Middle East: safer, but not just yet
By Richard North - June 23, 2025
Well, I did write several times that Trump was volatile and unpredictable. And even as Mark Urban was writing for The Times outlining how Israel could “go it alone”, suggesting that Trump was considering his options, the B-2s were already in the air, prepped for their rendezvous with destiny.
Now, with the benefit of hindsight, the same paper is arguing that the US president’s intervention was entirely logical and predictable to the point of inevitability, once the Mad Mullah, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, refused to sanction diplomatic talks.
For the technical details, I prefer this source, which tells us that, at approximately 1.00am Iran local time – still 21 June back in the States – a bomber mission of seven B-2 Spirit bombers and more than 30 Tomahawk Attack Missiles fired from an Ohio-class guided-missile nuclear submarine struck three Iranian nuclear sites at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow.
Shortly thereafter, a triumphant president Trump in a Saturday night address at the White House declared: “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated”.
The main strike package of seven bombers, we are told, began the more than day-long round trip from Whiteman Airbase, Missouri, on the Saturday. The B-2s ultimately dropped 14 GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrators on the enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow early Sunday morning Iranian time,
Details were confirmed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dan Caine. In a Pentagon press briefing, he told reporters that: “In total, US forces employed approximately 75 precision-guided weapons during this operation”, including the 14 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance penetrators, the latter marking the first ever operational use of this weapon.
The group of seven B-2s flew a route over the Atlantic, across the Mediterranean Sea, into the Middle East, aided by a fleet of KC-135 and KC-46A Pegasus aerial refuelers that had been prepositioned to support the long-distance round-trip.
Once in US Central Command, an unspecified number and types of fourth and fifth-generation US fighters joined the bombers before entering Iran, Caine said. The fighters targeted surface-to-air missile sites ahead of the B-2s’ approach to the two hardened nuclear enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow.
Said Caine: “The US protection package employed high-speed suppression weapons to ensure safe passage of the strike package with fighter assets employing pre-emptive suppressing fires against any potential Iranian surface-to-air threats”. He added: “We are currently unaware of any shots fired at the US strike package on the way in”.
Interestingly, the US also sent a separate group of B-2s west in a decoy mission, flying from Whiteman over the Pacific. More than 125 aircraft were part of the mission, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and refuelling aircraft. As yet, it is unclear whether any aircraft came from the USS Carl Vinson carrier, positioned in the region.
The single US submarine engaged, which was not named by Caine, launched more than two dozen Tomahawks on the nuclear facility at Isfahan after the B-2s had dropped their ordnance.
From a purely operational point of view, the strike was pretty damn impressive. Altogether, the seven B-2s conducting the bombing were said to be airborne 44 hours, from leaving their base in Missouri to their safe return. The mission is a graphic illustration of the “reach” of the United States, which from its own territory, has effectively demonstrated its capability to mount an operation anywhere in the world.
Not since the RAF’s famous long-range “Black Buck” Vulcan strike against the then occupied Falklands Islands, in 1982, have we woken to the news of such an impressive strike, although it has to be said that the US operation was on a far greater scale and all the more impressive for what it achieved, on a purely technical level.
Whether the strike was wise, or even effective, only time will tell. While Trump is claiming that the Iranian nuclear facilities have been completely destroyed, including the Fordow site, predictably the Iranians are reporting minimal effects and asserting that Fordow is completely undamaged.
It is not possible, at the moment, for outsiders to ascertain with any confidence which of the competing claims is more correct, but in a “nah-nah” response, the Iranians are claiming that enriched uranium stocks were removed from Fordow, prior to the raid, with the Telegraph reproducing a satellite image showing trucks queuing at the entrance, lending credibility to the Iranian claims.
Whether or not the Iranians can divert the 60 percent enriched uranium to another, as yet undetected plant, to bring it up to the 85 percent required for weapons production, is unknown.
JD Vance, the US vice-president, we are told, stated to ABC News: “We’re going to work in the coming weeks to ensure that we do something with that fuel. They no longer have the capacity to turn that stockpile of highly enriched uranium to weapons-grade uranium”.
Via Ronen Solomon, an Israeli intelligence analyst, the Telegraph has it that even if Iran had moved its uranium, it would be “like having fuel without a car”. Solomon adds: “They have the uranium, but they can’t do a lot with it, unless they have built something we don’t know about on a small scale”.
Not so says Ali Shamkhani, an adviser to the supreme leader. He opines: “Even assuming the complete destruction of the sites, the game is not over, because enriched materials, indigenous knowledge, and political will remain intact”.
It will come as no surprise to learn that Iran has condemned the strike, with its ambassador to the UN accusing the US of “waging war” under an “absurd pretext”. Amir Saeid Iravani, speaking at the UN in New York, says the idea that Iran is on the cusp of getting a nuclear weapon is a “deceitful and false narrative”. So there.
With talk of revenge in the air, though, the US has warned Iran that retaliation would be “the worst mistake they’ve ever made”. Trump writes on social media: “Any retaliation by Iran against the United States of America will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight”.
Richard Kemp, for the Telegraph argues that Iran has “no cards left to play”. Although it might lash out, through its proxies, launching terrorist attacks against soft targets, Kemp thinks that any action the ayatollahs take will have “no strategic effect”.
Trump is now actively suggesting that regime change might be a good idea, but that could be a two-edged sword. Although the original Persia has a long, illustrious history of civilisation, instability in the north, with the Kurds ever ready to make trouble, and in the south, where the Baluchi insurgency is reaching boiling point, could lead to the break-up of the Iranian state as we know it.
The situation in the south is particularly interesting, as the Baluchi insurgency at its most active in the Pakistani occupied province and, should Iran collapse, one can see the two elements of the Baluchi insurgency combining, ceding from both occupying states and declaring independence.
With India actively meddling in the region, a weakened Pakistan could then see Kashmir kick off once again, as separatists make their move. Combined with the instability in the south, this could threaten the viability of Pakistan as a state, adding massively to regional instability.
In short, Iranian regime change, even in the unlikely event that there was a smooth transition of power, would likely not be a consequence-free event, leading to unpredictable effects spreading through south Asia to the Middle East.
On the upside, removal of the ayatollahs, as the primary sponsors of terrorism and instability in the Middle East, could have a calming effect on the wider region. For the time being, though, with Iran making noises about closing off the Straits of Hormuz, instability reigns supreme.
Kemp nevertheless asserts that president Trump and prime minister Netanyahu’s leadership against Iran have made the world a safer place. That may be the case sometime in the future but, as we await with trepidation the next moves, not just yet.
