Can B-2 stealth bombers change the Israel-Iran war? Trump’s decision window narrows

As the Israel–Iran war enters its second week, American B-2 Spirit stealth bombers have departed Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri and are flying west across the Pacific. Israeli broadcaster KAN reported that the aircraft are likely en route to strategic U.S. military installations in Guam or Diego Garcia. Their deployment comes as President Donald Trump prepares to decide whether the United States will join Israel in launching direct strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

The long-range B-2 aircraft are being accompanied by multiple Boeing KC-46 Pegasus aerial refueling tankers. Two of the tankers have already conducted mid-air refueling operations, while another two trail approximately 75 kilometers behind. Additional tankers reportedly took off from north of San Francisco and are now heading toward Hawaii, suggesting a coordinated staging effort across the Pacific.

Why are US B-2 stealth bombers being deployed to Guam amid escalating Israel-Iran warfare?

The B-2 Spirit, built by Northrop Grumman, is the only bomber in the U.S. arsenal capable of carrying GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators—bunker-buster bombs weighing 15 tons each. These weapons are specifically designed to destroy fortified underground facilities like Iran’s Fordow uranium enrichment plant, which is embedded deep in a mountain and hardened against conventional airstrikes.

Each B-2 costs approximately $2.1 billion, making it the most expensive military aircraft ever built. Military analysts view its deployment to the western Pacific as a clear signal that Washington is positioning itself for possible long-range missions requiring extended in-air refueling support. Guam’s Andersen Air Force Base has historically served as a launch point for long-range strike assets during conflicts in the Middle East and Asia.

What is Iran’s diplomatic sentiment on the U.S. military posture and possible retaliation?

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned on Saturday that any direct American involvement in strikes on nuclear facilities would be “very, very dangerous for everybody.” He stated that Tehran would not return to nuclear negotiations while its cities or strategic assets remain under attack. “We cannot negotiate with the U.S. while our cities are being bombed,” he said.

Iranian officials have also suggested that retaliation against U.S. targets would be “unavoidable” if Washington joins the conflict militarily. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei added that American participation would result in “irreparable consequences,” echoing concerns expressed by Iran-aligned militias across Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.

What were the recent diplomatic efforts and why did they collapse?

Prior to the current military escalation, the United States and Iran engaged in indirect nuclear negotiations mediated by Oman and hosted in Muscat and Rome. These sessions, led by U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and Iran’s Abbas Araghchi, showed some signs of progress in early May. Iran had expressed willingness to limit enrichment and open facilities to inspection in exchange for phased sanctions relief.

However, by June 13, talks had broken down amid renewed Israeli airstrikes on Iranian positions. Following the first Israeli strike on Fordow on June 14, Iran suspended all engagement. On June 21, Muscat officially canceled further rounds. With diplomacy now stalled, both sides are operating under escalated military and rhetorical postures.

How is U.S. intelligence shaping strategic decisions on Iran’s nuclear program?

National intelligence estimates have undergone a recent shift. U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in a closed-door session with the National Security Council, reportedly revised the timeline for Iran’s nuclear breakout capability from “more than a year” to “weeks or months.” This assessment has increased pressure on President Trump to consider direct action before Iran’s nuclear infrastructure becomes more difficult to dismantle.

Analysts suggest the B-2s could be used to strike Fordow and other critical sites like Natanz or Arak. However, the risk of regional escalation remains high, with Iran’s proxies such as Hezbollah and the Houthis already threatening to target American and Israeli assets if the U.S. initiates strikes.

What are Trump’s military options and how soon could a decision be made?

President Trump has set himself a two-week window to decide whether the United States will join Israel’s efforts. With bombers now positioned in the Pacific and fuel logistics in place, the military option could be executed swiftly. Trump is expected to continue receiving intelligence briefings through the weekend, with further consultations scheduled with the National Security Council on Sunday.

While his public posture remains noncommittal, multiple White House insiders indicate that operational plans are ready should Trump give the green light. A strike using GBU-57s would likely be paired with cyber operations and electronic warfare to neutralize Iran’s remaining radar and missile defense systems.

What could a U.S. strike on Iran mean for the broader Middle East and global nuclear diplomacy?

A direct American strike on Iran’s nuclear sites would likely trigger retaliation from Iran’s regional allies and lead to a severe destabilization of the Persian Gulf. The Strait of Hormuz, which carries one-fifth of global oil shipments, could become a flashpoint. The Houthis have already declared they will resume drone and missile attacks on U.S. and Israeli shipping if Washington intervenes.

At the same time, Iran has made clear that any such attack would end the possibility of returning to nuclear negotiations—effectively collapsing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) revival hopes. European countries that have long championed diplomacy with Tehran are now urging restraint on both sides, but their leverage appears minimal.

What role is Israel playing and how have recent strikes influenced U.S. posture?

On June 21, Israel conducted its second airstrike in eight days targeting the Isfahan nuclear facility, dropping nearly 150 guided missiles on uranium processing and air defense installations. The Israeli Defense Forces claim that the strikes have set back Iran’s nuclear progress by “at least two to three years” and have eliminated multiple IRGC commanders.

While Israel has not publicly acknowledged coordination with the U.S., analysts note that American refueling and intelligence assets have supported Israeli operations indirectly. The movement of B-2s to Guam now adds a direct deterrent layer to U.S. posture while maintaining strategic ambiguity about Washington’s red lines.

Is a broader U.S.-Iran conflict inevitable?

As B-2 bombers edge closer to strike range, the likelihood of a broader conflict hinges on President Trump’s decision. For now, the aircraft serve as a potent signal—deterrence without commitment. But every day that passes without a diplomatic breakthrough narrows the window for peaceful resolution.

The next two weeks will determine whether this crisis veers toward negotiation or full-scale confrontation. With Iran’s nuclear program advancing and regional alliances hardening, the stakes have not been this high since the original JCPOA was signed in 2015.