Operation Midnight Hammer and Its Ramifications

An American B2 bomber.

After the launch of "Operation Midnight Hammer," the United States launched precision strikes against three of Iran's nuclear installations: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Operating with B-2 bombers and submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles, the operation was the first direct US military action in the Iran–Israel conflict. The attacks were described as a decisive blow by President Trump to halt Iran's nuclear program. The operation was depicted as overpowering and successful by the administration to the public. Privately, however, intelligence agencies offered a more subdued prognosis: though the buildings had been damaged, Iran's enrichment effort simply was delayed, not destroyed. The analysts estimate the setback to be a few months, not years. That gap between words and actions has already posed challenging questions about what to do next.

Iran's answer came quickly. Within hours, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps struck Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, a key node in U.S. military operations. Tehran also threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, the key bridge through which nearly 20% of the world's petroleum output flows. Markets scrambled. Oil prices lowered, and investors began to gear up for an extended energy crisis unless tensions are contained. Varying global reactions were swift. Russia, Iran's most potent ally, denounced the attacks as reckless. The United Nations seconded such fear. Secretary-General António Guterres described the attack as a dangerous escalation, citing that it was taken without congressional or legislative approval or any multilateral coalition. European allies, while diplomatic, were urging restraint and diplomacy. 

There was a firestorm of debate within the U.S. Legal scholars and politicians alike questioned the legality of the strikes. Without Congressional approval, critics argue the president overstepped constitutional bounds. Supporters reply that the threat was too urgent to delay. Meanwhile, a U.S.- and Qatar-mediated ceasefire is now technically in place, but already it's showing signs of strain. In addition, the strategic precedent set by this attack has left many nervous. If nuclear reactors can be bombed without multilateral agreement, does that redefine the rules of engagement? And if the damage wrought was mostly temporary, has the risk of escalation been worthwhile? For now, the world waits—troubled, uncertain, and more aware than ever before of how quickly war can spiral out of control