logo
How Operation 'Midnight Hammer' fell

How Operation 'Midnight Hammer' fell

Daily Mail​23-06-2025
The 'Invisible Defenders' rolled from aircraft hangers into the muggy Missouri air at the start of a mission destined for the annals of military aviation. Assembled were nine of the most expensive and advanced aircraft in the world, the B-2 Stealth Bomber, eerily futuristic in appearance and destined to reshape the Middle East. Even at Whiteman Air Force Base in the US Mid-West the details of the mission were a closely guarded secret. The bombers slipped into the clammy darkness above Whiteman at just after midnight local time on Saturday at the start of a 37-hour mission that would surprise the world.
Today, that world is adjusting to the implications of Operation Midnight Hammer, a mission marking the end of a 45-year stand-off between the United States and Iran . A vast amount of detail has yet to be released, but the mission was planned and rehearsed years in advance for precisely the situation the US is now confronted by. Under the wings of each of the B-2s were two of the biggest conventional bombs ever produced, the GBU-57, or Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) as it is known in military vernacular. Initially, the fleet flew in a triangular formation across the night sky and over the great plains and lakes of America's interior.
But then came the first of many deceptions – intended to keep the world guessing about Donald Trump's intentions – when a pair of B-2s split from the 'strike package' and headed west towards the Pacific. Their destination was not Iran but Guam, a US island territory in Pacific Micronesia and home to the Andersen Air Force Base, 4,000 miles from Iran. Keen watchers of the sky, particularly in these turbulent times, soon picked up on their movements and reports spread. Their intended destination was reported on international wire services and made the Trump-friendly Fox News headlines.
That focus allowed the remaining seven-strong team to head to their real target – the nuclear facilities run by the Tehran regime. Operating under virtual radio silence, they flew undetected for 18 hours, aided by refuelling tankers in the sky to keep them on their way. General Dan Caine, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained to the world's press yesterday: 'As part of a plan to maintain tactical surprise, part of the package proceeded to the west and into the Pacific as a decoy.
This deception effort was known only to an extremely small number of planners and key leaders here in Washington DC and in Tampa [the headquarters of US Central Command]. 'The main strike package proceeded quietly to the east with minimal communications. 'Throughout the 18-hour flight into the target area the aircraft completed multiple in-flight refuellings.' Senior US officials, including the Commander-in-Chief himself, were buoyed by the success of the sleight of hand as they gathered in the White House War Room.
There the US President, whose second term is likely to be shaped by the fallout from yesterday's operation, was joined by leading lieutenants, such as Vice-President JD Vance and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. A notable absentee was National Security Director Tulsi Gabbard, who became persona non grata after she backed a US intelligence report that concluded that Iran, contrary to Israel's claims, was not on the cusp of developing a nuclear missile.
Reportedly, President Trump has scarcely spoken to her since. She is likely to have been among the majority of US officials who were entirely unaware that Midnight Hammer was taking place. It was America's most classified mission of recent times. Very few officers in the Pentagon knew of its existence, let alone the operational details. According to reports, the UK was told of the mission before the bombs dropped, but President Trump's decision to launch it from mainland United States, rather than the joint UK-US base at Diego Garcia, was telling.
Seemingly, he was determined to deliver an 'America First' mission to convince isolationist sceptics in his Make America Great Again (MAGA) support base that he had made the right call. That determination dictated that the United States provided every one of the 125 combat aircraft involved, every precision-guided missile, every cruise missile and every naval vessel. The seven remaining B-2s continued towards Iran, shielded by an echelon of fighter jets. But the US's opening salvo would be fired not from any of these aircraft but a US nuclear submarine in the Arabian Sea.
At just before 10pm GMT the as-yet unnamed US submarine fired more than two dozen Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles. Their purpose was to neutralise Iranian defence systems protecting nuclear enrichment facilities at Isfahan. When these sites had been destroyed, the B-2 group entered Iranian airspace. The stealth jet squadron slipped into enemy skies, moving into attack formation at 'high altitude and high speed', with lighter, more mobile F-22 fighter jets sweeping in front of the B-2s to shield them from any surface-to-air or air-to-air fire.
There was none. Not a single shot was fired at any of the aircraft or warships involved in Midnight Hammer from the beginning of the operation to its end. Soon they were on top of their main target, the Fordow nuclear plant buried in a mountain south of Tehran and protected with reinforced concrete. The first bunker-busters struck vulnerable positions at the facility such as ventilation shafts. According to US commanders, all 14 GBU-57s struck their intended targets. Smoking craters picked up on satellite images yesterday looked almost like pin-pricks on the rocky landscape, showing the accuracy of the strikes. The huge blast effects desired by the Americans will have occurred deep beneath the surface.
Finally, it appears a further volley of Tomahawk cruise missiles launched by US Navy vessels to protect the B-2s and F-22s as they began their long journey home. The aircraft left Iranian airspace just 25 minutes later and headed home, seemingly without the regime having a clue that they were there. Then, and only then, did the White House inform Congress of the military action. This could prove controversial in the US, particularly as no exceptions were made for senior Republicans in both houses.
Even ultra-loyal Trump lawmakers had to wait. As the US had not declared war on Iran, the bombing mission did not need Congress's prior approval. Gen Caine said yesterday that initial assessments indicated that 'all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction'. President Trump boasted that they had been 'completely and totally obliterated' and that no other military in the world could have accomplished the mission.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

EXCLUSIVE Diddy's jubilant mom and kids break silence on shock verdict as Cassie holes up at NYC home
EXCLUSIVE Diddy's jubilant mom and kids break silence on shock verdict as Cassie holes up at NYC home

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

EXCLUSIVE Diddy's jubilant mom and kids break silence on shock verdict as Cassie holes up at NYC home

Diddy's mother and children have shared their delight at the rapper being cleared of the most serious criminal charges he faces. Sean Combs' mom Janice, 85, told Daily Mail: 'I feel incredible. I feel good,' moments after her son was cleared of sex trafficking and racketeering charges. Diddy, 55, was convicted of a prostitution offense but the star's children also said they were delighted by the verdict at Manhattan federal court house. 'First thing I'm gonna do is hug my Pops!' Christian Combs, known professionally as King Combs, told Daily Mail in jubilation as he celebrated his father's victory in an elevator at the Manhattan federal court house. 'I am so happy,' Justin Combs, 31, added. Christian, 27, said: 'We were hopeful but you never know.' It was a different story across town, where a deflated Cassie Ventura, Diddy's ex-girlfriend and the star witness, reacted with horror to the jury's findings. Her lawyer told CNN she was not impressed with Diddy's lawyer's characterization of her as a 'winner'. The mother-of-three, who testified while eight months pregnant, is holed up inside her Manhattan home. Cassie's husband Alex Fine was spotted leaving his house alone, then returning with the couple's children shortly afterwards while looking somber. Diddy was denied bond at a hearing at 5pm on Wednesday. He will spend his time back in jail before his sentencing. The megastar smiling and clasping his hands in prayer, appeared relieved and thrilled as the jury foreman delivered the verdict. Some spectators yelled out in joy. The court also broke out in applause as the music mogul left the courtroom. Combs and his loved ones are relieved by the verdict, while key witness Cassie Ventura and her family are 'trying to look forward'. Christian and Justin, accompanied by their girlfriends and Diddy's friend of 40 years music producer Charlucci Finney, rejoiced as they headed out of court Wednesday. Christian and Finney led rousing screams and cheers in the elevator, as Justin looked overcome with emotion. Finney, who was near tears, told the Mail: 'I just didn't know which way it was gonna go. I haven't even processed this yet. Man it's incredible he's gonna be coming home.' The judge received the note with the jury's verdict at 9.52am local time, he told the court. When the jury foreman read the three counts of not guilty, several spectators erupted with joy. Diddy's mother Janice Combs remained stoic until she hugged her sister. The twins rubbed their heads together when the not guilty verdicts were read. Combs's family members have been present throughout the trial since it began in early May. Janice waved at cameras as she left the building with a smile on Wednesday. The defense tried to get Diddy released on a $1 million bond, but the prosecutors have pushed back - and the judge ultimately denied it. 'It feels great,' defense attorney Marc Agnifilo told the Mail of the verdict after he exited the courtroom. Alongside racketeering, Combs was charged with sex trafficking Ventura and a woman who testified under the pseudonym Jane. Ventura's husband Alex Fine and two of their three children were seen arriving back at their New York home Wednesday morning while the jury was deliberating. The R&B singer's lawyer Douglas Wigdor released a statement after the verdict was read out, saying how Ventura had made an 'indelible mark on both the entertainment industry and the fight for justice'. 'She displayed unquestionable strength and brought attention to the realities of powerful men in our orbit and the misconduct that has persisted for decades without repercussion,' Wigdor said. He added that her 'courage' in speaking out allowed for Combs' two convictions. Agnifilo, during the trial, called Ventura as the 'winner' in the case, citing the multi-million dollar settlement she received after her 2023 civil suit against Combs. But Wigdor dismissed the defense's characterization, telling CNN: 'Obviously, Cassie Ventura, at that point in time and today, is not the winner.' He highlighted how Ventura 'endured 10 years of abuse' at the hands of Combs that saw her allegedly raped and forced into 'days long sexual acts with UTIs'. He added: 'No amount of money is going to ever undo what she had to endure and what she had to go through.' Wigdor also noted how Ventura, who was eight months pregnant when she took the stand during the trial, is now focusing on her family and trying to move forward. The jury, after 13 hours of deliberation, found Combs guilty of two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, each of which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. But he was acquitted of a major racketeering charge and two sex trafficking charges that could have sent him to prison to life. The relatively quick verdict arrived after seven weeks of at-times excruciating testimony, in which prosecutors had accused Combs of being the boss of a decades-long criminal group who directed loyal employees and bodyguards to commit myriad offenses at his behest. Jurors announced a partial verdict late Tuesday and said they were deadlocked on the racketeering charge - but Judge Arun Subramanian instructed them to keep working. Combs, once one of the most powerful figures in the music industry, had vehemently denied all charges. Both were in long-term relationships with the entrepreneur and hip-hop pioneer, and they each testified about abuse, threats and coercive sex in wrenching detail. They both said they felt obligated to participate in Combs-directed sexual marathons with hired men. Combs's lawyers insisted the sex was consensual. They conceded domestic violence was a feature of his relationships - one harrowing example of him beating and dragging Ventura was caught on security footage that has been widely publicized. Yet while disturbing, that did not amount to sex trafficking, the defense said. Jurors ultimately agreed.

Shooting in Chicago wounds multiple people, police say
Shooting in Chicago wounds multiple people, police say

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

Shooting in Chicago wounds multiple people, police say

Multiple people were shot Wednesday night in Chicago, police said. No additional details on the shooting were immediately available, including the number of people shot and the exact location. Officer Julio Garcia, with the Chicago Police Department, said police would release additional updates as they became available. Chris King, a spokesperson for Northwestern Medicine, said the emergency department was evaluating several people injured in the shooting. He could not provide the number of people sent to the hospital or their conditions.

This feels both sacrilegious and scary, but I have a bone to pick with Oprah Winfrey
This feels both sacrilegious and scary, but I have a bone to pick with Oprah Winfrey

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

This feels both sacrilegious and scary, but I have a bone to pick with Oprah Winfrey

A very unusual thing happened at the weekend, an event so outlandish, so vanishingly rare, that even in these times of general chaos and disorder it deserves our attention: someone prominent joined the tiny cohort of people willing to publicly criticise Oprah. I'm not talking about an attack from the right. Donald Trump and his Maga cronies routinely go after Oprah Winfrey as (feel free to laugh) a lefty agitator. I'm talking about the actor Rosie O'Donnell, on Instagram, calling out America's queen for showing up at the Jeff Bezos wedding. Of course, criticising someone for throwing in their lot with Bezos shouldn't be in the least controversial. The gross parade of wedding guests attending his marriage to Lauren Sánchez in Venice last weekend looked like a catwalk of shame. There was Leonardo DiCaprio, hiding his face with his hat (we still see you!), in the company of his positively geriatric 27-year-old girlfriend, Vittoria Ceretti. There were the Kardashians, not hiding their faces. There was Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump. And there, accompanied by her lady-in-waiting, Gayle King, who walked several paces behind her as is proper, was Oprah Winfrey. Why shouldn't Oprah go to the wedding of Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez? It's a big splashy event that, given the chance, wouldn't any of us have gone to as well? (Honestly? Probably.) Still, we hold Oprah to higher standards. It's Oprah, for god sake, the woman we grew up adoring, who burst through so many ceilings, who Tina Fey correctly cast as a god-like figure in that episode of 30 Rock (where her character, Liz Lemon, took too many pills, got on a flight, and hallucinated that Oprah was sitting next to her in club class). In that scene, Fey did what we would all do if encountering Oprah while our inhibitions were lowered: she sniffed Oprah's hair, told her she loved her and went on a deranged monologue that included the phrases 'I eat emotionally' and 'I saw your show about following your fear and it inspired me to wear shorts to work'. And it's not only love that staunches our criticism of Oprah. We also fear her. It has been the case for years now that the quickest and most effective way for a screen personality to curb press criticism is to launch a book group, guaranteeing that every hack touting a book – which is every hack in existence – nurtures a tiny flame of hope they will be chosen and whisked away from all this. Who among us has a bad word to say about Sarah Jessica Parker (hello!), or Reese Witherspoon (hi!), or the apex predator of celebrity book groups, the original and best, Oprah. Likewise: who can forget the cautionary tale of what happened to Jonathan Franzen in 2001 when he expressed doubt that being selected for Oprah's Book Club was the best thing ever to have happened to him? Granted, Franzen's criticism was graceless. (He suggested Oprah's picks were a bit low-brow.) But his broader point about TV consuming literary culture was given no credence whatsoever. This was a few years before James Frey's makey-uppy memoir was exposed, and Oprah's book club brand briefly damaged. Instead, Franzen was burned alive for his remarks, not least by Joyce Carol Oates, whose novel, We Were the Mulvaneys, was chosen by Oprah that season and who told me at the time: 'Jonathan Franzen perceives the Oprah book readers as mainly women, and he would prefer a male readership.' Brutal. Anyway, back to Rosie O'Donnell, an icon in her own right who is now living in Ireland after making good on her threat to leave the US if Trump was elected. 'Is Oprah friends with Jeff Bezos,' she asked rhetorically on Instagram in the wake of the wedding. 'Really? How is that possible? He treats his employees with disdain. By any metric he is not a nice man.' That was it. Doesn't look like much, but it was seismic given the general timorousness around Oprah. And this despite years of evidence that a woman who was once a trailblazer for good has drifted into murkier waters, from her promotion of shonky showbiz medic, Dr Oz, to her enabling of cranks like Jenny McCarthy, and the power of positive thinking pseudoscience of Rhonda Byrne, to showing up at the wedding of one of the world's richest men, who begrudges his minimum wage workers their pee breaks. Going back further, you can even take issue with the aspirational tone of Oprah's original brand, the only sustained critique of which I've read is by Janice Peck, an academic at the University of Colorado, who wrote a book called The Age of Oprah in which she questioned whether the media titan's dare-to-dream ethos was so apolitical as to skew heavily rightwing. Per Oprah's narrative, said Peck, 'she was poor and living in sackcloth someplace and then became Oprah Winfrey and everything in between and the whole historical context, all the conditions that made it possible for her to succeed, disappear. The American dream is based on that notion of: if you just put your mind to it.' I understand this point, although I also think there's room for dare-to-dream cheerleading alongside rigorous, data-supported policy platforms. But whichever way you see these things, the bottom line is we should be able to criticise Oprah, right? This should not be hard. And yet as I type this, now, I have a small knot of dread in my stomach. Oh, god. I've done the wrong thing, haven't I. Oprah! I'm sorry! I didn't mean it! I still love you! Please pick my next book for your book club! Emma Brockes is a Guardian columnist

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store