After the Strike: Exploring the Consequences of the US Assault on Iran
It’s understandable why Donald Trump might have felt a bit put off by the media’s reaction to last weekend’s bombing raid in Iran. It was undeniably a significant military operation.
- Advertisement -
However, let me be clear: there is a crucial need for a thorough examination of that operation. The U.S. media has largely fulfilled its duty to scrutinize the official narrative and assess how taxpayer money is utilized. And make no mistake about it—this raid came with a staggering price tag in the billions.
Academics and think tanks have likewise performed their roles, analyzing the potential ramifications of the operation. Intelligence agencies have assessed the information available to them and reported their findings to political leaders, often leading to information leaks for a variety of reasons.
So, yes, we will take on some critical analysis ourselves later.
What adds to the complexity is that President Trump campaigned on a platform of avoiding foreign entanglements. Yet, here we are—having been pulled into another conflict, and quite quickly at that.
The American public has voiced its concerns, questioning the effectiveness of the operation. This kind of scrutiny did not sit well with the President, who took it personally. Subsequently, his administration launched a counter-offensive, directly targeting specific reporters from several outlets, including CNN and Fox News.
During the NATO summit on Wednesday, he took to social media to express his discontent with the coverage, posting 28 times. He accused the media of disrespecting military personnel involved in the operation while downplaying the challenges faced, despite coverage doing neither.
Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed the sentiment during a heated press conference, publicly confronting a former colleague from Fox News, someone with an impressive 18 years of experience reporting on the Pentagon.
When it comes to the mission itself, the highlight of that press briefing came from Air Force General Dan Caine, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. His comments provided much-needed context, shedding light on the operation and likely explaining the President’s irritation.
General Caine revealed that the bombing raid on Fordow wasn’t the result of a hasty decision made by the Commander in Chief within a week. Rather, it was a meticulously planned operation that had been years in the making—specifically, 15 years.
According to General Caine, the Defence Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), a lesser-known branch of the Pentagon based in Fort Belvoir, Virginia, had been studying the Fordow site since 2009. An officer from DTRA was briefed on potential nuclear developments and tasked with understanding what was happening at Fordow—a crucial part of Iran’s nuclear program.
“For more than 15 years, this officer and his teammate lived and breathed this single target: Fordow,” General Caine noted. “They examined everything from the construction materials to the environmental control systems.”
They soon realized that existing U.S. weaponry would not be capable of neutralizing such a fortified facility strategically hidden underground.
This prompted the development of the “Bunker Busters,” which include the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a 13-ton bomb. General Caine mentioned that development for the MOP began in 2004 but escalated significantly with this Iranian mission in mind.
He stated, “In the early stages of development, we had a substantial number of experts working on the MOP program, quietly making us one of the biggest users of supercomputer hours in America.”
Following extensive testing and a multitude of simulations, the military was finally prepared for a mission that was, in General Caine’s words, aimed to “kill this target at the time and place of our nation’s choosing.”
This, however, raises a valid question: Why hasn’t the public seen footage of the actual raid yet? There’s a palpable curiosity among taxpayers who funded this mission, especially considering its high cost.
General Caine indicated that developing the MOP alone cost approximately half a billion dollars, with an additional $400 million allocated for production. It’s no surprise that the U.S. reportedly possesses only 20 or 30 of these bunker busters—now reduced by 14 after this operation.
The B2 bombers, which undertook a 37-hour round trip from Missouri, carry their own costs, amounting to about $65,000 per hour. With seven bombers involved, that totals around $16 million in flight costs alone. In total, 125 aircraft participated, highlighting the extensive military resources involved.
General Caine discussed how the analysts identified ventilation shafts at Fordow as weak points the bunker busters could exploit. This led to some public pop-culture references, likening the mission to scenes from “Top Gun.” The operation involved dropping multiple bombs into the shafts, each from significant altitude—an astounding feat of precision and technology.
While this mission showcased remarkable technical proficiency, it begs the question: What is the actual impact of this operation on Iran’s nuclear capabilities?
Even behind closed doors, discussions held with Senators and Congress left many, including legislators, uncertain about the operation’s implications. Differing views emerged: Senator Chris Murphy argued the raid set back Iran’s program by only a few months, while Senator Lindsey Graham claimed it might set them back years. Meanwhile, President Trump and his team have been notably optimistic, using terms like “obliterated,” which is seldom employed in military language.
Looking ahead, Secretary Hegseth asserted that the only way to truly assess the raid’s impact would be for Iran to dig at Fordow. Iran could potentially capitalize on any structural successes to quickly return to its nuclear ambitions.
However, the question remains: Do they want to? Iran has invested heavily in its nuclear program. As President Trump observed during a recent Middle East trip, ordinary Iranians are caught between their government’s ambitions and the more prosperous lives of neighboring states.
In a delicate balancing act, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, might be reluctant to engage with the U.S. as internal pressures mount.
Former Middle East analyst Amir Asmar suggests three scenarios concerning Iran’s next steps, depending on how well their facilities survived the bombardment. Asmar views a damaged Fordow as likely prompting only temporary pauses in Iran’s nuclear advancement—not a total abandonment.
Conversely, if Fordow suffered extensive damage, Iranian leaders may deem further resistance to negotiations unnecessary, knowing it would take years and vast amounts of resources to restart their programs.
Yet, complications could arise: should Iran withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), they would face fewer legal barriers in developing nuclear weapons—bypassing international scrutiny. And the IAEA’s monitoring would become even more complex, as highlighted by agency head Rafael Grossi, who mentioned that damage from the raid was anticipated to be substantial.
In conclusion, while the bombing raid was a notable military operation, its long-term impact on regional stability and security remains uncertain. As Thomas Wright noted in The Atlantic, President Trump’s declarations of a successful dismantling may overlook the complexities involved in truly understanding the current state of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Ultimately, in the rapidly shifting dynamics of international relations, the key question remains, “What comes next?”
Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.