruise missiles known as Tomahawks. Each Tomahawk can carry a conventional explosive payload of up to a thousand pounds. While these missiles are also capable of carrying nuclear warheads, they clearly did not do so in this instance.

At the time of writing, the strikes on these three nuclear facilities appear to constitute the entirety of America's attack, with President Donald Trump confirming as much in an address to the nation.

Presidential Address and Official Claims

During his address to the nation, President Trump made several key claims about the operation and its aftermath. First and foremost, he stated that the United States had completely and totally obliterated its targets. Second, Trump indicated that, at least for the time being, this represented the extent of military action the United States would take against Iran, expressing hope that Iran would immediately engage in peace negotiations to end the ongoing conflict. Third, Trump issued a threat that if Iran does not negotiate a peace or if it chooses to retaliate, the United States can and will engage in follow-up strikes. As of the time of writing, no follow-up strikes have yet occurred.

Misdirection and Prior Signaling

The first significant aspect to consider regarding America's strategic approach is the prior signaling that occurred several days before the strike. Washington had indicated it would wait to carry out a strike, considering options for two weeks before making a decision. In retrospect, this appears to have been little more than a charade. Notably, this pattern of misdirection repeats the same elements that allowed Israel to catch Iran by surprise with its first wave of strikes. In both instances, Iran's opponents sent clear signs and signals suggesting they did not believe themselves ready to attack imminently, before then attacking basically immediately.

This misdirection was combined with reporting that the United States contacted Iran hours before the strike took place, notifying Tehran as well as Jerusalem about the strikes that were about to unfold. According to some American officials quoted anonymously by the global press, Iran was able to evacuate the targeted facilities before the strike took place. However, considering how badly diminished Iran's air defenses are at this stage, it is unlikely that stealth bombers flying under the cover of darkness could have been stopped, even with advance warning for Iran.

The Fordo Facility and Bunker-Buster Tactics

Regarding the bomber attacks at the Fordo facility, the use of so many bunker-buster bombs suggests there may have been some truth to prior concerns about the bomb's ability to break through the installation's defenses. The most critical components of the Fordo installation are believed to be several hundred meters underground, carefully insulated against aerial attack. Although America's Massive Ordnance Penetrator is the premier conventional bunker-buster in any Western arsenal, there are still limits to how far a single bomb can penetrate.

As a result, defense experts have suggested that early bombs might have to burrow part of the distance, blow open as much of the target as they can, and clear the way for successive bombs to burrow deeper and deeper—all with the help of precision-guiding technology. These are weapons that Israel did not have and could not obtain; they had to be delivered by way of the United States.

As for whether these tactics were successful, it is difficult to say with certainty at this early stage. Predictably, the United States has claimed complete destruction while Iran has claimed that most of the damage was surface-level. However, it is too early for either side to have completed a thorough damage assessment. While either claim could technically be true, it is also entirely possible that even if Fordo's centrifuges survived the attack, they may now be inaccessible due to tunnel collapses or other extensive damage elsewhere in the installation.

Assessment of Damage to Natanz and Isfahan

Regarding the other two sites that were hit, the United States has again claimed to have destroyed its targets. That claim may be accurate in the case of the Natanz facility, but the facility at Isfahan is deep underground, where Tomahawk missiles alone are unlikely to have broken through completely. Some conflicting reports suggest that America's bunker-busters were also used at those sites, although the truth is not yet clear at the time of writing.

It is also unclear whether Iran was able to move any of its enriched uranium or its centrifuge components in the event that the reports of Iran being notified in advance were accurate. This uncertainty adds another layer of complexity to assessing the true impact of the strikes on Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Long-Term Implications for Iran's Nuclear Program

If these three facilities have indeed been destroyed, the main implication would be that Iran's ability to produce new enriched uranium is disrupted for the long term. Unless Iran has other, unknown enrichment facilities elsewhere—which is not likely, considering the apparent depth of penetration of Israeli intelligence across Iran's military apparatus—Iran now lacks the ability to enrich its existing uranium to weapons-grade or to provide new uranium in a state suitable for enrichment.

This disruption, combined with an Israeli strike on a heavy-water reactor that could have been used to make plutonium when it eventually came online, would indicate that Iran's supply chain for weapons-grade material has been cut off at several points in ways that will be very difficult for Iran to undo. This represents a potentially significant setback to Iran's nuclear ambitions, assuming the damage assessments claiming destruction prove accurate.

The Prospect of Iranian Retaliation

Understanding what comes next is just as important as understanding what has happened. The reason the prospect of American strikes on Iran had received so much media coverage in the lead-up is not simply because the world hungers for a display of American military might, but because for the world's premier superpower to get involved in this conflict directly opens up a wide range of possibilities for where this conflict can go—and very few of those possibilities are good.

Based on the publicly expressed goals of America's leaders, a best-case outcome for Washington would be one where Iran re-engages in peace talks and ultimately agrees to America's terms for a deal. However, that does not seem entirely likely to happen. Iran's command-and-control structure has been in disarray, with leadership issues getting in the way of the prior attempt to negotiate a peace. What the world has heard from Iran's leaders has not been encouraging. According to Iran, reprisals will be coming, and all American troops and other citizens in the Middle East will be viewed as acceptable targets. The United States and Israel both anticipate major retaliatory strikes and are taking precautions at the time of writing, with early reports indicating that two waves of missiles have already scored hits in several locations.

Potential Forms of Iranian Retaliation

As for what Iranian retaliation will look like, it is assets located in the Middle East that are at the greatest risk. At this stage in the war, Iran appears to lack the offensive capabilities that would enable a defeat of Israel. But not being able to defeat Israel is not the same as not being able to hurt Israel, and Iran does appear capable of doing the latter.

According to Israeli defense sources, the country's stocks of available interceptors are running low on some components of its multilayered missile defense system. Iran has recent experience coordinating large-scale missile and drone strikes that can overwhelm those air defenses for a short period of time. While Iran has lost some of its missile launch capabilities, it has still been able to launch missiles in significant numbers, and it may have been able to hold some capabilities in reserve. When those hard-hitting ballistic missiles are combined with masses of hundreds or even thousands of kamikaze drones in waves Iran has not yet unleashed, they still have the ability to deliver real damage to Israel, even if Israel is all but guaranteed to endure and strike back in kind.

The same calculus holds basically true for American assets in the region, at least in broad strokes. As for an attack on the American homeland, that is somewhat less likely. It is not inconceivable that Iran could have snuck drones or small units of personnel onto American soil, but even though a successful attack of that size would come with major psychological effects for the United States, the impact on America's warfighting ability would be negligible.

Broader Strategic Options for Iran

Beyond an immediate retaliation, Iran could expand its response in a few different ways. One option would be to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which is critical for worldwide shipping and would lead to global economic fallout. Iran could do that with an official announcement of a blockade, hoping other nations respond, or it could strike maritime shipping traffic outright using drones or missiles similar to the tactics employed by the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Speaking of the Houthis, Iran's proxy allies across the Middle East have threatened a direct response if the United States gets involved, including the Houthis, Hezbollah, and a major militia group called Kata'ib Hezbollah. While the latter two groups may or may not choose to act on their pledge, some degree of participation from the Houthis should be expected, perhaps restarting their own long-range campaign against Red Sea shipping.

Iran's Strategic Calculus and Regime Survival

As for why Iran would choose to retaliate rather than coming back to the negotiating table, the nation's leaders may feel that they are in a position to pick their poison rather than assuming that their regime will survive. Ayatollah Khamenei has reportedly chosen several potential successors and has been rapidly deputizing new military leaders as old ones have been wiped out. Khamenei, who by some reports is still sick with cancer, appears to be well aware that he might not survive this conflict.

Even if he does survive, peace with Israel would come with its own problems. Iran's regime is known to be in a rough spot, bitterly opposed by much of the public who would like to see their nation reformed. But a truce with Israel, especially if Iran does not retaliate after taking such heavy losses, would likely enrage the hardliners that the regime depends on for its survival.

From the perspective of the Iranian regime, the question becomes: Is the least-worst option to stand aside, let Israel win, and then be swallowed up by their own people? Or is the least-worst option to begin a retaliatory cycle and see whether some offramp might emerge where the regime can save a bit of face? This internal calculation may ultimately prove more important in determining Iran's response than any external pressure from the United States or its allies.

Is This World War III?

As attention turns toward what comes next, it is worth taking a moment to answer one final question: Is this World War III? The answer is no, this is not World War III, at least not for now. At this stage, the crisis in the Middle East is still several orders of magnitude short of a world war, and the warning signs that this could metastasize into that sort of conflict are not popping up yet.

Although it can hurt Israel and the United States in the short term, Iran does not have the military resources to wage a protracted war against either nation, let alone both, by itself. While its proxy forces may get involved in the conflict, there are currently no indicators that a more powerful nation would enter the conflict on Iran's side. China simply does not care that much, Russia is in no position to open up a second and much larger front than it is working with in Ukraine, Pakistan and India are far too focused on each other, and there is not really anybody else to account for.

However this plays out, it is not World War III. What it is, however, is one of the defining crises of the twenty-first century thus far. The situation represents a critical juncture in Middle Eastern geopolitics, with implications for nuclear proliferation, regional stability, and the role of American military power in shaping international outcomes. As the situation continues to evolve, the coming days and weeks will reveal whether diplomatic channels can prevent further escalation or whether the region is headed toward a broader and more destructive conflict.

Related Coverage

FAQ

When did the United States strike Iran?

The airstrikes occurred at approximately 2:30 in the morning local time in Iran on Sunday, June 22, 2025, during the mid-evening hours in Washington, D.C.

What facilities were targeted in the strikes?

Three Iranian nuclear facilities were targeted: the enrichment centers at Natanz and Fordo, and the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility, where powdered yellowcake uranium is converted into a form suitable for enrichment.

What weapons were used in the attack?

The attack employed at least six Massive Ordnance Penetrator bunker-buster bombs (thirty-thousand-pound munitions with five-thousand-pound warheads) delivered by B-2 stealth bombers, and thirty Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from submarines positioned approximately four hundred miles from their targets.

How many B-2 bombers participated in the strike?

At least three B-2 bombers participated in the strike, as each B-2 can carry two Massive Ordnance Penetrators in its internal weapons bays, and six such weapons were used against the Fordo facility.

Were the targets completely destroyed?

President Trump claimed the targets were completely and totally obliterated. However, it is too early for thorough damage assessment. The United States claims complete destruction while Iran claims most damage was surface-level. Even if centrifuges survived at Fordo, they may be inaccessible due to tunnel collapses or other extensive damage.

Did Iran receive advance warning of the strikes?

According to some American officials quoted anonymously, the United States contacted Iran hours before the strike, notifying Tehran and Jerusalem about the impending strikes. Iran was reportedly able to evacuate the targeted facilities, though stealth bombers under cover of darkness would have been difficult to stop even with advance warning.

What is the long-term impact on Iran's nuclear program?

If the three facilities were destroyed, Iran's ability to produce new enriched uranium would be disrupted for the long term. Iran would lack the ability to enrich existing uranium to weapons-grade or provide new uranium suitable for enrichment, unless it has other unknown enrichment facilities elsewhere.

How is Iran expected to retaliate?

Iran has announced that reprisals are coming and all American troops and citizens in the Middle East will be viewed as acceptable targets. Retaliation may include coordinated large-scale missile and drone strikes against Israeli and American assets in the region, potentially shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, and activating proxy forces including the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Kata'ib Hezbollah.

Sources

About the Author

Jackson Reed

Jackson Reed creates and presents analysis focused on military doctrine, strategic competition, and conflict dynamics.

About the Team →