A fresh evaluation uncovered the limited extent of President Donald Trump's Iran airstrikes, defying his assertive declarations. Contrary to Trump's incessant claims that Operation Midnight Hammer had "totally wiped out" Iran's nuclear targets, just one among three main targets was extensively destroyed. The discovery, anchored by a US intelligence report quoted by NBC News, verifies that Trump opted for a more limited military strategy, overriding his advisers' more extensive plan. Although Fordow was severely damaged, Iran's two other facilities—Natanz and Isfahan—remained with less damage and might resume enrichment shortly.
Leaders unveiled that the US Central Command had developed a far more aggressive strike strategy. This proposal entailed repeated bombing campaigns, disabling of Iran's air defense, and attacks on several high-priority nuclear installations. The plan entailed striking three more nuclear facilities over weeks, potentially leading to heavy Iranian and US casualties.
But Trump wouldn't sign off on it. He chose a briefer, one-night raid, adhering to his foreign policy principle of not getting drawn into long wars. "We were ready to go the distance…" a source explained to NBC News, "but the president did not want." Instead, the limited raid utilized B-2 stealth bombers and GBU-57 "bunker buster" bombs targeted at the well-fortified Fordow facility.
The Fordow nuclear facility was the target of most of the attacks. The attacks there probably set Iran back on its uranium enrichment by as much as two years. But at Natanz and Isfahan, the outcomes were short. Tomahawk missiles struck surface-level targets at Isfahan. Bunker busters hit Natanz but did not penetrate far into underground systems.
Authorities conceded the US was already aware that both sites had infrastructure deeply buried out of reach of existing weapons. That accounts for the limited damage, even after the first military use of the GBU-57.
The complete picture remains to emerge. Intelligence experts continue to gauge the true magnitude of damage. Others think the initial data might be underestimating the real effect. Nevertheless, the limited scope of the mission has opened up debate. Others query whether a greater strike would have more effectively stifled Iran's nuclear drive.
As Trump labeled criticism as "fake news", this new report refutes that. It reveals that the operation was much smaller than promoted, and the threat of nuclear war continues.
