Operation Midnight Hammer - Day Two and Beyond
Successful US strikes on Iran's nuclear program setup a high-stakes confrontation with an uncertain conclusion.
On June 21, 2025, the US military struck Iran’s Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear sites in an operation dubbed “Midnight Hammer.” The strikes came less than three days after US President Donald Trump announced he would hold off using military force to attack Iranian nuclear facilities for two weeks to continue to negotiate an end to the Iranian nuclear program. The delay was part of an apparent ruse used to secure strategic surprise. The full effects of the strikes are still being evaluated, but early analysis suggests that American bombs severely damaged the Iranian nuclear sites and likely set back progress on Iran’s nuclear program significantly.
This Situation Report will anticipate where the war goes from here on day two of Operation Midnight Hammer.
OVERVIEW: WHERE DOES THE WAR GO FROM HERE?
Operation Midnight Hammer marked the start of US involvement in a war with Iran, but will not likely end it. The fundamental stakes of the war are high enough for the US, Israel, and Iran to press on fighting. The publicly stated US objective of Iran’s “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” by President Trump, combined with insinuations by both US and Israeli leaders that regime change is an option, have created a showdown that tests both the credibility of the Trump and Netanyahu governments and the very future of the Iranian revolution.
Broadly speaking, debate on the future of the US-Israeli war on Iran now focuses on three plausible endgame scenarios and the events that lead there.
In the first case, the positive scenario, the Iranian regime, already under tremendous strain, folds under pressure to US threats. The surviving political establishment in Iran agrees to a humiliating peace agreement that prohibits it from pursuing any nuclear program.
In the second case, the war ends with the fundamental objectives of all sides unrealized. In this indecisive scenario, US and Israeli strikes set back but do not permanently end Iran’s nuclear program. Escalation in the conflict is managed and does not become a global conflagration. The Iranian regime survives the war battered but still capable of governing and reconstituting its military and proxy forces over time. After high intensity combat has ended, all sides resume antagonism at a lower level.
In the third case, the negative scenario, the Iranian regime rallies. In this case, the entry of the US in the war against Iran marks a turning point for the Iranian regime. The regime is able to restore its faltering prestige by damaging a broad array of US interests, effectively rallying Iranian nationalists, and restoring hope in the broader axis of resistance. Iran is able to quickly repair its nuclear program and then races for nuclear weapons.
BIGGER PICTURE: TOWARD A FRAMEWORK FOR ANTICIPATING EACH ENDGAME
What scenario unfolds is still an open question at this point, and still dependent on decisions yet to be made, and heavily influenced by unanticipated contingencies. Many of the hot-takes on the prospects of the war currently circulating are more a reflection of the author’s political inclinations rather than an objective assessment of the criteria that matters.
Below is a basic framework for structuring thinking around what constitutes a positive, indecisive, or negative outcome for US involvement in the war. Strategic success or failure, or an absence of either, is influenced by the fulfillment of operational objectives along with corresponding impacts the war has on the US’s regional and global interests, as well as domestic politics.
IMPLICATIONS: PLAUSIBILE PATHS TO EACH ENDGAME
While the events are still unfolding, certain indicators identified above already suggest available pathways to each endgame based on the existing course of events.
1. Positive Outcome:
The Iranian Regime is Already Severely Diminished and May be Forced to Submit
Iran starts its war with the US at a significant disadvantage. The Iranian regime has had its proxy forces cowed by Israeli strikes in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, and American strikes in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq. Iran’s ballistic missile forces are rapidly being expended and destroyed as a result of its ongoing fight with Israel. Israel has dealt a serious body blow to the entire Iranian military establishment by eliminating scores of its top leaders. America and Israel now effectively “control the skies” over Iran and can strike virtually any target they wish.
No one wants to fight for a loser, and the Iranian regime looks like one right now. The Islamic Republic of Iran has taken a worsening series of humiliating losses from Israel and the US since the January 2020 killing of Qassem Soleimani. While there have been some demonstrations protesting American and Israeli actions, the Iranian people are not yet rallying in mass to the defense of the government. If anything the biggest mobilization of the Iranian people so far in the war resulted from President Trump’s announcement to evacuate Tehran, which was answered by massive traffic jams of cars leaving the city.
US Military is More Prepared for Contingencies with Iran than Previous Wars
While President Trump has a tendency to act impulsively, it would be inaccurate to characterize American military operations as hastily planned to satisfy the President. The US has war-gamed strikes on Iran’s nuclear program and their subsequent fallout for many years. The conditions for realizing the most positive political outcomes of these military plans has greatly improved over the past year as Iran’s strategic position has rapidly eroded. Iran’s vulnerability makes the regional and global impacts of its retaliation easier to manage.
The World is Not Supportive of Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions and Will Not Rally for It
While the world does not want to see another war, the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a sympathetic victim. Decades of support for global terrorism and armed regional militia groups have also created deep suspicions about Iran’s imperial ambitions worldwide. This explains in part why Iran’s nuclear program has been viewed as a threat by an array of US allies and adversaries alike.
US allies have thus far either stood by US strikes or issued a muted response.
2. Indecisive Outcome:
Iran Could Create a Strategic Dilemma for the US Just by Not Surrendering
Even though Iran’s capacity to retaliate is degraded, it could attempt to make itself a permanent thorn in the US’s side through a prolonged low-level struggle that poses asymmetric costs on US interests. History is replete with embattled governments staving off formidable threats through endurance. Iran could create persistent risks to US interests in the Middle East and beyond by directing terrorist attacks and regional militia groups, cyberattacks, and long-range drone and missile attacks. This would force the US to increase its security presence in the region to protect its bases, its allies, and global commerce more generally.
The resources needed to defend against a long-term Iranian threat would come at the expense of other US priorities, notably Europe and the Indo-Pacific. Prioritizing the Middle East could further strain relations with US allies in each region who face threats from Russia and China.
Early symptoms of the strategic dilemma that would face the US in a protracted conflict are already visible. The US has already diverted thousands of specialized interceptors used to shoot down drones that were bound for Ukraine to the Middle East. Since then, Russian Shahed drone strikes have intensified on Ukrainian cities, resulting in some of the worst strikes on Kyiv since the start of the war. The USS Nimitz was also recently redeployed from the South China Sea to increase the US naval presence in the Middle East. As discussed in the June 17, Situation Report: China's Unprecedented Spring Naval Campaign, the departure of the USS Nimitz left three US carrier groups in the Indo-Pacific, equivalent to the number of carriers China currently has operating in the region.
American Public is Not Supportive of Prolonged War with Iran
If Iran is able to wage a long-term struggle against the odds, it could convince an already skeptical American public that the US should cut its losses. As much as 60% of the American electorate opposes a US war with Iran. Support could dwindle further as a drawn-out conflict provokes new infighting within the Republican party.
Airpower Alone Has its Limits
As prominent foreign policy scholar Robert Pape noted in a June 17, 2025 article in Foreign Affairs, few if any wars fought for regime change or to eliminate a key military capability of an adversary have succeeded through airpower alone. The US’s track record of trying to secure victory with a campaign reliant on long-range airstrikes does not inspire confidence.
3. Negative Outcome:
US Entry into the War Provides Iran with Targets it Can Actually Exploit
Iran has landed some ballistic missile strikes on Israel since the start of Operation Rising Lion, but has struggled to retaliate proportionally. The Israeli public is already mobilized for war and is mentally and physically prepared to endure Iranian attacks. It also has spent over a year and a half eliminating threats to its interests that Iran could exploit. Iran’s chief means of striking Israel now are long-range drones and missiles, that are inherently limited. Iran has many more options for targeting the US however.
Iran could threaten US regional leadership by targeting US allies in the Middle East such as the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It could attempt to discredit the US as global leader by shutting the Strait of Hormuz to strangle world energy markets or coordinating strikes with the Houthis to once again disrupt shipping through the Red Sea. Iran could also find greater success striking at the approximately 19 US bases in the Middle East, than it has with Israel due to their greater proximity.
Even if the US military is prepared to deal with these contingencies the American public is far less eager to deal with the sudden onset of Iranian attacks that may strike the US homeland, or the adverse consequences that may follow for the global economy.
US Attacks Could Serve as a Catalyst for the Revival of the Iranian Revolution
Having more targets to strike gives the Iranian regime a chance to regain its faltering credibility. If the Iranian military or affiliated proxy groups can score some significant strikes on the US and Israeli militaries, Iran could begin to reverse its losing streak and convince hardline nationalists to mobilize and escalate the war. Iran could revive the raison d'être of the Iranian revolution by exploiting calls for regime change by the US and Israel to links its current war with its founding struggle.
War with Iran Could Make US Leadership Appear Even Less Desirable
War with Iran could further dent the US’s credibility as a global leader. The US’s support for Israel’s war in Gaza has created significant dissatisfaction in much of the Global South who view the war as evidence that the US is not a fair and responsible global leader.
A prolonged and costly war could make countries that are already reeling from recent trade wars with the US interested in hedging against dependence on an erratic American government. Balancing against US dominance would boost the desirability of alternative multilateral institutions such as the BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as full-fledged global decision making bodies.
US Track Record Suggests No One Could Win and Everyone Could Still Lose
The results of previous US interventions in the Middle East suggest that a protracted war between the US-Israel alliance and Iran could easily turn out bad for everyone involved. In this case, bad outcomes could result both from a rapid regime change, or a rush by Iran to make a nuclear bomb.
The Iranian regime could collapse suddenly without any obvious replacement. A resulting power vacuum could create political infighting that spurs a new migration crisis for the Middle East and Europe. Millions of migrants fleeing a destabilized Iran would strain relations between the US and Turkey and the European Union. A similar crisis could be caused by an unrestrained Iran deliberately destabilizing Iraq, Syria, or Lebanon. Thousands of Iranians currently crossing the border with Turkey and Armenia to seek refuge could be a sign of worse to come.
War could lead the most unhinged hardliners to take over Iran and push to immediately weaponize its existing stockpiles of enriched uranium. The pre-war stockpile of 400 kg of highly enriched uranium could fuel as many as 10 nuclear warheads. Officials from both the US government and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) say they are not sure where this material is. It’s not yet clear how much of it has been destroyed by US and Israeli strikes. Iran claims it moved most of its stockpiles from the Fordow site prior to Operation Midnight Hammer. Imagery suggests Iran did attempt to move some material from the site.
EARLY ASSESSMENT:
1. Trending Positive
Iran is in a terrible strategic position at the moment facing mounting internal and external threats. Its options for dealing with these threats are rapidly diminishing.
The Iranian regime, which has repeatedly crushed popular demands for liberalizing reforms, including most recently in 2022, will find it difficult to rally the public to save it.
While scholars such as Professor Pape have noted the shortcomings of airpower in accomplishing ambitious strategic objectives, the goals of the current joint US-Israeli air campaign are much more limited in scale. The goals more closely resemble the limited objectives Israel previously pursued with preventative strikes on Iraqi nuclear sites in 1981 and Syrian nuclear sites in 2007, than a full rolling back of existing Iranian strategic capabilities. Iranian nuclear research and infrastructure is much more developed than that of both Iraq and Syria’s previous programs. However, the entry of the US into the war evens the odds by providing the capability to more comprehensively reverse Iranian progress, and make it prohibitively expensive to restart operations.
2. Events Are Still Highly Contingent
The US’s staying power in the war is probably greater than some doubters may believe, but isn’t unlimited.
The longer the war goes on, the longer the US will be distracted from other theaters, leaving Russia and China open to make gains at the expense of US allies. Negative developments in Europe and Asia could increase pressure on the Trump administration to seek an indecisive compromise peace.
Bitter domestic politics, and a disapproving American public could make a prolonged military campaign infeasible.
The US’s newly abrasive diplomacy could threaten allied unity.
Escalation could cause the US to become embroiled in global controversies that mire the purpose and initial successes of the US intervention.
US fortunes could rapidly deteriorate in the event of Iranian political fragmentation, weaponization of existing stockpiles enriched uranium, or a radiological accident.