America Has Bombed Iran: The Strikes, the Targets, and What Matters Now

The United States of America has bombed the nation of Iran. At approximately 2:30 in the morning local time, during the mid-evening hours in Washington, D.C., a group of B-2 stealth bombers and nuclear submarines carried out airstrikes against three facilities critical to the nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran. According to the United States, those sites now lie in ruin. According to Iran, retaliation is on the way.

The events described here unfolded on June 22, 2025, and reflect what was known to a reasonable degree of confidence as of the midmorning hours of that day, local time in Tehran and Jerusalem. This is a rapidly evolving crisis, and the picture has continued to shift since the first hours after the strikes. WarFronts intends to return to this story as it develops; what follows is an early, deliberately careful accounting of what happened, why Washington became involved in the way that it did, and what may come next.

The headline is simple even if its consequences are not. The world’s premier superpower has now inserted itself directly into a war between Israel and Iran, and very few of the paths that opens up are good ones. Here is what matters about the attack itself, its likely effect on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and the dangerous range of outcomes now on the table.

Key Takeaways

On June 22, 2025, U.S. B-2 stealth bombers and submarines struck three Iranian nuclear facilities: Natanz and Fordo enrichment centers, and the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility.
Against the deeply buried Fordo site, the B-2s dropped six Massive Ordnance Penetrators — 30,000-pound bunker-busters that only the United States possesses and that only the B-2 can deliver.
American submarines surfaced roughly 400 miles away and launched some 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles; the choice of conventional warheads kept the strike within the bounds of conventional warfare.
Trump claimed complete destruction of the targets and threatened follow-up strikes if Iran retaliates or refuses to negotiate, but actual damage remains deeply uncertain.
Iran has vowed reprisals, analysts judge the crisis severe but short of a world war, and no greater power is positioned to enter the conflict on Iran’s side.

The Anatomy of the Attack

The United States carried out its strikes in the middle of the night on a Sunday, when its B-2 bombers would have been no more visible to the naked eye than to Iranian air defenses. Those bombers launched under a veil of secrecy some hours earlier, sent to attack in clandestine fashion. At the same time, a separate group of B-2s embarked on a highly visible journey from the United States across the Pacific Ocean.

The bombers traveling the Pacific route flew with their transponders on, meaning their movements could be easily tracked by global open-source intelligence and by other governments. That visibility was almost certainly the point. As best as can be determined, those aircraft were meant to serve as a diversion, drawing attention westward while the real strike package slipped toward Iran undetected.

The deception worked in tandem with the timing. By striking in darkness, with stealth aircraft that Iran’s degraded air defenses could not realistically track, the United States maximized the odds that its bombers would reach their targets and return without interception. It is a textbook combination of misdirection and stealth, and it set the stage for the heaviest single act of American force yet seen in this war.

The Targets: Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan

The real attack was directed at three Iranian nuclear facilities. Two of them are enrichment centers, located at Natanz and Fordo respectively. The third is the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility, where powdered yellowcake uranium is converted into a form that can be used for enrichment. Together, these sites represent critical nodes in Iran’s ability to move raw material toward weapons-grade fuel.

Buried deep underground, the enrichment facility at Fordo appears to have been the main target for the B-2 bombers. It is precisely the kind of hardened, deeply buried installation that conventional munitions struggle to reach, and it drew the most powerful weapons in the American arsenal that night. The really important parts of the Fordo installation are believed to sit several hundred meters underground, carefully insulated against aerial attack.

Natanz and Isfahan rounded out the target list. Natanz is an enrichment center; Isfahan handles the conversion step that precedes enrichment. By hitting all three, the United States aimed not at a single facility but at multiple, sequential stages of Iran’s path to a bomb, an approach designed to cut the chain in more than one place.

The Bunker-Busters and the Bombers

Watch on WarFronts

Watch the full video analysis on the WarFronts YouTube channel, presented by Simon Whistler.

Against Fordo, the B-2s unleashed the combined power of six of America’s most powerful bunker-buster munitions. Known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, those bombs weigh 30,000 pounds in total, with a 5,000-pound warhead, and are designed to burrow deep through reinforced concrete in order to expose and destroy some of the most hardened bunkers in the world.

With six of these weapons used in the strike, at least three B-2s must have participated. The B-2 is the only aircraft that can carry the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, only the United States possesses it, and each bomber can carry just two in its internal weapons bays. These are weapons Israel did not have and could not obtain; they had to be delivered by way of the United States, which is a central reason American involvement was needed to reach a target like Fordo at all.

The math itself tells a story. The decision to expend six of these scarce, enormously expensive penetrators against a single installation suggests Washington took seriously the prospect that Fordo’s depth might defeat a smaller strike, and chose to overwhelm the problem with mass.

Tomahawks From the Sea

The bombers were not acting alone. Elsewhere near Iran, American submarines surfaced at a distance reported by news outlets to have been about 400 miles from their targets, the Natanz and Isfahan facilities. From there, those submarines launched 30 subsonic cruise missiles known as the Tomahawk.

Each Tomahawk can carry a conventional explosive of up to 1,000 pounds. The missiles are also able to carry nuclear warheads, but in this case they clearly did not. The use of conventional warheads is itself a significant signal: even as the United States struck a nuclear program, it kept the strike firmly within the bounds of conventional warfare.

At the time of the initial reporting, the strikes on the three nuclear facilities appeared to be the full extent of America’s attack. President Donald Trump confirmed as much in an address to the nation. During that address, Trump made several key claims: that the United States had “completely and totally obliterated” its targets; that this was, at least for the time being, the extent of the military action Washington would take against Iran, in hopes that Tehran would immediately enter peace negotiations to end the conflict; and that if Iran refuses to negotiate or chooses to retaliate, the United States can and will engage in follow-up strikes.

How Much Was Actually Destroyed?

Whether these tactics succeeded is difficult to say. Predictably, the United States has claimed complete destruction, while Iran has claimed that most of the damage was surface-level. It is simply too early for either side to have completed a thorough damage assessment, and both claims should be treated with caution.

Bunker-busting deep targets is a layered problem. Defense experts have suggested that early bombs might have to burrow part of the distance, blow open as much of the target as they can, and clear the way for successive bombs to burrow deeper and deeper, all with the help of precision-guiding technology. America’s Massive Ordnance Penetrator is the premier conventional bunker-buster in any Western arsenal, but there are still limits to how far a single bomb can go, which helps explain why so many were used at Fordo at once.

Even if Fordo’s centrifuges survived, they may now be inaccessible, owing to tunnel collapses or other extensive damage elsewhere in the installation. As for the other two sites, the United States has again claimed to have destroyed its target. That may be true at Natanz. The facility at Isfahan, however, is deep underground, where Tomahawk missiles alone are unlikely to have broken through completely.

Some conflicting reports suggest America’s bunker-busters were also used at those sites, though the truth was not yet clear in the immediate aftermath. It is likewise unclear whether Iran managed to move any of its enriched uranium or centrifuge components, in the event that reports of advance notification proved accurate.

The Charade Before the Strike, and the Warning Before the Bombs

Several days before the attack, Washington signaled that it would wait to carry out a strike, suggesting it would consider its options for two weeks before deciding. In retrospect, that appears to have been little more than a charade. Notably, it repeats the same elements of misdirection that allowed Israel to catch Iran by surprise with its first wave of strikes. Then, as now, Iran’s opponents sent clear signs that they did not believe themselves ready to attack imminently, before then attacking almost immediately.

That misdirection sits alongside reporting that the United States contacted Iran in the hours before the strike, notifying both Tehran and Jerusalem about the strikes that were about to unfold. According to some American officials quoted anonymously by the global press, Iran was able to evacuate the targeted facilities before the strike took place.

Even so, the advance warning may have mattered less than it seems. Considering how badly diminished Iran’s air defenses are at this stage, it is unlikely that stealth bombers flying under the cover of darkness could have been stopped, even with advance warning. The notification may have saved lives and allowed Iran to remove some materiel, but it almost certainly did not save the facilities themselves.

What the Strikes Mean for Iran’s Bomb

If those three facilities have indeed been destroyed, the main implication is that Iran’s ability to produce new enriched uranium is disrupted for the long term. Unless Iran has other, unknown enrichment facilities elsewhere, its path to a weapon has been badly damaged. Such hidden sites are not likely, considering the apparent depth of penetration of Israeli intelligence across Iran’s military apparatus.

On that assumption, Iran now lacks the ability to enrich its existing uranium to weapons-grade, or to provide new uranium in a state suitable for enrichment. That disruption, combined with an Israeli strike on a heavy-water reactor that could have been used to make plutonium once it eventually came online, would indicate that Iran’s supply chain for weapons-grade material has been cut off at several points, in ways that will be very difficult for Iran to undo.

In other words, the value of the American strikes is not merely the rubble at Fordo or Natanz. It is the cumulative effect of hitting conversion, enrichment, and the plutonium route in sequence, leaving Iran’s weapons program severed at multiple links of a chain that is slow and costly to rebuild.

Why Iran May Choose to Retaliate

Understanding what comes next is as important as understanding what has already happened. Based on the publicly expressed goals of America’s leaders, the best-case outcome for Washington would be one where Iran re-engages in peace talks and ultimately agrees to American terms for a deal. That does not seem entirely likely to happen.

Iran’s command-and-control structure has been in disarray, with leadership issues getting in the way of the prior attempt to negotiate a peace, and what the world has heard from Iran’s leaders has not been encouraging. According to Iran, reprisals will be coming, and all American troops and other citizens in the Middle East will be viewed as acceptable targets.

The calculus driving that choice is grim. Iran’s regime may feel it is in a position to pick its poison rather than assume its survival. Ayatollah Khamenei has reportedly chosen several potential successors and has been rapidly deputizing new military leaders as old ones are wiped out.

Khamenei, who by some reports is still sick with cancer, appears well aware that he might not survive this conflict. Even if he does, peace with Israel carries its own dangers: Iran’s regime is bitterly opposed by much of a public that would like to see the nation reformed. A truce, especially if Iran does not retaliate after taking such heavy losses, would likely enrage the hardliners the regime depends on for its survival.

From the regime’s perspective, the question becomes whether the least-worst option is to stand aside and be swallowed by its own people, or to begin a retaliatory cycle and hope some face-saving offramp emerges.

What Iranian Retaliation Could Look Like

When it comes to retaliation, it is assets located in the Middle East that are at the greatest risk. Both the United States and Israel anticipate major retaliatory strikes and have been taking precautions, with early reports indicating that two waves of missiles have already scored hits in several locations.

At this stage in the war, Iran appears to lack the offensive capabilities that would enable it to defeat Israel. But not being able to defeat Israel is not the same as not being able to hurt it, and Iran does appear capable of the latter. According to Israeli defense sources, the country’s stocks of available interceptors are running low on some components of its multilayered missile defense system. Iran has recent experience coordinating large-scale missile and drone strikes that can overwhelm those defenses for a short period.

While Iran has lost some of its missile-launch capabilities, it has still been able to launch missiles in significant numbers and may have held some capabilities in reserve. When hard-hitting ballistic missiles are combined with masses of hundreds, or even thousands, of kamikaze drones that Iran has not yet unleashed, they still have the ability to deliver real damage to Israel, even if Israel is all but guaranteed to endure and strike back in kind. The same calculus holds for American assets in the region.

An attack on the American homeland is somewhat less likely. It is not inconceivable that Iran could have snuck drones or small units of personnel onto American soil, and such an attack would carry major psychological effects for the United States, but its impact on America’s actual warfighting ability would be negligible.

Widening the War: Hormuz and the Proxies

Beyond an immediate retaliation, Iran could expand its response in a few directions. One option would be to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which is critical for worldwide shipping and whose closure would lead to global economic fallout. Iran could do this by formally announcing a blockade in the hope that other nations respond, or it could strike maritime shipping traffic outright, using drones or missiles in the manner of the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Speaking of the Houthis, Iran’s proxy allies across the Middle East have threatened a direct response if the United States gets involved, including the Houthis, Hezbollah, and a major militia group called Kata’ib Hezbollah. While the latter two groups may or may not choose to act on their pledge, some degree of participation from the Houthis should be expected, perhaps restarting their own long-range campaign against Red Sea shipping. The proxy network gives Iran a way to impose costs far from its own territory, even as its conventional forces are battered.

Is This World War III?

As attention turns toward what comes next, it is worth answering one final question: is this World War III? After knocking on all the available wood, the answer is no, at least not for now. At this stage, the crisis in the Middle East is still several orders of magnitude short of a world war, and the warning signs that it could metastasize into that sort of conflict are not yet appearing.

Although Iran can hurt Israel and the United States in the short term, it does not have the military resources to wage a protracted war against either nation, let alone both, by itself. And while its proxy forces may get involved, there are currently no indicators that a more powerful nation would enter the conflict on Iran’s side. China simply does not care that much. Russia is in no position to open a second and much larger front than the one it is already managing in Ukraine.

Pakistan and India are far too focused on each other, and there is not really anybody else to account for.

However this plays out, it is not World War III, and it is not going to be. What it is, instead, is one of the defining crises of the twenty-first century thus far, and as the situation evolves, WarFronts will be back to cover it.

Presented by

Simon Whistler

Simon Whistler is one of YouTube's most prolific educational creators. WarFronts is his deep dive into military history and conflict analysis.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the United States strike in Iran?

On June 22, 2025, U.S. forces struck three Iranian nuclear facilities: the enrichment centers at Natanz and Fordo, and the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility, where powdered yellowcake uranium is converted into a form usable for enrichment. The deeply buried Fordo site appears to have been the primary target for the B-2 bombers.

Why were the Massive Ordnance Penetrators used instead of other weapons?

The Massive Ordnance Penetrator is the only conventional weapon capable of reaching a target as deeply buried as Fordo. The B-2 is the only aircraft that can carry it, each B-2 holds just two, and only the United States possesses both the bomb and the bomber. Israel did not have and could not obtain these weapons, which is a central reason American involvement was needed.

Was the attack successful in destroying the targets?

It is too early to know. The United States claims it “completely and totally obliterated” its targets, while Iran claims most of the damage was surface-level, and neither side has completed a thorough assessment. Even if Fordo’s centrifuges survived, they may now be inaccessible due to tunnel collapses. Isfahan sits deep underground, where Tomahawks alone are unlikely to have broken through completely.

Did Iran receive advance warning before the strikes?

Reporting indicates the United States contacted Iran in the hours before the attack. Some American officials, quoted anonymously, said Iran was able to evacuate the targeted facilities beforehand. Even so, given how severely degraded Iran’s air defenses are, stealth bombers flying under the cover of darkness were unlikely to be stopped even with warning.

Is this the start of World War III?

No, at least not for now. The crisis is several orders of magnitude short of a world war, and the warning signs of escalation into one are not yet appearing. Iran lacks the resources to wage a protracted war against Israel and the United States simultaneously, and no greater power — China, Russia, Pakistan, or India — is positioned or inclined to enter the conflict on Iran’s side.