President Donald Trump unveiled the results of Operation Midnight Hammer, a sweeping U.S. military strike targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, and suggested the possibility of regime change in the country if its leaders fail to fulfill the nation’s potential. The operation, which involved over 125 aircraft, including seven B-2 stealth bombers, launched a series of precise strikes against key nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Trump highlighted the overwhelming success of the mission, calling the damage to these sites ‘monumental’ and praising the skill and coordination of the U.S. military.
In a post to Truth Social, Trump raised the possibility of regime change if the Iranian leadership could not ‘MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN.’ ‘It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change,’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change???’ he wrote. This rhetoric echoes previous statements about regime change in other regions, such as Syria and Libya, suggesting a broader strategic intent beyond the immediate military action.
Trump also praised the B-2 stealth bombers involved in the strikes, noting their safe return to Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. ‘The GREAT B-2 pilots have just landed, safely, in Missouri,’ he tweeted. ‘Thank you for a job well done!!! DONA[L]D J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!’ The emphasis on military capability and strategic deception—highlighted in Pentagon statements—showcases a shift in U.S. foreign policy toward more aggressive and unpredictable tactics.
The strikes were accompanied by a sophisticated deception campaign, including the use of decoys and strategic misinformation, which reportedly confused both Iran and its global allies. Pentagon sources confirmed that the operation had taken Iran and the world by surprise, underscoring a calculated effort to disrupt Iran’s nuclear ambitions without immediate retaliation. However, Trump’s public comments on regime change have sparked debate over potential long-term consequences for regional stability and U.S. foreign policy.
Despite the administration’s claims of success, critics argue that the actual impact of the strikes on Iran’s nuclear program remains uncertain. Satellite imagery and official assessments have yet to provide a comprehensive analysis of the damage. Nonetheless, Trump’s rhetoric continues to reflect a confrontational approach to Iran, aligning with a broader corporatist political stance that favors military strength and assertive diplomacy.