Trump unleashes ‘Midnight Hammer’—Slams Obama, Biden for sending “pallets of cash” to Iran

How did Operation Midnight Hammer demonstrate a shift from diplomatic restraint to military force?

The White House has escalated its campaign to frame Operation Midnight Hammer as a turning point in U.S.–Iran relations. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt sharply criticized the diplomatic approaches of former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, accusing them of sending “pallets of cash, American taxpayer dollars” to Tehran in a failed attempt to halt its nuclear ambitions. In contrast, she said President Donald Trump ended the nuclear threat with direct, overwhelming military force.

Leavitt confirmed that Operation Midnight Hammer—initiated on June 22—targeted three of Iran’s most critical nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. These sites, deeply embedded and fortified, were struck using the GBU‑57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a weapon designed to breach hardened bunkers. Simultaneously, submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles hit supporting infrastructure. According to Pentagon officials, the strike was executed flawlessly under Trump’s direct command.

“This was a mission that will go down in the history books,” said Leavitt, describing the coordinated assault as the definitive removal of Iran’s enrichment capability. “President Trump finally ended the immediate threat of a nuclear Iranian regime,” she added.

Was operation midnight hammer militarily effective in halting Iran’s nuclear capabilities?

While the Trump administration declared the strikes an “overwhelming success,” institutional assessments present a more cautious picture. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and U.S. Strategic Command General Dan Caine confirmed the targets were struck with precision, collapsing tunnels and halting ongoing enrichment. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) corroborated that key centrifuge activity at Fordow had ceased.

However, a U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) leak suggested that while physical infrastructure suffered major damage, Iran retained some advanced centrifuges and enriched uranium that had been relocated in prior months. Analysts believe Iran could resume weapons-grade enrichment within six to eight months if reconstruction proceeds unimpeded.

Critics have warned that political overstatements risk overpromising results. “Yes, infrastructure was hit hard—but this is not a total neutralization,” one unnamed U.S. official told The Washington Post. “Iran’s program was hardened for a reason—and it may bounce back faster than we like.”

What are the origins of the Obama and Biden “pallets of cash” narrative and why did trump revive it now?

At the heart of Leavitt’s criticism was a reassertion of a long-controversial episode from the Obama years. In 2016, under Barack Obama’s administration, the U.S. transferred $1.7 billion to Iran in cash—$400 million as a settlement over pre-1979 arms deals and $1.3 billion in interest. The payments were made in cash due to sanctions on Iran’s banking system. Republican critics, including Trump, have long cited the visual of “pallets of cash” as emblematic of a failed appeasement policy.

Leavitt echoed this framing directly: “Barack Obama and Joe Biden sent pallets of cash, American taxpayer dollars, in a failed attempt to buy the Iranian regime’s compliance with a weak and ineffective deal.” She claimed that Trump “sent a fleet of American warplanes” instead—and that the United States and the world were safer because of it.

No additional evidence was provided to suggest that the Biden administration, which preceded Trump’s current term, replicated such transfers. However, Leavitt’s remarks sought to cement a political contrast between past diplomacy and present military decisiveness.

What has been Iran’s response to the strikes and could this trigger a wider conflict in West Asia?

Iran’s response was immediate and forceful. Within 48 hours of the strikes, Iranian forces launched a barrage of ballistic missiles at Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar. All missiles were intercepted by U.S. Patriot defense systems in what officials called the most extensive such engagement in history.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described the damage to nuclear sites as “excessive and serious” and accused Washington of violating international norms. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared that Iran had the right to retaliate, warning that the “resistance axis” would respond “at a time and place of our choosing.”

The Iranian parliament voted to initiate closure proceedings for the Strait of Hormuz, a vital global oil chokepoint, though enforcement measures remain unclear. Iran also announced its withdrawal from key IAEA cooperation agreements.

While direct escalation into regional war has been avoided so far, military analysts warn that Iran’s cyber units and proxy militias may be mobilized in coming weeks. The U.S. Central Command remains on high alert across Gulf installations.

How are America’s allies and adversaries reacting to Trump’s decision to strike Iran without coalition backing?

Israel was among the few nations to publicly endorse the operation. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly praised the “bold and necessary action” and offered intelligence verification to support Washington’s assessment of the damage. Israeli media confirmed that Mossad operatives had provided preliminary target data weeks before the strike.

European leaders reacted with caution. French and German officials expressed concern over the long-term fallout of a unilateral American military strike, warning it could derail diplomacy and embolden Iran’s hardliners. The European Union called for an emergency session of the Joint Commission on the now-defunct JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).

Russia and China both condemned the strikes, calling them destabilizing and potentially illegal under international law. The United Nations Secretary-General urged both nations to return to the negotiating table, stating that the “escalation could have devastating consequences for the region.”

NATO’s Secretary-General Mark Rutte, however, reportedly signaled quiet support for the strikes in a closed-door briefing, citing alliance solidarity in deterring nuclear proliferation.

How is the US public and political establishment responding to the strikes and leak accusations?

President Trump’s supporters hailed the operation as a testament to American strength. Right-leaning media celebrated the B-2 bomber deployment and dubbed the strikes “shock and awe 2.0.” Polling data has not yet been released, but early social sentiment indicates increased approval among conservative voters.

However, Trump’s Truth Social post accusing Democrats of leaking intelligence has sparked a fresh round of political controversy. “The Democrats are the ones who leaked the information on the PERFECT FLIGHT to the Nuclear Sites in Iran. They should be prosecuted!” he wrote. No specific names were mentioned, and the White House declined to provide further details about any investigation into alleged leaks.

Democratic lawmakers responded by accusing Trump of politicizing national security. Some raised questions about the legality of the strike, given Congress was not consulted in advance. A group of senators is reportedly seeking a closed-door intelligence briefing.

What could come next for Trump’s Iran policy and the global non-proliferation regime?

Operation Midnight Hammer signals a decisive shift in U.S. policy from diplomatic containment to militarized deterrence. Unlike the Obama-era JCPOA, which offered economic relief in exchange for limits on enrichment, the Trump doctrine emphasizes overwhelming force and non-negotiation.

Critics say this approach risks undermining global non-proliferation efforts. The IAEA warned that destruction of monitoring systems at Natanz and Fordow will limit its ability to verify Iran’s compliance—or lack thereof. Others argue that military actions without diplomatic backup create vacuums that adversaries like Russia and China can exploit.

As of now, the Biden-era diplomatic structures appear dormant, with President Trump signaling no interest in renewed negotiations. Instead, the administration is framing the strike as a permanent deterrent. Whether that holds in the face of Iranian resilience remains the most consequential unanswered question in the current geopolitical climate.