On June 21, 2025, the United States executed a coordinated series of strikes against key nodes of Iran’s nuclear weapons infrastructure. The operation, ordered by President Donald Trump, targeted Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, all central to Iran’s uranium enrichment and weapons development capabilities.
The strikes were carried out using B-2 Spirit bombers equipped with 30,000-pound bunker-busting munitions, supported by a U.S. submarine that launched over two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles. The mission was designed to inflict maximum degradation on deeply buried and hardened facilities. CIA Director John Ratcliffe and the International Atomic Energy Agency have since confirmed that the nuclear program sustained significant damage.
President Trump articulated the rationale clearly: The United States will not permit Iran to achieve a nuclear breakout. In the wake of the operation, the administration announced a ceasefire agreement between Iran and Israel, a breakthrough made possible by the credibility that comes with hard power. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte described the president as a “man of strength” and a “man of peace,” signaling alignment among allies on the necessity of the action.
Controversy arose following the leak of a preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency report. A “low confidence” assessment, the media framed it as being more absolute and used it as a cudgel against the administration’s action to claim the strikes may have only delayed Iran’s program by several months and did not eliminate existing enriched uranium stockpiles. The administration forcefully condemned the leak and opened a criminal investigation into its origins. Given the rapid release of the report to opposition media, it seems clear the intent was political and meant to harm the administration more than inform the American people.
While the American people deserve transparency about such significant military actions, these leaks complicate the truth. They obscure the operational realities and inherent dangers of targeting fortified nuclear sites, potentially weakening public trust and emboldening adversaries. The administration’s pushback, supported by subsequent CIA and Israeli assessments indicating severe damage, underscores the complexity of battle damage assessments, which require weeks to finalize. The controversy highlights the tension between public accountability and the need to protect sensitive military operations.
However, the broader strategic implications are already taking shape. The strikes have demonstrated a restored willingness to enforce red lines. They signal to both allies and adversaries that the United States retains the capacity and will to prevent nuclear proliferation when diplomacy fails.
Moreover, the operational execution demonstrated the unparalleled capability of our military. The precision and professionalism of our pilots are simply unmatched by any fighting force in the world. The B-2 pilots flew from Missouri into hostile airspace, executed a complex, high-risk bombing run, and returned safely—they are the definition of courage. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was right to slam media critics who downplayed their success. Questioning the mission’s effectiveness without full context disrespects and marginalizes the achievement.
At the Center for American Safety and Security, we maintain that American power must be used judiciously, but it must be used. This operation reaffirmed that principle. It reestablished deterrence, disrupted Iran’s nuclear timeline, and restored a sense of seriousness to U.S. policy in the region.
In an era of blurred lines and uncertain commitments, the Iran strikes offer a rare example of strategic coherence. The United States acted with purpose, precision, and moral clarity. That matters, and the world noticed.