Midnight Hammer: The Culmination of Trump’s Ultimatums

In the early hours of Sunday, June 22, 2025, around 2:30 a.m. Tehran time (UTC+3:30), the United States launched a series of massive airstrikes on three key Iranian nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.

The operation, code-named Midnight Hammer, was carried out using B-2 strategic bombers, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and GBU-57 bunker-busting bombs. According to Pentagon officials, the targets included both uranium enrichment centers and auxiliary infrastructure of Iran’s nuclear program (The Guardian).

The strike appears to be the culmination of a protracted diplomatic standoff between President Trump’s administration and Iranian leadership, marking a dangerous new phase of escalation in the Middle East, despite efforts by major world powers to achieve a diplomatic resolution.

As President Trump stated in his morning address, the goal of the operation was “to completely destroy Iran’s enrichment capabilities and demonstrate America’s resolve to prevent Tehran from becoming a nuclear power.”

Reactions Today

On the morning of June 23, President Trump delivered a televised address, calling the airstrikes a “spectacular military success.” According to him, “the U.S. Air Force has completely destroyed Iran’s enriched capabilities,” while emphasizing: “Now you have a choice: peace, or an even heavier blow” (The Times).

Later on social media, Trump spoke of the “monumental damage” inflicted on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure while simultaneously urging Tehran to negotiate and refrain from retaliation.

In the U.S. Congress, reactions were predictably divided. Members of the Republican Party’s “realist wing,” including Senators Lindsey Graham and Jeff Tann, supported the president’s decision, calling the strike a “timely and proper step” after failed diplomatic efforts (ABC News).

However, a significant portion of Democrats and several moderate Republicans sharply criticized the White House’s actions. Their statements included accusations of constitutional violations, particularly bypassing Congress in deciding on the military action. In the House of Representatives, calls have already been made to initiate hearings on the legality of using force against Iran without legislative approval.

On the international stage, U.S. allies’ reactions were also mixed. The UK and Canada offered cautious support for Washington’s actions, citing “the right to self-defense and preventing a nuclear threat.” Meanwhile, China, Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations condemned the airstrikes and called for immediate de-escalation and a return to diplomatic efforts (AP News).

G7 Connection and Trump’s Position

As previously author reported, during the June 15-17 G7 summit in Kananaskis, leaders of major world powers sought to develop a unified approach to the escalating Israel-Iran situation. The discussions resulted in a draft communique calling for restraint, de-escalation, and a diplomatic resolution.

However, this document became a point of open disagreement among allies: President Trump refused to sign the final communique. Moreover, he left the summit early, harshly criticizing the wording about “the need for diplomatic resolution,” claiming that such approaches only “encourage Iranian arrogance.”

In his remarks following the meeting, Trump stated bluntly: “Iran is foolish if it does not sign” the proposed peace agreement. He also issued an initial ultimatum, giving Tehran “two days” to come to the negotiating table, warning that “consequences will follow.”

A few days later, the White House’s rhetoric shifted: on June 19, an administration spokesman announced that Washington was giving Iran “two more weeks to decide” on participating in negotiations and abandoning uranium enrichment (Reuters).

As the past weekend’s events demonstrated, the president’s patience had run out: the deadlines expired without results, and the White House moved to decisive military action.

Diplomacy and Ultimatums

As previously analyzed by your humble servant in article “Air Duel and Diplomacy: Israel Strikes Iran, the World Seeks Talks,” the escalation this spring and early June involved a series of airstrikes between Israel and Iran, diplomatic efforts, and growing tensions around Tehran’s nuclear program.

Since spring 2025, Trump’s administration actively promoted a new agreement with Iran aimed at fully halting Tehran’s military nuclear program. This strategy became part of the White House’s updated “realpolitik” after Trump’s return to office in January (Reuters).

As early as April, President Trump indicated that the United States expected swift agreements. The first formal deadline was announced: 60 days to reach a deal. Otherwise, Trump warned, Washington reserved the right to take tougher measures (Reuters).

Over this period, at least five rounds of negotiations took place. According to Western sources, talks were mediated by Oman, with European partners and U.N. Security Council representatives involved. The central issue was uranium enrichment: the U.S. demanded a full halt to these programs, while Iran refused, citing “a national right to peaceful nuclear energy.”

When the 60-day deadline passed without a breakthrough, President Trump, as previously mentioned, issued a new “two-day ultimatum” after the G7 summit, demanding an immediate Iranian response. When Tehran’s stance remained unchanged, the White House indicated that a decision would be made “within the next two weeks” (Reuters).

As the period elapsed without progress, the White House gave the green light for a military operation against Iranian nuclear sites.

The Night of Strikes and Their Details

The culmination of ultimatums came on the night of June 21-22, around 2:30 a.m. Tehran time, when U.S. forces launched Operation Midnight Hammer. Pentagon and international media sources reported that the mission aimed to deliver a massive strike on key Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan (The Guardian).

The strikes involved B-2 Spirit strategic bombers, Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from U.S. Navy submarines and destroyers in the Persian Gulf, and precision-guided GBU-57 bunker-busting bombs designed for hardened underground targets. The focus was on uranium enrichment facilities and auxiliary infrastructure, including control centers and equipment storage.

The operation was coordinated with Israeli forces, who provided intelligence and electronic warfare support. According to U.S. and Israeli sources, the strikes were closely synchronized with Israeli efforts to intercept potential Iranian missile launches.

What’s Next?

Iran’s response to the U.S. strikes has so far been restrained. However, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) representatives have already announced preparations for “asymmetric measures,” potentially including strikes on Israeli territory, U.S. military bases in the region, and disruption of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Western intelligence reports also warn of possible cyberattacks on U.S. and allied infrastructure (AP News).

Analysts agree that the situation remains highly unstable: there is a high risk of further escalation, especially in light of Iran’s next moves. In the short term, an immediate retaliatory strike remains uncertain due to pressure on Tehran from China and Russia, who favor diplomatic resolution.

Within the U.S., the strikes have already impacted the political climate in Congress. The Democratic caucus, along with several moderate Republicans, has initiated discussions on bills to limit the president’s war powers without congressional approval (ABC News). In an already polarized political environment, these initiatives may become a new point of domestic contention.

Initial damage assessments from Western sources indicate significant destruction of production facilities in Natanz and Isfahan, as well as damage to communication hubs at the Fordow site.

Conclusion

The U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025, mark the culmination of a prolonged diplomatic and political standoff between the Trump administration and Iranian leadership.

Despite international efforts for de-escalation, including at the G7 level, the White House rejected calls for a diplomatic solution and pursued a hardline pressure strategy—from a 60-day negotiation window to a series of ultimatums, culminating in military action.

The divided reaction in Congress, international discord, and potential Iranian retaliation create a highly volatile context. The risk of further escalation remains high, and in the U.S., a new debate over executive war powers is unfolding.

Whether this episode signals the start of a major confrontation or another phase of “peace through strength” remains to be seen in the coming weeks.