A spectacular airstrike on Iran — and a sobering warning
The U.S. air attacks on Iran last Saturday — dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer — deserve an A+ for performance. It was a spectacular demonstration of what air and space power, when precisely planned and flawlessly executed, can achieve. It reminded the world that no military on Earth can match the reach, precision and lethality of the U.S. Air Force.
But behind this extraordinary success lies a sobering truth: We may not be able to do it again.
The mission itself was breathtaking in scope and complexity. More than 125 U.S. aircraft were involved. B-2 stealth bombers flew more than 7,000 miles one way — penetrating dense, defended airspace to deliver the first operational drop of GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators, 30,000-pound precision-guided weapons designed to destroy deeply buried targets like Iran's Fordo enrichment facility. These bombers had to operate in perfect synchronization with other U.S. assets providing tightly timed suppression of enemy air defenses, all while maintaining near-radio silence.
And then they flew 7,000 miles back — nonstop — completing the mission in 37 hours. It was a masterclass in modern air warfare. Our airmen, planners, weapons officers and targeteers made the impossible look effortless.
Yet what the American public didn't see was this: That one-day operation maxed out our available long-range stealth strike capability.
The U.S. Air Force only fields 19 B-2 bombers, and they are more than 30 years old. Although the B-52 fleet remains a workhorse, it just turned 73 years old. Also, a good percentage of our GBU-57 bunker-buster stockpile was used in a single night.
Put simply, we do not have the depth to do this kind of operation repeatedly, or at scale.
This must be a wake-up call.
Today, the U.S. Air Force is the oldest, the smallest and the least ready in its history. That's not an opinion — it's a fact and a strategic liability. Over 30 years of underinvestment in Air Force modernization and spares has left us dangerously thin in aircraft, munitions and trained crews.
The Air Force today has over 2,600 aircraft — two-thirds of its force — made up of 10 different types that had their first flight over 50 years ago. It also has 60 percent fewer combat squadrons than it had in 1991 — the last time we fought a major regional conflict. Deterrence is predicated on the credibility of action — and credibility requires capacity.
Today, America faces the greatest set of threats it has ever faced at the same time the Air Force is at its force-structure nadir.
This is why Congress must significantly increase funding for Air Force modernization and expanded end-strength if we are serious about preparing for sustained conflict against peer adversaries and countering the other threats we face. President Trump deserves credit for reversing the previous administration's shortsighted cuts to the F-47 program — a vital next-generation capability. But more must follow.
We need to accelerate and scale the B-21 Raider program. We need to dramatically grow our F-35 inventory — aircraft that proved pivotal in gaining air superiority over Iran. New types like Collaborative Combat Aircraft will also prove crucial.
We need to build munitions stockpiles that can support more than a one-night raid. We need powerful enablers like modern aerial refuelers, and the E-7 command and control sensor aircraft. We need the airmen to fly, fix, connect and protect these aircraft. It comes down to ensuring our airmen have the aircraft and weapons to sustain air dominance and strategic strike — not just execute a flash of brilliance.
The president needs options. Airpower gives him those options. No other domain — land, sea, cyber or space — can hold distant targets at risk across the globe on short notice, without putting thousands of troops in harm's way. Only the Air Force delivers global vigilance, global reach and global power with rapid response and scalable effects across the full spectrum of conflict.
Operation Midnight Hammer proved what American airmen can do. Now it's time for Congress to prove that it understands what's at stake. America must not let this stunning success become a historical footnote because we failed to prepare for what comes next.
August Pfluger represents Texas's 11th Congressional District and serves as a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserves. David Deptula is a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant general.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
17 minutes ago
- USA Today
Few thought airstrikes could ‘obliterate' Iran's nuclear program. Then Trump said they did.
Experts long argued that airstrikes alone would not be capable of permanently ending Iran's nuclear program absent negotiations. WASHINGTON — A highly politicized debate is unfolding over the impact of June 21 U.S. airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, raising questions over the attack's goal and projected impact. President Donald Trump quickly claimed total victory in the strikes' wake, claiming that Iran's 'key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.' Subsequent scrutiny of that claim amid early assessments from intelligence agencies has led Trump and his allies to double down on and even expand on his declarations of success. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed to CNN that the strikes 'obliterated Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons.' Iran itself has acknowledged the impact of the U.S. and Israeli attacks. But in the years since Washington's withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran, experts and analysts have emphasized that airstrikes alone would merely delay Iran's nuclear ambitions rather than permanently derail them. Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Illinois, reiterated that long-held understanding in a June 26 interview. 'The targets are hard targets, deep targets, mobile targets. So it was never meant to eliminate the program,' Quigley told USA TODAY. 'It was never meant to do anything but slow the program.' The congressman, who is on the House's intelligence committee and has regularly received briefings on Iran, added, 'We've always been told . . . the only way to end this (nuclear) program is with a lot of troops on the ground for a long time. A war.' The former head of the National Nuclear Security Agency's nonproliferation programs, Corey Hinderstein, struck a similar tone. 'The conventional wisdom that you can't destroy the Iranian (nuclear) program through air attack alone has actually held,' said Hinderstein, now a vice president at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'While some are saying that the airstrikes were tactically and strategically successful, I think that the jury is still out on that, and we don't actually have the information that we need to believe that this program is gone.' Third nuclear site, hidden centrifuges, missing uranium Iran may have another nuclear site that, if equipped with enrichment centrifuges and conversion equipment, could continue the process of preparing uranium for use in a nuclear bomb, if the regime wishes to pursue one. Shortly before Israel began its air campaign against Iran, the regime told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had a third nuclear enrichment site but did not reveal details. Analysts believe an undisclosed underground facility at Pickaxe Mountain near the Natanz nuclear plant may be even deeper under the surface than the Fordow enrichment plant that was severely damaged in the U.S. strikes. The Pickaxe Mountain facility was first publicly revealed in 2023 by experts who spoke with the Associated Press. And it's unclear how much of Tehran's approximately 880 pounds of highly enriched uranium was destroyed or buried during the strikes — satellite images show cargo trucks parked outside the Fordow enrichment plant in the days before the U.S. attack. U.S. lawmakers briefed June 26 and June 27 on intelligence assessments of the strikes acknowledged the missing uranium and called for a full accounting of the material, according to CNN. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, told the news agency that the question of the uranium's whereabouts underscores the importance of Iran negotiating 'directly with us, so the (IAEA) can account for every ounce of enriched uranium that's there.' More: Where is Iran's enriched uranium? Questions loom after Trump claims victory. But whether Iran wants to negotiate is another question. Despite the country's obligations as a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran's Guardian Council approved a law June 25 halting the country's cooperation with the IAEA and its inspections of Tehran's nuclear sites 'until the safety and security of our nuclear activities can be guaranteed,' the country's foreign minister said on social media. Contributing: Tom Vanden Brook and Cybele Mayes-Osterman, USA TODAY Davis Winkie's role covering nuclear threats and national security at USA TODAY is supported by a partnership with Outrider Foundation and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
USA Today
17 minutes ago
- USA Today
Michelle Obama won't run for office, but her podcast may guide Democrats
As Democrats search to counter Trump it may not be Barack Obama, the party's most popular figure, that they should turn to, but Michelle. Michelle Obama is back – just not on the political stage. At a time when the Democratic faithful are hungry for dynamic leadership, the former first lady is getting cozy and personal in a podcast called "IMO," a breezy hour-long celebrity chat co-hosted by her brother, basketball executive Craig Robinson. "I feel like at 60, this is the first time where all my decisions are for me," Obama said on her June 19 episode with radio show host Angie Martinez. With her daughters Sasha and Malia launched in their own young adult lives, "this is a period of freedom." Each week, Obama and Robinson are joined by celebrities like comedians Damon and Marlon Wayans, producer Issa Rae or actress Keke Palmer – with just a glint of politics. It's her space to talk with friends. References to her husband, former President Barack Obama, or the eight years they spent raising young children in the White House are matters of fact, but the political wildfire of the second Trump administration is barely noted, except as a launching point to talk about how people are impacted by Trump's new policies. As recently as last July, an Ipsos poll revealed that only Michelle Obama stood a chance of besting Donald Trump in the presidential election. Even before leaving the White House in early 2017, a corner of the Democratic Party clamored for her to run. She has repeatedly slammed the door on that. But as Democrats search for a liberal counter to the right-wing media ecosystem that helped Trump win back the White House by reaching millions who don't pay attention to mainstream media, the online show of a relatable and popular Democrat could be what they are looking for. Regardless of what Democrats want her podcast to be, Michelle Obama has demonstrated she'll do her show her way. For now, she's using a platform that reflects the former first lady's larger, and perhaps more effective, cultural strategy that mirrors how Black women voters - part of the party's loyalist base - are coping after former Vice President Kamala Harris' loss in the 2024 election, said Democratic strategist Nina Smith. "So this is the best way that she can create space and show the multi-dimensional nature of Black women: our thinking; how we engage friends; how we engage with people across racial lines; how we engage with our siblings; and the fullness of us, while also allowing her to speak to the issues of the moment," Smith said. IMO (short for "in my opinion"), is largely devoid of juicy gossip, let alone talk about any current or former White House occupants. The Father's Day episode, which featured Bruce Springsteen and watched by roughly 216,000 viewers on YouTube, came just days after Trump berated the rock music icon for calling the administration "corrupt, incompetent and treasonous." While Trump's name never came up, they both chuckled when Michelle Obama made a joke about some people being president who need therapy. Instead, they talked about going to therapy, building relationships with absentee parents and being present for their children during formative years "I realized that parenting is pennies in the bank," Springsteen said. "It's that time when you were working and you didn't want to stop, but you did. That made a huge difference to me. I always felt that if I had failed with my kids I would have failed tremendously at life." More: Pop stars, massive crowds and history: How the Obama and Harris campaigns compare Michelle Obama responded with a story from her childhood about what it meant when her father, who worked long hours as a city worker in Chicago, turned his full attention to her and her brother. "When he was present he was present in very small but meaningful ways," she said. 'She hates politics' Michelle Obama, a corporate lawyer specializing in marketing and intellectual property law, was carried into the national spotlight when a skinny senator with a Muslim middle name beat the old guards in both parties with a message of a new America founded upon hope. For most of that time she had to be more mindful of her husband's agenda and image. Since Trump took office, she's been openly critical of him, but on her terms, such as at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in her hometown of Chicago, rather than on her podcast. Speaking up and what she considers the right moment will likely continue, said Democratic strategist Lynda Tran. "I would not be surprised to see her using her voice to rally Democrats in the future assuming the appropriate venues and strategic value. And I would expect an overwhelmingly positive response from Democrats when she does," Tran, who worked in the Obama administration, told USA TODAY. But her participation in politics might be through raising money and giving speeches, rather than a central role in the party's future. Her focus in the last few years has been on outside projects, her family and now the new podcast she co-hosts with her brother. Demands to do more from either Barack or Michelle Obama are often met with scoffs by longtime supporters, such as Natalie Graves, a clinical social worker who was at Chicago's Grant Park when the couple took the victory stage in November 2008. More: Obama warns Trump administration has 'weak commitment' to democracy in Connecticut speech "My first response is an eye roll," Graves, a 55-year-old registered Democrat, said of ongoing efforts to recruit the former first lady to run for president. "If a person says that they don't want to run, what are we talking about? They're ignoring the fact that she has made it very clear that she hates politics." 'Served their time' The former first lady firmly shut the door on running for president in March, saying her daughters, who are both in their 20s, had "served their time" in the limelight and should get to be private young adults. "I wanted them to have the freedom of not having the eyes of the world on them. So when people ask me would I ever run, the answer is no," Obama said on Kyle Kelcie's 'Not Gonna Lie' podcast. "If you ask me that, then you have absolutely no idea the sacrifice your kids make when your parents are in that role." Democrats are casting about for trusted voices to better connect with different voters and help create a left-wing media ecosystem to match that of the right. Some liberal strategists are asking donors to contribute to finding voices and influencers on the left to counter people like Steve Bannon and Joe Rogan who helped propel Trump to office, the New York Times reported last month. Democrats statistically have more trust in mainstream media than Republicans, said Texas Christian University political science professor Adam Schiffer. The Democratic brain trust is asking 'who is the Democratic Joe Rogan?' he said, but 'it's not necessarily clear that there could be one because Democrats don't necessarily find that gratifying and entertaining.' More: Town halls, f-bombs and Elon Musk: How Democrats are waging a new messaging war Younger people have a radically different media consumption than their parents, Schiffer said, and it "could become a critical problem for Democrats" if they don't figure out how to get in front of them. No matter how popular, a former first lady in her sixties might not be the best emissary to young people, he said. Influencers played a large role in Harris' abridged presidential campaign last summer and fall, but they couldn't compete with a Republican online juggernaut that has been building for over a decade. And not everyone is an "IMO" fan. Some are calling out the former first lady's complaints about living in the White House. For example, former Fox News host Megyn Kelly mocked the podcast in a June 26 video posted to X, later saying Michelle Obama was "trashing her children and husband again." When Michelle Obama does talk about politics in her podcast, it mostly orbits around the future for Americans in her daughters' generation and how political decisions impact ordinary people. She's often echoing the kind of kitchen table politicking that only voters in swing states get to hear about every four years from presidential candidates. "I'm talking to so many young people who are deathly afraid of their futures in this climate," she said in the May 21 episode. "They're not just worried about jobs, they're worried about being able to become the next entrepreneur, they're wondering whether, you know, they'll have healthcare and housing [and] whether they'll be able to pay off their student loans." In that episode, Obama and her brother spoke with Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky about the future of businesses under the Trump' administration's new tariffs. They talked about how the taxes on goods brought into the country are being passed on to consumers and hindering the ability of younger Americans trying to make it to reach their goals in the current economy. More: Will TikTok be banned? Donald Trump says he has a 'warm spot' for app as it faces January deadline "I mean, some people can hold on, but other people are not only losing their businesses, but they're losing their homes in the process," she said. "It's kind of scary." Michelle Obama did use the podcast to defend her decision not to attend Trump's January inauguration, which sparked rounds of criticism and speculation about her marriage. She insisted she was simply "making the choice that was right" for her. "Whatever the backlash was, I had to sit in it and own it. But I didn't regret it, you know? It's my life now, and I can say that, now," the mom of two said on a June 26 NPR podcast. Dems in a ditch Michelle Obama's show also arrives at a time when the Democratic brand remains in the ditch with progressive voters. About one-third of Democrats said they are optimistic about their party's future, a May poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found. Though several Democrats are starting to make moves toward 2028, liberals have struggled with the lack of a main character to match Trump's political moxie the way then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi did in his first term. Lately, Democratic officeholders have clashed with federal agents at press conferences, immigration hearings and ICE facilities, creating viral moments that have been cheered by mainstream and more left-leaning progressives. More: Vance defends using military to quell protests, refers to Sen. Alex Padilla as 'José' Such actions have never been in either of the Obamas' style, and some Black political activists and artists have been emphasizing the need for "self-care" over political action in the aftermath of the 2024 election. "It's important for her to stay within the public space, so it's good that she wants to be active. She endorses candidates and stuff of that nature. I have no problem with that," said Steven Uzoukwu, a 33, a cybersecurity analyst from Baltimore, Maryland. "I just think we shouldn't rely on the Obamas to save America."
USA Today
17 minutes ago
- USA Today
Gen. Wesley Clark: This is the moment for American leadership in Middle East. We can't miss it.
Iran's long-standing quest for nuclear weapons was at least set back for many months, and probably several years. This is the moment for American leadership. After 12 days of Israeli air strikes, Iran's air defenses were largely disabled, above-ground nuclear facilities destroyed, and much of its ballistic missile production and launch capacity wrecked. Nevertheless, Iranian retaliation caused destruction and loss of life in Israel. Then the U.S. entered the fight on the evening of June 21. Iran's three principal, known nuclear enrichment sites, were pounded and penetrated with 14 of the 30,000 Massive Ordnance Penetrators and more than two dozen sea-launched cruise missiles. By the early morning of June 24, Iran and Israel had agreed a ceasefire in the destructive campaign each was waging against the other. It was a triumphant moment for President Donald J. Trump, under whose direction the U.S. armed forces had launched the largest, most complex stealth bomber and TLAM strikes ever undertaken. Iran's long-standing quest for nuclear weapons was at least set back for many months, and probably several years. Many parties had much to gain from the ceasefire: Crown prince of Iran: Israel weakened Iran regime. World must help finish the job | Opinion What happens now for Iran and the rest of the world? But now what? Israel has been highly successful in the use of military force over many decades in the region – from the 1948 war of independence, through the 1956 war in Sinai, the 1967 preemptive war against Egypt, Jordan and Syria, the 1973 war, the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, strikes against the PLO in Tunisia in 1985, and later operations in Lebanon and Gaza. U.S. military action in the Gulf War in 1991 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 were also highly successful. At this time, Israel, with U.S. help, has stripped Iran of its protective shields of Hezbollah and Hamas, and Iran, without effective air defenses, is laid bare. But outstanding military operations are not sufficient – they must be followed by successful work to end the roots of the conflict. Not once has this happened in the Middle East. Hatred, resentment, anger, terrorism and war have become endemic to the region. This is the moment to end the pattern of continuing conflict. But that requires new appreciation among the leaders in the region of the realities underscored by this latest bout of conflict. Iran, you're not going to have a nuclear bomb, no matter what. And if you continue to seek it, your regime will be defeated along with the destruction of your country. Israel, you cannot continue to use force with impunity – even with the best technology, your own people are vulnerable. To others in the region: Israel and the Palestinians are both permanently in the region; and with all due respect to the different religion, sects, and ethnicities at play, and the pain of history, both must be accommodated, accepted, and, ultimately, embraced as part of a thriving and prosperous Middle East. If there was ever a moment for fundamental change within the region, this is it. The world has come face to face with the potential of a spiraling conflict. Many of the Gulf States have achieved unprecedented wealth and are on the path to world-leading economic, social and technical advances. The region is still and will likely remain the center of global energy production, distribution and investment. There is everything to gain from seizing this moment. Gen. Wesley Clark: Trump needs to push Putin hard to end war in Ukraine – now | Opinion This is the moment for American leadership But how to proceed? Based on the model followed by President Clinton in dealing with the Balkans in the 1990's, it is best to start with a set of principles agreed upon objectively, by those outside the conflict but with the influence and will to deal with the respective parties. The principles must be fair and practicable. It required many weeks of shuttle diplomacy for the much simpler issues in the Balkans, and then, ultimately a 78-day air campaign by NATO in parallel with Presidential-level mediation by outside parties. In all, it entailed more than five years of continuous effort by the United States. In this region, the issues are deeper and more complex, but certainly among the principles, Iran must renounce its efforts, overt and covert, to destroy the state of Israel, and Israel must respect the rights of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to govern and develop their own self-governing state. Terrorism against Israel must be halted. Countries in the region must participate in rebuilding the Palestinian homeland in the West Bank and Gaza. Sanctions against Iran will be lifted, and Iran will be provided the materials it needs for peaceful nuclear energy. Progress must be phased and accompanied by confidence-building measures. Perhaps the Abraham Accords will be fully implemented, and the U.S. will provide a security umbrella for all in the region. International organizations will no doubt remain part of the solution. Perhaps Russia and China, and other interested parties will be invited as observers. Iran today is a wounded tiger. Maybe 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium is still available, maybe some other country will provide nuclear weapons or materials. Revenge will be sought. We cannot permit the next conflict – it could well go 'nuclear.' So neglect or failure are not options. This is the moment for American leadership. It is the moment for President Trump to exercise his broader vision for strategic realignment of the region, and in so doing, to end the Middle East as a cockpit for continuing conflict. Wesley K. Clark is a retired four-star general who served as commander of U.S. Southern Command and then as commander of U.S. European Command/Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
