No other military in the world could have done it. That was one of the Truths, as they are called, that US President Donald Trump banged out during the early hours (Iranian time) of Sunday, and which US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine repeated in their own presentation.
And it really is true. Operation Midnight Hammer, as the US “strike package” (as Caine kept calling it) on Iran was code named, was an awe-inspiring display of martial prowess. It involved 125 aircraft and 75 types of precision weapons in total, plus submarines and support from land, space and cyberspace, all seamlessly coordinated. It began, and continued, with a masterful deception, as some B-2 bombers allowed themselves to be tracked flying west from the US, while the real hunters were going east in stealth.
They entered Iranian airspace, dropped 14 GBU-57 “bunker busters” — the largest non-nuclear bombs in the world, never before used — and, as Trump claims, “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program.
Illustration: Mountain People
“We are currently unaware of any shots fired at the US strike package,” Caine remarked in his stoical mien, as some of the B-2s were still in the air on the way home.
Everything suggests that this force was never detected, even as it pierced entire mountains with its ordnance.
As a mission, Midnight Hammer counts as a stunning triumph. It also looks and feels like the sort of “strength” that Trump keeps claiming as the distinguishing feature of his — as opposed to his predecessor’s — foreign policy.
However, tactics are one thing, strategy is another. Trump’s full slogan is “peace through strength,” and he and Hegseth are hoping that this initial tactical success will lead to strategic victory.
In contrast to the Israelis, Trump does not (yet) define that as regime change in Iran, but as the “limited” objective of eliminating, or at least setting back, Iran’s nuclear program.
I so hope that this is the outcome — and not endless escalation and conflagration, leading up to an Iranian nuclear weapon after all.
And yet, I hear ominous echoes from previous US presidents prematurely proclaiming: “Mission accomplished.”
In Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and other places, the first part — involving not soft power or diplomacy, but hardware and bombs, where the US is unmatched — proved to be the easiest. (The only B-2 mission longer than this weekend’s was flown just after the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, when the US struck Afghanistan.)
It is what follows — and not just in the subsequent weeks, but over years — that poses the problems: The chaos and strife, the unexpected growth of new terrorist networks; the outbreak of civil wars or the rise of unforeseen dictators; the redirection of US resources to one region (the Middle East) and away from others (East Asia, say).
Keep in mind that Beijing, Moscow and Pyongyang are also reading Truth Social and adjusting their own calculations, as are Washington’s adversaries the world over.
As the ancient Greeks knew, and as successive US presidents kept forgetting, the greater one’s power, the greater the risk of hubris. This is the first point of concern about this weekend’s strike package.
Trump’s message to his “make America great again” (MAGA) base has always been the opposite, amounting to restraint in foreign policy, if not humility. “America first” was in large part a promise to keep the US out of his predecessors’ “forever wars.”
That is why parts of his movement are horrified by this turn of events. Republicans in the US Congress are reliably lining up behind Trump, but others freer to speak their minds are not. They include Steve Bannon, part of Trump’s first administration and a barometer for MAGA’s isolationist wing, who considers this intervention in the Israeli conflict with Iran an “unfolding aspect of the third world war.”
Democrats on Capitol Hill, who also yearn fervently for the denuclearization of Iran, point out another problem with Midnight Hammer.
“It’s clear that President Trump has been outmaneuvered by Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu” of Israel, says US Senator Chris van Hollen.
However Trump spins it now, he has been wanting to make not war, but a deal with Iran, whereas Netanyahu has been trying to get the US to join Israel in bombing the problem away.
Trump accepted Israel’s campaign only once he realized that he could not stop his ally. He became excited about it only once he saw the Israeli strikes succeeding so photogenically.
Stephen Wertheim at the Carnegie Endowment for International peace argues that Israel “acted less to pre-empt an Iranian bomb than to pre-empt American diplomacy.”
That is another way of saying that Netanyahu pre-empted Trump and the latter allowed it (which hardly counts as strength). The Israeli strikes ruptured US-Iranian negotiations. (Another meeting in Oman between the two teams was still on the calendar when Netanyahu gave the launch orders.)
Even then, Trump said that he would give Tehran another two weeks before deciding whether to join it. That turned into two days.
Whatever you call that, it is neither dealmaker nor peacemaking.
Now the world awaits not the outcome of nuclear talks, but the consequences for the Middle East, the US and the world.
Only a month ago, Trump was in the region, criticizing previous US presidents for “intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves.”
Now he is one of them.
Like most of the world, Trump hopes that Iran backs down so that he can declare the episode over and take credit for making peace through strength. And like the world, he fears that history might take a different course, which he cannot yet foresee.
“Remember, there are many targets left,” he threatened in his address after the strike; and if Iran does not surrender, “future attacks will be far greater.”
If Sophocles were around to describe hubris, he might choose a president who has command over superhero powers such as those displayed by Midnight Hammer and who concludes that every problem in his inbox is a nail, when it might instead be the detonator of the next forever war.
“There will be peace or tragedy,” Trump said on Saturday night.
If he were honest, he would add that he does not control which of the two it is to be.
Andreas Kluth is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering US diplomacy, national security and geopolitics. Previously, he was editor-in-chief of Handelsblatt Global and a writer for The Economist. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Young supporters of former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) were detained for posting the names and photographs of judges and prosecutors believed to be overseeing the Core Pacific City redevelopment corruption case. The supporters should be held responsible for their actions. As for Ko’s successor, TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), he should reflect on whether his own comments are provocative and whether his statements might be misunderstood. Huang needs to apologize to the public and the judiciary. In the article, “Why does sorry seem to be the hardest word?” the late political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) wrote
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on
RSS