How the US struck Iran's nuclear facilities in Operation Midnight Hammer
When America's B-2 bombers took off from a military base in Missouri and some of them made their way towards the Pacific, flight tracking enthusiasts had noted that was unusual and it would turn out to be intentionally so.
The United States had launched a B-2 bomber "strike package" but to maintain tactical surprise, some of the aircraft very visibly proceeded West and into the Pacific "as a decoy".
"The main strike package, comprised of seven B-2 spirit bombers, each with two crew members, proceeded quietly to the east with minimal communications throughout the 18-hour flight into the target area," General Dan Caine said at a Pentagon briefing on Sunday morning, local time.
Any movement of those B-2 aircraft would have been closely watched because these are the war machines capable of delivering the so-called "bunker busting bombs" that Israel has been wanting deployed in its war against Iran.
Each bomber can carry two "massive ordinance penetrators" bombs in its weapons bay and as the group of B-2s broke east towards Iran they were fully loaded.
After taking off at midnight on Saturday, local time, the B-2s were joined by an escort "support package" 17 hours later, and from there it was just less than two hours until they would be over their targets.
"The aircraft completed multiple in-flight refuelling. Once overland, the B-2 linked up with escort and support aircraft in a complex tightly timed manoeuvrer requiring exact synchronisation ... in a narrow piece of airspace, all done with minimal communications," General Caine said.
At the same time, a US submarine in the region "launched more than two dozen Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles against key surface infrastructure targets", he said.
"As the Operation Midnight Hammer strike package entered Iranian airspace, the US employed several deception tactics, including decoys, as the [escort] aircraft pushed out in front of the strike package at high altitude and high speed, sweeping in front of the package for enemy fighters and surface to air missile threats."
By early Saturday evening Washington time, the B-2s and their escorts crossed into Iranian airspace.
We now know the specific targets for this mission were the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear sites.
The decoys were set, the three components of American military had come together and were now making their way to their targets to drop the massive payload on the facilities the US and Israel believe are critical to Iran's nuclear potential.
At approximately 6:40pm, Washington time, the lead B-2 dropped two massive ordnance penetrator (MOPs) weapons on the first target, which was the Fordow nuclear facility.
"The remaining bombers then hit their targets as well, with a total of 14 MOPs dropped against two nuclear target areas. All three Iranian nuclear infrastructure targets were struck between 6:40pm and 7:05pm Eastern Time," General Caine said.
"The Tomahawk missiles being the last to strike ... to ensure we retain the element of surprise throughout the operation."
Once the bombs had been released, the aircraft left Iranian airspace and the "package began its return home".
General Caine called the decoy move a "deception effort" and said it was only known to an "extremely small number of planners and key leaders" in Washington and Tampa, Florida where the US Central Command is based.
US President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have said the targets were obliterated, but are yet to provide evidence of the extent of the damage.
General Caine was more measured, saying damage assessments would take some time, but that: "initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction."
Inside Iran, state media initially downplayed the damage, saying they had prepared for the attack, but it is also hard to verify those claims.
General Caine said throughout the mission, the US retained the element of surprise.
"Iran's fighters did not fly and it appears that Iran's surface to air missile systems did not see us," he said.
The president of the United States had spent the week seemingly racing towards a decision on whether to strike inside Iran, only then to issue a single-line statement via his press secretary that he would give himself two weeks to make the decision.
In the end, he took two days.
And from details released on Sunday, local time, at the Pentagon, it appears that the US plan to send its finest war machines to bomb a former ally was very much ready, just waiting to be put in motion.
Mr Hegseth said: "This mission was not and has not been about regime change."
"The president authorised a precision operation to neutralise the threats to our national interests posed by the Iranian nuclear program and the collective self-defence of our troops," he said.
'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."
ABC
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
18 minutes ago
- ABC News
Humiliated, desperate and under siege, Iran has few options to retaliate
Instead of launching righteous retribution, Iran's leaders are now in survival mode. Iran is supposed to be a regional power, the leader of the Shia Muslim world, and the "resistance" to US and Western imperialism in the Middle East. Now its leaders are hiding from ongoing Israeli strikes and downplaying the damage from a major US attack. Israel began by attacking nuclear and ballistic missile sites and assassinating nuclear scientists and military commanders. After Israel broadened its attacks, the US has now obliged an Israeli request for its B-2 bombers to use Massive Ordnance Penetrators and submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles to hit a fortified uranium enrichment facility and two other nuclear sites. Previously, when attacked or pressured by enemies like Israel and the US, Iran has often adopted a policy of "strategic patience". This means waiting, calibrating a response and judging the best moment to unleash it. But at times it has seemed to critics more like "strategic impotence", showcasing how few options Iran's leaders have to really threaten adversaries. Now, Iran is again promising a mighty punishment for US strikes on its nuclear sites. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the parallel military, commercial and political organisation that protects Iran's clerical regime, said in a statement: "Today's aggression by the terrorist American regime has pushed the Islamic Republic of Iran — within its legitimate right to self-defence — to activate options beyond the understanding and calculations of the delusional aggressor front. The invaders of this land must now expect regrettable responses." Iran has protested the illegality of the strikes, pointed out that it was already engaging in negotiations when the assault began and highlighted the absurdity of being told to de-escalate and "make peace" when it was the party attacked. But it has few options for actual retaliation, none of them good. The most likely appears to be withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This would mean the end of international inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities and the chance for Iran to take whatever stockpile of enriched uranium remains and race covertly for a bomb. This scenario is the worst outcome for nuclear control advocates, who supported the previous 2015 deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action) between the US, European nations and Iran that limited Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, before it was unilaterally torn up by President Donald Trump in his first term, at the urging of Israel. In terms of direct retaliation, Iran could do three things. The first option would be to attack US bases, jets and ships in the Gulf. This would immediately trigger further US attacks, and not just on military sites. The killing of US personnel could prompt the Trump administration to directly strike the Islamic regime, something it says it is not (yet) trying to do. The second option would be for Iranian proxy groups, particularly the Shia militias in Iraq, to attack US bases there and in Syria. These bases are far smaller, have seen significant troop withdrawals recently and have weathered previous rounds of "tit-for-tat" strikes from the militias in retaliation for things like the US assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani. This is a less-escalatory approach and may still occur. But the US is preparing to vacate those bases anyway, something Iran wants, and striking them could still trigger the kind of direct retribution it seeks to avoid. The Houthi rebels in Yemen have, however, said they will resume attacks on US shipping in the Red Sea, something they had foregone recently as part of a de-escalation agreement with Washington. These groups could be part of a longer-term plan for asymmetric warfare that could also involve terrorist attacks in the West, as Hezbollah has been accused of carrying out in the past. Iran's third option, striking oil and gas infrastructure in the Gulf states, would create more enemies for Iran and strengthen the argument that it is a destabilising influence in the region. It would also set back the warming relations Iran has been enjoying with major rivals like Saudi Arabia. Iran may choose to selectively disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, blocking oil tankers bound for Europe, for example, which avoids angering its ally China while inflicting some economic pain on the West. Iran's parliament has already approved a naval blockade of the strait. No matter what, Iran's regime sits on the precipice of collapse — its leaders are dead, have fled or are in hiding. The extent of the damage to nuclear sites is unknown but Iran's investments of hundreds of billions of dollars and decades of work have been set back and look to be far from paying off. It would be a great irony if the project that was intended to protect the Islamic Republic becomes the catalyst for its collapse. The best-case scenario for Iran's leadership is to weather Israel's campaign, re-assert domestic control and start prosecuting the case internationally that Israel and the US are dangerous, unrestrained threats to the region. There will be receptive ears — many countries are unnerved to see Israel deciding it can unleash massive force against whomever it chooses, and that the US will rush to join it. The risks for Iran's opponents rise the longer the campaign goes. The US should be wary of mission creep and further entanglement in another costly, messy Middle Eastern "forever war", after the embarrassment of Afghanistan, the sectarian nightmare of Iraq, the scandals of Libya and the horrors of Syria. The big question now is whether Israel's ongoing campaign — now starting to target the IRGC as well — will lead to regime collapse. Iranians have now seen how weak their unpopular and repressive government is. They haven't broadly welcomed Israeli strikes and a popular uprising would still come with enormous risks from the elements of the IRGC that have brutally crushed previous protest movements. In past crises, the clerical regime has prioritised its survival above all else. We don't know what it will do inside Iran if its grip starts to slip.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Iran's nuclear sites have been 'obliterated'. This is how dangerous that could be
A 13 tonne bomb — yes, you read that right — being dropped on a nuclear site so sensitive it was embedded almost 100 metres inside a mountain. When you put it like that, it's no surprise Sunday's US attacks on Iran put much of the world on edge. US President Donald Trump hailed the mission, which involved stealth bombers launching strikes on three uranium enrichment facilities, as a huge success. The targets at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan had been "totally obliterated" he said. While devastating consequences are associated with any act of war, words like "nuclear" and "radioactive" can trigger extra concerns. Let's unpack them. The first thing Pete Bryant, from the University of Liverpool, wants you to do, is get high-profile nuclear disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima out of your mind. "It's important to distinguish between nuclear power plants and uranium enrichment facilities, as they are fundamentally different in function, design, and risk," he said. The sites targeted in Iran — Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow — are uranium enrichment facilities, that handle "low-level radioactive material", said Professor Bryant, a leading radiation protection professional and scientist. That's in complete contrast to nuclear power plants like Ukraine's Chernobyl, which was the site of the world's worst nuclear disaster, and Japan's Fukushima, which sustained major damage in a 2011 earthquake and tsunami. Power plants contain things like nuclear reactor cores, spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste, which make them much more dangerous. "Iran's uranium enrichment facilities are not reactors, do not have comparable inventories of radioactive material, and cannot experience similar failures," Professor Bryant said. "So while comparisons are often made due to the use of the term 'nuclear', the facilities involved in the current situation are nothing like Chernobyl or Fukushima in design, function, or risk profile." Just because the Iranian facilities targeted by the US aren't capable of causing a nuclear meltdown, that doesn't mean there aren't dangers. After all, the US used the world's largest non-nuclear bombs in the attack. Professor Bryant said the uranium isotopes found at Iran's Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan facilities emitted alpha particles which "are stopped by a few centimetres of air, cannot penetrate skin, and pose a risk only if inhaled or ingested". In other words, these substances pose little radiological risk. But there are chemical concerns. He said the uranium gas used in these facilities formed the toxic substances of Uranyl Fluoride and Hydrofluoric Acid when exposed to air and moisture. The latter is "corrosive and dangerous upon inhalation", Professor Bryant said. "Even in the unlikely event of an internal release, any contamination would remain largely confined within the structure, especially in underground sites like Fordow, which is protected by 80-90 metres of reinforced rock," he said. While not necessarily the case in Iran right now, Timothy Mousseau — an internationally recognised authority on the effects of radiation on natural systems — said the blasts could affect the natural environment. "Large explosions at nuclear enrichment sites or spent fuel storage sites are potentially of very large environmental impacts," Professor Mousseau said. On Sunday, Mariano Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency — an international organisation that promotes the safe and peaceful use of nuclear technologies — said Iranian authorities had reported no increase in off-site radiation levels after the US attacks. Given radiation is easy to detect, even at low levels, that announcement will have allayed global concerns about an environmental catastrophe. Although as Professor Mousseau, from the University of South Carolina, pointed out: "Nuclear fuel for bombs and reactors is both radioactive and chemical toxic and their dispersal can have profound environmental impacts for decades, centuries and even millennia given that the half-life of uranium-235, the main active ingredient for nuclear reactors, is over 700 million years, and the half-life of plutonium-239, the main ingredient of an atomic bomb, is more 24,000 years."
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
As the US bombs Iran and enters another war, China is the likely winner
China is publicly "deeply concerned" about events in the Middle East but privately is probably celebrating. America is off to war again, and China will be the winner as it has been for two decades. Throughout China's rise as an industrial power since it joined the World Trade Organisation on December 11, 2001 — exactly three months after 9/11 — America has been constantly sidetracked and weakened by wars and unrest. It started with the "War on Terror" after 9/11, then Afghanistan, Iraq in 2003, Yemen from 2002, Libya in 2007, Syria from 2014, the contested US election and riots of January 6, 2020, Ukraine and then Gaza over the past two years, Donald Trump's two trade wars, and now … Iran. Trump understood the problem and campaigned on "no more wars," but has been unable to resist the pressure from America's military establishment and Israel. Meanwhile, China has been quietly making friends, building its military muscle as part of a frenetic industrial policy, and not using it (although it's been doing some industrial-scale espionage to get technology). China's leaders still work on the old-fashioned idea that economic policy is for improving the prosperity of citizens and strengthening the country, not for conducting ideological culture wars, and that diplomacy is about winning friends and influencing people. Events last week were a perfect example of the difference between the world's two superpowers. As Trump was leaving the G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, last week to prepare to bomb Iran, flinging threats at the other six members and refusing to sign the communique, Chinese President Xi Jinping was in Astana, Kazakhstan, for the second China-Central Asia Summit. The Astana summit's outcome was a "Treaty of Permanent Good‑Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation", led and signed by Xi on behalf of China and the leaders of the five stans — Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. They adopted the "Astana Declaration", affirming the "China‑Central Asia Spirit" of "mutual respect, trust, benefit and assistance". Until the 20th century, wars were fought for plunder and slaves: they were mostly heists, enriching invaders with loot and hostages dragged away to work for free. That especially goes for the British and European colonisers of the 17th to 19th centuries, and before them, ancient Rome, Carthage, Alexander the Great, and various ancient and medieval warlords and pirates. But looting and plunder are out these days, or at least it can't be obvious, and slaves are definitely out; wars are designed to entrench or inflate national leaders, usually autocrats or would-be autocrats, and do nothing but weaken and distract everyone involved. That is even more so when it is based on lies (Iraq) or goes too long (Vietnam and Afghanistan) or goes too far (Gaza) because it not only comes with a crippling cost, it saps morale, divides the country and erodes global support. Russia's economy is being ruined by its invasion of Ukraine, probably irreparably, and Israel's moral foundations and international standing are being destroyed by its levelling of Gaza and refusal to accept a Palestinian state. Iran's regime is now being brought undone by its insistence on enriching uranium for nuclear weapons of war and refusing to give up. But the big loser throughout has been, and still is, America, debilitated by its fury and expensive over-reach. Throughout America's warmongering, China has been peacefully remaking its history, starting with the "Four Modernisations" of Deng Xiaoping around 1980 and culminating with joining the WTO in 2001. Then, in 2018, during Trump's first term as president, China got a wake-up call. On December 1 of that year, Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of Huawei and daughter of its founder, was arrested by the Canadian Mounties in Vancouver on a provisional US extradition request. Two months later, she was charged with fraud by the US Department of Justice. Four years later, the case was dismissed. At the same time, the US imposed an effective embargo on semiconductor exports to China as part of a general trade war initiated by Trump. All of which had been preceded by an Australian ban in August 2018 on Huawei taking part in the rollout of 5G mobile infrastructure because of national security concerns, which was, rightly, seen as a curtain-raiser for the US main event. China was blindsided by the restrictions on semiconductors from the US, shocked because they pride themselves on forward planning. So, China's leadership set about fixing it. Not only did they invest billions in developing a semiconductor industry, but they also spent even more money on virtually every other industrial product to make sure they had complete independence. If the US could block semiconductors today, tomorrow it could be chemicals, cars, robots, or solar panels. Trump has shown they were right. Chinese banks were told to stop lending to real estate — property developers simply couldn't get bank funding — but anyone with an industrial project got a hearing. In just a few years, bank lending shifted dramatically towards industrial products and away from real estate. So, China has spent the past seven years since that fateful arrest in Vancouver in 2018 building a formidable industrial technology military complex, but it has not invaded anyone or gotten involved in any wars. Meanwhile, the greatest industrial technology military complex in world history has been constantly fighting wars or supporting other countries fighting them at a total cost of at least $US6 trillion ($9 trillion). Apart from the cost, those wars have divided and demoralised the United States, especially Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza, and now Trump is starting another war with Iran while trying to rebuild America's industrial base with tariffs and a trade war, which won't work, having repealed Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, which at least subsidised renewable energy industries. Will China ditch its policy of "good neighbourliness" and invade Taiwan? Unlikely, you would think. They might blockade the place one day, but that's doubtful as well — China's leadership would be reluctant to destroy Taiwan's economy before taking it over. And they have seen what America's aggression has done to itself over the past 24 years. Alan Kohler is finance presenter and columnist on ABC News and he also writes for Intelligent Investor.
