Category: Navy News

Posted on

Handing China the Keys: Silicon Valley’s Naval Failure


A Cautionary Tale for U.S. Naval Planners and Taxpayers

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Introduction

For decades, America chased profits by partnering with China — transferring technology and know-how that supercharged Beijing’s rise. Today, we could risk repeating that same mistake: putting quick Silicon Valley paydays ahead of America’s long-term security.

This is not about scoring points against Silicon Valley. It’s about ensuring America does not repeat the mistakes of the past — short-term profits and quick fixes that left China stronger and our Navy weaker — as someone who has seen these dynamics firsthand.

For those who have followed our work at Americans for a Stronger Navy, you know we believe America’s security, economy, and way of life depend on having the most capable fleet in the world. But capability isn’t measured in dollars spent or headlines about “innovation” — it’s measured in performance, reliability, and the safety of our sailors.

The latest reporting from Reuters makes clear we are falling catastrophically short, and that should alarm every American. Yes, bad news sells — but in this case, the bad news matters, because it reveals deeper failures in how America develops and fields naval technology — failures with life-and-death consequences.

When “Move Fast and Break Things” Breaks Lives

Recent tests off the California coast read like a Silicon Valley nightmare at sea. In one, a drone vessel stalled dead in the water while another smashed into its side, vaulting over the deck before crashing back into the sea. In another, a support boat capsized when the autonomous craft it was towing suddenly accelerated, throwing its captain into the ocean.

These aren’t beta test glitches. They’re life-threatening failures happening while China builds the largest navy in the world — and they’re funded by your tax dollars.

Testing vs. Accountability

Some will argue that testing is supposed to reveal problems — that dramatic failures are part of the process. They’re absolutely right that we need aggressive testing, not risk-aversion that slows innovation. But there’s a crucial difference between finding software bugs and throwing captains into the ocean. The same Silicon Valley companies that conduct exhaustive beta testing and gradual rollouts for consumer apps seem content to discover basic safety flaws during live Navy tests with human crews.

We’re not calling for less testing or slower innovation — we’re calling for the same rigorous pre-deployment standards these companies apply to their consumer products. If they can test a new iPhone feature through multiple phases before it reaches users, they can ensure autonomous boats won’t suddenly accelerate and capsize support vessels.

The Billion-Dollar Boondoggle

Defense startups with multi-billion-dollar valuations churn out drones by the dozen. Contractors take in hundreds of millions for autonomy software and systems that still stall, crash, and misfire. The culture of “fail fast” has migrated from app stores to the high seas — and our sailors are paying the price.

Bottom line: venture capitalists and defense contractors are getting rich while the Navy struggles to field systems that won’t sink, crash, or kill our crews.

History’s Warning — Don’t Hand China the Keys

We’ve been here before. In the late Cold War, the Navy realized that simply matching the Soviets ship-for-ship in Europe wasn’t enough. Leaders like John Lehman pushed a bold maritime strategy — using U.S. carrier groups to threaten the Soviet flanks, forcing Moscow to defend everywhere at once. That clarity of purpose built political support for a 600-ship Navy and helped secure the peace.

Today, by contrast, we risk drifting into the opposite: building expensive systems without a clear strategy, while China launches warships at breakneck pace. If Taiwan falls, Beijing won’t just seize an island — it will gain a springboard into the Central Pacific, threatening the Philippines, Guam, Hawaii, and the global sea lanes our prosperity depends on. That is the equivalent of handing China the keys to the Pacific.

The Tech Transfer Trap

For decades, Silicon Valley helped fuel China’s rise — chasing profits through partnerships, supply chains, and research deals that handed Beijing advanced technologies. That short-sightedness supercharged the very military now challenging America at sea. And today, the same ecosystem is cashing Pentagon checks while delivering half-finished products to the U.S. Navy.

Silicon Valley’s Responsibility

Palantir CEO Alex Karp recently said Silicon Valley must “fight for America.” We agree. But fighting for America means more than signing billion-dollar contracts — it means delivering technology that works, that protects sailors’ lives, and that strengthens deterrence in the Pacific. Anything less is not fighting for America; it’s profiting while our fleet falls behind.

We’ve seen how this plays out before: decades of short-sighted deals and technology transfers helped supercharge China’s rise. The result? Beijing got stronger, American taxpayers footed the bill, and now our Navy struggles with half-finished systems at sea. If Silicon Valley truly wants to defend America, it must also own its share of responsibility — and prove it by getting this right.

More Than Money — Lives and Liberty

This isn’t some procurement squabble over cost overruns. Every software glitch puts crews in mortal danger. Every failed deployment leaves the Pacific more vulnerable and our allies questioning American resolve. Every wasted dollar is one not spent on the ships, submarines, and systems actually needed to secure trade routes, defend allies, and deter Beijing.

Just look at Scarborough Shoal, where Chinese vessels recently rammed and water-cannoned Philippine boats in defiance of international law. Or the swarms of “maritime militia” Beijing deploys daily to choke off its neighbors’ fishing grounds and shipping routes. These are not distant hypotheticals — they are live-fire tests of American resolve. While our drones crash into each other off California, China is rewriting the rules of the Pacific, one confrontation at a time.

While executives celebrate unicorn valuations in Silicon Valley, Chinese naval forces are conducting increasingly aggressive patrols in the South China Sea. While venture capitalists debate which startup deserves their next hundred million, China launches new warships at a pace that would have impressed World War II shipbuilders.

Demand Better — Or Lose Everything

America doesn’t need more press releases about “revolutionary defense innovation.” It needs results. Innovation is vital — America must harness Silicon Valley’s ingenuity — but innovation without accountability isn’t strength, it’s surrender. We are not calling for less innovation — we are calling for better innovation that delivers results worthy of the stakes.

We need accountability that goes beyond pausing contracts after people nearly die. We need a defense industrial base that prioritizes mission success over market valuations.

Don’t expect the mainstream press to frame this correctly — they’ll blame the Navy. But this isn’t on the sailors, the admirals, or the Navy’s acquisition officers working with the systems they’re given. This is on the defense contractors and tech companies who took taxpayer money promising cutting-edge capability and delivered dangerous prototypes instead.

America’s Naval Advantage — If We Seize It

Make no mistake: America still holds the cards to dominate the seas for decades to come. We have the world’s most innovative tech sector, the deepest capital markets, and the most experienced naval force on the planet. What we need is to stop letting Silicon Valley treat the U.S. Navy like a beta testing ground while they perfect their systems.

The same ecosystem that built the internet, revolutionized computing, and put rovers on Mars can absolutely build the world’s most capable autonomous naval fleet — if we demand they bring their A-game instead of their rough drafts. When SpaceX decided to take astronauts seriously, they revolutionized spaceflight. When Silicon Valley takes sailors seriously, they’ll revolutionize naval warfare.

This isn’t about stifling innovation — it’s about unleashing it properly. The companies cashing these Pentagon checks have proven they can build reliable, game-changing technology when their reputation depends on it. Now their reputation should depend on keeping our sailors safe and our Navy superior.

Most of all, we need Americans to demand better — because the alternative to demanding excellence isn’t just wasted money or embarrassing headlines. It’s watching China’s growing fleet face no credible opposition in the waters that secure our prosperity. But that’s not inevitable. America can still build the world’s most dominant navy — we just need to stop accepting second-rate work from first-rate companies.

The stakes are nothing less than our security, our economy, and our future. It’s time to make waves.

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.

Let’s roll.

Posted on

Naval Defense Revolution: USS Bainbridge Becomes First Destroyer Armed with Advanced Counter-Drone Systems

Courtesy of the U.S. Navy

The U.S. Navy has quietly achieved a significant milestone in maritime defense with the operational deployment of cutting-edge counter-drone systems aboard the USS Bainbridge. Recent photographs taken on July 27, 2025, during NATO’s Neptune Strike exercise in the Ionian Sea, show the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer equipped with new Raytheon Coyote interceptor launchers—marking the first confirmed installation of these advanced systems on a U.S. Navy destroyer.

A Strategic Response to Evolving Threats

This development represents more than just a technological upgrade; it’s a direct response to the changing nature of maritime warfare. The Navy’s decision to equip destroyers with Coyote and Anduril Roadrunner-M counter-drone systems stems from harsh lessons learned in recent conflicts, particularly the Red Sea operations against Houthi drone attacks.

The cost-effectiveness issue has been stark: Navy ships were using multimillion-dollar Standard Missiles to intercept drones costing mere thousands of dollars. As one defense analyst noted, this created an unsustainable economic equation that threatened to drain naval missile magazines against relatively inexpensive threats.

Technical Capabilities and Advantages

The Coyote system brings several key advantages to naval defense:

Loitering Capability: Unlike traditional missiles that follow a direct intercept path, Coyote interceptors can loiter in designated areas, providing persistent coverage and the ability to engage multiple threats dynamically.

Cost-Effective Defense: Each Coyote interceptor costs significantly less than traditional surface-to-air missiles, making them ideal for countering low-cost drone swarms.

Flexible Deployment: The system’s ability to be launched from standard sonobuoy canisters provides installation flexibility across various naval platforms.

The companion Roadrunner-M system offers additional capabilities, including the revolutionary ability to return to base for reuse if not deployed against a target—a feature that further improves cost-effectiveness.

Operational Context and Deployment

The USS Bainbridge is one of three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers currently assigned to the Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group, alongside the USS Winston S. Churchill and USS Mitscher. This strike group represents a testing ground for these new defensive capabilities, with the Churchill serving as the air defense commander—a role increasingly important as the Navy’s aging Ticonderoga-class cruisers are phased out.

The timing of this deployment is significant. The photograph was taken during a helicopter, board, search, and seizure drill as part of NATO exercises, demonstrating that these systems are being tested in realistic, multilateral maritime scenarios.

Broader Strategic Implications

This development signals several important shifts in U.S. naval strategy:

Magazine Depth Enhancement: These systems provide destroyers with additional interceptor capacity without consuming precious missile magazine space reserved for larger threats.

Scalable Defense Architecture: The ability to deploy both expendable (Coyote) and reusable (Roadrunner) interceptors provides commanders with flexible response options based on threat assessment.

Rapid Fielding Priority: The Navy’s decision to rush these systems to operational deployment indicates the urgency with which they view the drone threat

Technology Partners and Innovation

The partnership between established defense contractors and newer companies is noteworthy. While Raytheon provides the proven Coyote platform with its track record in hurricane research and military applications, Anduril Industries brings innovation with the Roadrunner series, representing a new generation of autonomous air defense systems.

Anduril’s Roadrunner platform introduces concepts like vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) capability and high-G maneuverability, features that could revolutionize ship-based air defense by enabling interceptors to engage threats from multiple vectors.

Looking Forward

The USS Bainbridge installation represents just the beginning of what appears to be a broader transformation of naval air defense. With the Army already planning to purchase thousands of Coyote interceptors and the Navy moving to equip multiple destroyer platforms, we’re witnessing the emergence of a new defensive paradigm.

This evolution reflects the reality of modern naval warfare, where traditional high-end threats coexist with asymmetric challenges from inexpensive but numerous drone platforms. The success of these systems in operational deployment will likely influence similar adaptations across allied navies facing comparable threats.

As maritime operations continue to evolve, the integration of these counter-drone systems aboard frontline destroyers like the Bainbridge marks a critical adaptation—one that balances technological sophistication with economic sustainability in an era of emerging threats.

Posted on

The AIRCAT Bengal MC: A Game-Changer in Naval Warfare

Illustration of the AIRCAT Bengal MC, the world’s most advanced autonomous naval vessel.

Introduction

The recent unveiling of the AIRCAT Bengal MC marks one of the most significant leaps in naval technology in recent years. Developed by Eureka Naval Craft in collaboration with Greenroom Robotics and ESNA Naval Architects, this 36-meter Surface Effect Ship (SES) blends cutting-edge speed, payload capacity, modularity, and autonomous operation. Capable of operating both crewed and uncrewed, the Bengal MC is designed to execute a wide range of missions—from launching Tomahawk cruise missiles to serving as a drone mothership—at a fraction of the cost of traditional warships. For a Navy seeking to maximize agility and lethality while controlling costs, the Bengal MC may represent a new model for maritime dominance.

Advanced Design and Capabilities

At the heart of the Bengal MC’s innovation is its SES hull, a hybrid between a hovercraft and a catamaran, which reduces drag and allows speeds exceeding 50 knots. It can carry up to 44 tons—enough for two 40-foot ISO modules—while maintaining a 1,000 nautical-mile operational range. This enables deployment to distant theaters without frequent refueling.

Mission versatility is a hallmark of the Bengal MC. Configurable for troop transport, landing support, electronic warfare, mine-laying or counter-mine operations, reconnaissance, and high-speed logistics, its modular construction allows the ship to be tailored for the task at hand. It’s equipped to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles and Naval Strike Missiles, providing a level of firepower that traditionally required much larger, more expensive ships.

Autonomy and Operational Flexibility

Powered by Greenroom Robotics’ Advanced Maritime Autonomy Software (GAMA), the Bengal MC is fully capable of autonomous operation, while still offering human-in-the-loop oversight. This system was validated through the Patrol Boat Autonomy Trial, ensuring reliability in complex maritime environments. Its ability to operate autonomously means it can be deployed into high-risk zones without putting sailors directly in harm’s way, while crewed missions remain an option for complex operations.

Efficiency and Strategic Value

The Bengal MC is also designed for fuel efficiency and reduced operating costs, making it an attractive option for navies needing maximum capability per dollar spent. Its ability to replace or augment larger surface combatants with smaller, faster, more adaptable ships could reshape the way the U.S. Navy and allied forces plan their fleets. This is particularly critical in the Indo-Pacific, where speed, reach, and survivability are vital.

Why Americans Should The Bengal MC

represents a shift toward a leaner, faster, more lethal Navy—one that can respond quickly to threats without waiting for a carrier strike group to arrive. In an era where peer adversaries like China are rapidly expanding and modernizing their fleets, the U.S. must adopt innovative solutions to maintain maritime dominance. This is about more than ships; it’s about safeguarding trade routes, deterring aggression, and ensuring that America retains freedom of movement on the seas.

Implications for the Navy

For the U.S. Navy, the Bengal MC offers an opportunity to expand distributed maritime operations with high-speed, missile-capable platforms that are less expensive to build and operate. The autonomy package reduces crew demands, freeing personnel for other critical missions. In contested environments, these vessels can serve as fast-moving strike platforms, reconnaissance nodes, or logistic links—roles that support and extend the reach of larger fleet assets.

Implications for Our Allies

For U.S. allies in AUKUS, NATO, and key Indo-Pacific partnerships, the Bengal MC offers an interoperable, high-performance platform that can be rapidly integrated into joint operations. Nations like Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, and the Philippines—facing their own maritime security challenges—could use this vessel to augment their fleets without the heavy investment required for traditional destroyers or frigates. Greater allied adoption would strengthen collective maritime defense and create a shared technological advantage over adversaries.

Conclusion

The AIRCAT Bengal MC is more than a new ship—it’s a potential blueprint for the future of naval warfare. Fast, flexible, and autonomous, it demonstrates how advanced engineering and smart design can produce a strategic asset that meets the demands of modern maritime security. If the U.S. and its allies choose to embrace this model, it could mark a turning point in the race for naval superiority in the 21st century.

Learn More and Get Involved

At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we believe in highlighting technologies and strategies that strengthen our maritime advantage. Our mission is to educate, engage, and rally support for a Navy that can meet tomorrow’s challenges head-on. Sign up for the FREE newsletter and join our educational series.

Posted on

America’s Fleet Readiness Crisis: What 80% Really Means

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Introduction

If you’ve been following along, you know we’ve been sounding the alarm for some time now—raising concerns not out of fear, but out of duty. At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we don’t profit from defense contracts or feed the industrial complex. We’re here because the facts are in: the Navy is falling short of the readiness our nation demands—and we must do better.

The U.S. Navy is aiming for 80% surge readiness by 2027—but it’s stuck at 60%. That 20% gap could determine whether America deters conflict—or invites one.

Brent Sadler, Senior Fellow for Naval Warfare and Advanced Technology at The Heritage Foundation and author of U.S. Naval Power in the 21st Century: A New Strategy for Facing the Chinese and Russian Threat, put it bluntly:

“It won’t happen until more ships enter the fleet to drive operational tempo down to 30%.”

Top Navy leaders have echoed this urgency. As one Navy official said plainly:

“We must increase our fleet readiness to 80% by 2027 to meet global security demands and deter peer-level threats.”

That’s the heart of the problem—and a major reason we’re sounding the alarm.

From the Indo-Pacific to the U.S. Southern border, the Navy is being stretched dangerously thin. The ships we have are aging, overworked, and under-maintained. Meanwhile, new construction is lagging—leaving sailors to shoulder an impossible burden, and the nation exposed.

At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we don’t advocate fear—we advocate responsibility. We believe war is preventable, but only if America wakes up and acts.

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.

Let’s move beyond slogans. Let’s build understanding, accountability, and strength—before the next crisis comes knocking.

Posted on

Microsoft’s China Problem Just Became America’s Wake-Up Call 

If you’ve been following us over the past couple of years, you already know—we’ve been sounding the alarm.

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Introduction

This week’s news confirms it: Microsoft allowed China-based engineers to support U.S. military cloud systems, including infrastructure tied to the Navy. It took a journalistic exposé, a senator’s inquiry, and finally a directive from the Secretary of Defense to shut it down.

Let’s be clear—this is systemic.

This wasn’t one company’s mistake. It reflects a broader failure—where critical defense infrastructure is entangled with adversarial regimes, our tech workforce has been hollowed out, and profit has been prioritized over patriotism.

This Is My Journey—and My Shout: From Destroyer Sailor to Digital Sentinel

My early days as a U.S. Navy destroyer sailor in the 1970s gave me a global perspective that’s stayed with me ever since. I saw firsthand how the world’s most critical maritime trade routes—from the Malacca Strait to the South China Sea—could quickly become flashpoints when adversaries or their proxies seized control. I came to understand just how vital the U.S. Navy’s role in freedom of navigation is—not only in defending democracy abroad, but in protecting our economic and strategic interests here at home.

After a career in telecommunications, I turned my focus to education. In 1997, I founded a national association committed to building America’s digital workforce. We trained web developers, server administrators, and IT professionals—because I believed then, as I still do, that digital strength is national strength.

Even back then, the writing was on the wall: rising dependence on China, fragile supply chains, and a dangerous complacency about safeguarding America’s digital and strategic backbone.

What I Saw Coming

I could see where this was headed. The decisions being made in boardrooms and bureaucracies—about outsourcing, offshoring, and chasing short-term profits—were creating long-term risks. And I knew exactly who would be left to deal with the fallout: our Navy and the sons and daughters of those I served with.

They’d be the ones sent to navigate hostile waters, defend contested choke points, and hold the line during crises that began far from the sea.

Why I Launched Americans for a Stronger Navy

I couldn’t sit back and hope it would all work itself out. I’ve seen too much. And frankly, it pains me to see the Navy have to grovel for support in an era where threats are multiplying—not receding.

That’s why I founded Americans for a Stronger Navy—to push for the readiness, resources, and respect our Navy needs. Because I know what’s at stake—not just for this country’s future, but for the safety of our allies and the stability of the global order.

This is just the beginning. In the weeks ahead, I’ll be breaking down what went wrong—and how we fight back.

More Than Microsoft: A National Security Crisis

The Navy—and the rest of our armed forces—now depends on cloud systems for everything from warfighting logistics to operational readiness. But when those systems are built or maintained by foreign nationals under weak supervision, our adversaries don’t need to hack their way in.  They’re already inside.

This Microsoft scandal is just the latest proof point. Behind it lies:

* A depleted domestic technical base

* A defense industry over-leveraged to foreign subcontractors

* Big Tech firms chasing margins—not national security

And at the center of it all? A Navy that’s being asked to do more with less—and too often, without the tools it needs.

What Comes Next: Charting the Course

That’s why we’re launching Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a comprehensive 24-session educational series designed to peel back the layers of how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next.

Each session will tackle a specific facet of the crisis—from the outsourcing of digital infrastructure and the hollowing out of our industrial base, to the cybersecurity vulnerabilities inside the Navy’s digital backbone. We’ll examine the influence of adversarial regimes, the failure of public-private accountability, and the high-stakes strategic chokepoints where our forces may soon be tested.

But this isn’t just about understanding the problem. It’s about charting a path forward.

We’ll offer concrete proposals to revitalize American shipbuilding, retrain our tech workforce, and rebalance the defense-industrial ecosystem to serve national—not corporate—interests. And yes—we’ll ask the tough question: how do we pay for it?

Because the days of bloated, inefficient spending are over. We need what Navy leadership is already calling for: a leaner, more lethal, and more disciplined force. As Acting CNO Admiral James Kilby put it, the Navy must:

“Exercise strategic discipline… while increasing surge readiness… without sacrificing scheduled maintenance,” with a goal of achieving “an 80% combat‑surge ready posture by 2027.”

We’ll explore potential solutions ranging from public-private innovation partnerships and industrial reinvestment incentives, to reallocating wasteful spending and rethinking procurement models that reward results—not red tape.

These sessions are designed to educate the public, inform policymakers, and mobilize everyday Americans—because this is not just a military issue.

It’s an American one.

We believe that a stronger Navy starts with a stronger nation, and Charting the Course: Voices That Matter is our call to action.

Final Word

Let’s be clear again—this is systemic. And if we don’t act now, the damage will only deepen.

We must rebuild American capability—not just in ships and steel, but in the servers and systems that power modern warfare and strategic readiness.

That means:

Holding Big Tech accountable

Strengthening our domestic tech workforce

Educating the public on the stakes—because the next war won’t wait

👉 Join us at StrongerNavy.org Together, we can strengthen what they stand for.  Sign up for our free course, Charting the Course -Voices that Matter by linking here. 

Posted on

US Naval Posture and Operations in the Wake of Strikes on Iran’s Nuclear Program


At sea with USS The Sullivans (DDG 68)

US Naval Posture and Operations in the Wake of Strikes on Iran’s Nuclear Program on June 21, 2025, marked a significant shift in Operations in the Wake of Strikes on Iran’s Nuclear Program..

Washington’s regional posture, moving beyond indirect support to direct offensive action against Iranian sovereign territory. The primary objective, as articulated by President Donald Trump, was to “completely and fully obliterate” Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities, thereby neutralizing its capacity to develop nuclear weapons.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth further clarified that the mission, codenamed “Operation Midnight Hammer,” was not aimed at regime change but constituted a “precision operation to neutralize the threats… posed by the Iranian nuclear program”. This decisive action followed over a week of intense Israeli strikes targeting Iran’s air defenses, offensive missile capabilities, and nuclear infrastructure. Notably, the US intervention came swiftly after President Trump’s publicly stated “two-week deadline” for a decision, with strikes commencing just two days later. This swift action, following a period of apparent deliberation, suggests a deliberate strategic deception, a “ruse to lull the Iranians into a sense of complacency,” as speculated by retired Navy Admiral James G. Stavridis. The detailed execution of Operation Midnight Hammer, which involved decoys and extensive misdirection, further substantiates this approach, highlighting a sophisticated military strategy that prioritizes surprise and operational security. This tactical maneuver underscores a willingness to integrate psychological warfare into strategic planning, potentially setting a precedent for future engagements and demonstrating a keen understanding of Iranian strategic calculations.

Operation Midnight Hammer: The US Strikes on Iran’s Nuclear Program

The US military operation, officially designated “Operation Midnight Hammer,” was a meticulously planned and executed series of precision strikes against critical components of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. The targets included three of Iran’s most significant nuclear facilities: Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. Fordo, notably, is recognized as Iran’s most fortified nuclear site, constructed deep within a mountain, approximately 80 to 90 meters underground.

Initial assessments of the damage varied significantly. While President Trump asserted that the facilities were “completely and totally obliterated” , Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan Caine, offered a more cautious evaluation, stating that the sites sustained “severe damage” and that a “final battle damage assessment would take time”. Conversely, Iran’s National Nuclear Safety System Center and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported “no signs of contamination” or “no increase in off-site radiation levels” at the affected locations. An Al Jazeera official further claimed that the US Iran conflict, US Navy, Iran nuclear program, Operation Midnight Hammer, submarine strikes, Tomahawk missiles, GBU-57 MOPs, Strait of Hormuz, Middle East security, Iranian retaliation, Carrier Strike Group, US military presence, geopolitical implications, naval strategy, expert analysis, General Kenneth McKenzie, General Michael Kurilla, Admiral James Stavridis, Admiral Robert Natter, Bryan Clark, Seth G. Jones, Michael Eisenstadt, Mohammed Albasha, Jonathan Schanzer, Andrea Stricker, Captain Brent Sadler, Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Fordo, Natanz, Isfahan, asymmetric warfare, global oil markets, deterrence, US foreign policy, international relations, regional stability.

Weaponry and Operational Sophistication
The operation showcased the deployment of highly advanced weaponry, marking a significant milestone in military capabilities. The primary ordnance used were GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs), 30,000-pound (13,500-kilogram) bunker-buster bombs, which saw their first combat deployment during Operation Midnight Hammer. Reports indicated that six B-2 Spirit bombers were responsible for dropping up to 12 MOPs on the Fordo facility.
Complementing the aerial assault, approximately 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from US Navy submarines, targeting the Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites. These missiles, known for their long-range precision and deep land attack capabilities, travel at high subsonic speeds and extremely low altitudes, employing mission-tailored guidance systems for evasive flight paths. The coordinated strike sequence involved submarine-launched Tomahawks hitting surface infrastructure at Isfahan before the B-2 bombers delivered their MOP payloads on Fordo and Natanz, demonstrating a multi-layered and synchronized attack strategy.
The execution of “Operation Midnight Hammer” was characterized by extreme secrecy and elaborate deception tactics. Seven B-2 Spirit bombers initiated the mission from Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, embarking on an 18-hour flight. A decoy formation of B-2s was dispatched westward into the Pacific, while the actual strike package proceeded quietly eastward with minimal communications, a strategy designed to maintain surprise. The operation involved a vast array of over 125 US aircraft, including fourth and fifth-generation fighters and dozens of aerial refueling tankers, all contributing to the complex maneuver. High-speed suppression weapons were employed to ensure the safe passage of the strike package. Remarkably, no US aircraft were reportedly fired upon during the mission, and Iran’s air defense systems failed to detect the incoming bombers, a testament to the effectiveness of the stealth and deception tactics employed. The strikes were conducted in full coordination with Israel, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu commending President Trump’s decision, asserting that the US “has done what no other country on earth could do”.

This operation serves as a powerful demonstration of the US’s unique “deep strike” capability. The emphasis on MOPs and their capacity to penetrate deeply buried, heavily fortified targets underscores a military advantage that few, if any, other nations possess. As Bryan Clark of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) asserted, “Only the US Has the Capabilities to Take Out Iran’s Nuclear Program”. This capability reshapes the strategic calculus for states pursuing clandestine nuclear programs, indicating that even deeply buried facilities are not invulnerable. The operation also highlights a sophisticated integration of multi-domain warfare and deception. The detailed accounts of “Operation Midnight Hammer” reveal a seamless coordination of air, naval, cyber, and space assets. This multi-domain integration, coupled with advanced operational security and strategic deception, suggests that future high-value strikes will likely involve similar complex planning, making them exceedingly difficult for adversaries to predict or counter.

The effectiveness of the strikes and their long-term implications for Iran’s nuclear program remain a subject of debate. While President Trump declared “obliteration,” the more cautious language from Pentagon officials, referring to “severe damage” , and Iran’s insistence that its nuclear work would not be stopped , point to differing interpretations. Experts like Jonathan Schanzer believe “the nuclear program is no longer” , yet Andrea Stricker cautions that “Tehran’s program is likely set back by years… which means more work ahead”. Michael Eisenstadt of The Washington Institute similarly suggests that a preventive attack “likely won’t be a one-off but rather the opening round of a lengthy campaign”. This divergence in assessments indicates that while the physical infrastructure may be severely damaged, the “knowledge gain” and human capital of Iran’s nuclear program likely persist. Consequently, the long-term success of “prevention” will necessitate sustained pressure, continuous intelligence gathering, and the credible threat of further action, potentially leading to a prolonged period of both overt and covert operations rather than a singular, decisive blow.

The US Navy’s Role and Force Posture
The United States Navy played a pivotal and multifaceted role in the recent strikes and continues to maintain a robust and adaptive posture in the Middle East, responding to heightened regional tensions.

Submarine Operations

A critical, covert component of Operation Midnight Hammer involved US Navy submarines launching approximately 30 Tomahawk land-attack missiles. These missiles specifically targeted the Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites. Although the specific submarine was not publicly identified, the USS Georgia (SSGN-729), an Ohio-class guided-missile submarine capable of fielding over 150 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs), had entered the region in September. Speculation points strongly to an Ohio-class submarine being involved in these strikes. The timing of these submarine-launched Tomahawks was strategically significant, striking surface infrastructure targets at Isfahan before the B-2 bombers dropped their payloads on Fordo and Natanz, indicating a precisely coordinated, multi-layered attack sequence designed to maximize impact and surprise.
The deployment of submarines for these strikes underscores their unique advantage as covert, high-impact strike platforms. Unlike manned bomber aircraft, submarines can approach targets undetected, providing a crucial element of surprise and significantly reducing the risk to personnel. This strategic preference for leveraging stealth and underwater capabilities for initial or complementary strikes against high-value targets reinforces the submarine fleet’s role as a potent and survivable component of the US’s global power projection. This capability complicates adversary defense planning by introducing an unpredictable vector of attack, potentially leading to increased investment in and reliance on such platforms for future conflicts.

Surface Fleet Presence and Strategic Deployments

Beyond the covert submarine operations, the US Navy maintains a substantial and strategically positioned surface fleet presence across the Middle East. Reports indicate that American warships are actively engaged in shooting down Iranian ballistic missiles targeting Israel, with vessels like the USS The Sullivans and USS Arleigh Burke having launched defensive strikes. The USS Thomas Hudner has since joined The Sullivans for continued defensive operations.
Table 1: Key US Navy Assets and Locations (Post-Strike)

Vessel/Group NameTypeCurrent/Recent LocationPrimary Role in Conflict
USS Carl Vinson CSGAircraft Carrier Strike GroupNorth Arabian SeaSecurity for US troops/bases in Gulf of Oman/Persian Gulf
USS Nimitz CSGAircraft Carrier Strike GroupHeading west from Indo-Pacific, arriving soonScheduled to relieve Carl Vinson, potential overlap
USS The Sullivans (DDG-68)Guided-Missile DestroyerEastern MediterraneanShooting down Iranian ballistic missiles for Israel
USS Thomas Hudner (DDG-116)Guided-Missile DestroyerEastern MediterraneanJoined The Sullivans for defense strikes
USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51)Guided-Missile DestroyerEastern Mediterranean (moved away)Shooting down Iranian ballistic missiles for Israel
USS Forrest Sherman (DDG-98)Guided-Missile DestroyerRed SeaGeneral presence, maritime security
USS Truxtun (DDG-103)Guided-Missile DestroyerRed SeaGeneral presence, maritime security
USS Paul Ignatius (DDG-117)Guided-Missile DestroyerMediterranean SeaBallistic missile defense
USS Oscar Austin (DDG-79)Guided-Missile DestroyerMediterranean SeaBallistic missile defense
Ohio-class guided-missile submarine (e.g., USS Georgia SSGN-729)Guided-Missile SubmarineUS Central Command AORTomahawk missile launch platform
The USS Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group (CSG) has been operating in the North Arabian Sea, strategically positioned to provide security for US troops and bases along the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf. Concurrently, the USS Nimitz CSG, long scheduled to relieve the Carl Vinson, is transiting from the Indo-Pacific and is expected to arrive in the region by the end of the month, potentially leading to a temporary overlap of the two carrier groups. This marks a rare occurrence, with two carriers operating simultaneously in the region for the second time this year.
In terms of guided-missile destroyers, the USS The Sullivans (DDG-68) and USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) have been actively engaged in shooting down Iranian ballistic missiles targeting Israel in the Eastern Mediterranean. The USS Thomas Hudner (DDG-116) has since joined The Sullivans for continued defensive strikes, while the Arleigh Burke has repositioned. Additionally, the USS Forrest Sherman (DDG-98) and USS Truxtun (DDG-103) are positioned in the Red Sea , and five ballistic missile defense ships, including USS Arleigh Burke, USS Thomas Hudner, USS The Sullivans, USS Paul Ignatius (DDG-117), and USS Oscar Austin (DDG-79), are stationed in the Mediterranean Sea. Overall, the US has increased its troop presence in the Middle East to approximately 40,000, up from a typical 30,000, with bases on heightened alert.
This significant re-prioritization of Middle East naval assets is evident in the deployment of a second aircraft carrier and the movement of naval vessels from potentially vulnerable locations like Bahrain. Bahrain, in particular, is home to the U.S. Navy’s Mideast-based 5th Fleet and has long been identified as a potential target for Iran. This shift occurs despite previous Pentagon efforts to focus on countering China in the Indo-Pacific. The increased naval presence signals a clear commitment to deterring Iranian aggression and protecting US interests in the Middle East, even if it entails potentially diluting focus on other strategic theaters. This could lead to a sustained, elevated naval presence, increasing operational tempo and potentially straining resources in the long term.
The strategic implications of these naval deployments are profound. The increased presence restricts operational flexibility for Iran and necessitates a greater US naval presence in critical strategic waterways. The US 5th Fleet, headquartered in Bahrain, serves as a vital command center for naval operations across the Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea, and Red Sea, playing a crucial role in safeguarding the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb. This headquarters is now considered among the most likely Iranian targets. Bryan Clark has observed that US carriers have been operating less frequently within the confined waters of the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz, instead spending more time in the broader Arabian Sea, a tactical adjustment in response to Iran’s increased capability to attack large surface ships. This adjustment highlights the enhanced maritime security challenges in these critical chokepoints, where the US Navy faces simultaneous and complex threats. The risk of multi-theater conflicts with significant economic consequences for global energy and trade is thus heightened, demanding continuous adaptation of naval strategy and force protection measures.
Iranian Response and Retaliation Threats
Iran has reacted with strong condemnation and explicit threats of retaliation following the US strikes, signaling potential repercussions for regional stability and global maritime security.
Official Iranian Statements and Damage Assessment Claims
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi vehemently condemned the strikes as a “grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the NPT,” warning of “everlasting consequences” and asserting that Iran “reserves all options” to retaliate. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian echoed this sentiment, condemning the US as the “primary instigator of the Zionist regime’s hostile actions”. While Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization confirmed the attacks on Fordo, Isfahan, and Natanz, it insisted that its nuclear work would not be halted.
In a counter-narrative to US claims of “obliteration,” Iran’s National Nuclear Safety System Center and the IAEA reported “no signs of contamination” or “no increase in off-site radiation levels” at the targeted sites. An Al Jazeera official further claimed that the Fordo facility had been “long evacuated” and sustained no irreversible damage. This information warfare component underscores the regime’s efforts to manage both domestic and international perceptions of the strikes’ impact.
Threats of Retaliation Against US Interests
Tehran has overtly threatened retaliation against US interests in the region , with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warning of “irreparable damage”. Iran has explicitly named at least 19 US bases across the Gulf as potential targets, including the critical 5th Fleet Headquarters in Bahrain.
A significant concern revolves around Iran’s potential disruption of critical global shipping lanes. Iran’s Parliament reportedly approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint through which approximately 20% of global oil and gas demand flows. The final decision, however, rests with Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. Iran has previously threatened to deploy up to 6,000 naval mines and speedboats in the Strait of Hormuz, demonstrating a clear intent to disrupt maritime traffic. The multinational, US-led Combined Maritime Forces’ JMIC information center has categorized the threat to US-associated commercial shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden as “high” following the strikes.
Proxy Group Activities
Iranian-backed proxy groups pose a significant threat to US interests. Houthi forces in Yemen have explicitly warned they would resume attacks on US ships in the Red Sea if Washington joined the bombing campaign against Iran. Their military has unequivocally stated its intent to attack US ships. Similarly, Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq has issued warnings of attacks on US interests and military bases in the region. Mohammed Albasha, an expert on Yemen, noted that “Now that the U.S. has struck Iran, I believe the Houthis, Kataib Hezbollah, and other Iranian-backed armed groups are most likely to attack U.S. interests”. He cautioned that “We have entered uncharted territory tonight, and nothing can be ruled out”. General Michael “Erik” Kurilla also highlighted that Iranian-backed militias had conducted approximately 200 attacks targeting US positions in Iraq and Syria between October 2023 and November 2024.
Iran’s strategic dilemma becomes apparent in its response. While its rhetoric signals a strong intent to retaliate, assessments from figures like Gen. McKenzie suggest that Iran’s conventional ballistic missile and drone force “has been exposed as hollow” , and its primary proxy, Lebanese Hezbollah, has been “decapitated”. This indicates a degraded conventional capability, implying Iran will likely rely on asymmetric warfare and its proxy networks for retaliation, as emphasized by Albasha. This means the immediate threat to US naval assets and personnel in the region is less from a direct, conventional military confrontation and more from diffuse, non-state actor attacks, cyber operations, or maritime harassment in critical chokepoints. This necessitates a shift in US force protection and deterrence strategies to counter actors operating in the “gray zone” between peace and war, a concept explored by Michael Eisenstadt.
The threats to close the Strait of Hormuz are not merely military but primarily economic. As 20-30% of global seaborne oil passes through this waterway, any disruption would trigger significant global economic shockwaves, impacting oil prices and shipping costs. Iran understands that its most potent leverage against the US and its allies may not be direct military confrontation but economic disruption. This places immense pressure on the US Navy’s 5th Fleet, whose primary mission includes safeguarding freedom of navigation in these waters. The potential for simultaneous maritime threats in both the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz further complicates US naval strategy and could necessitate difficult choices regarding resource allocation and escalation management.
Finally, Iran’s immediate downplaying of damage and claims of “no contamination” , coupled with efforts to control information internally through internet blackouts and the detention of journalists’ family members , reflect a strong internal narrative control effort. This aligns with Seth G. Jones’ analysis of Iran’s “soft war” and information campaigns. This internal vulnerability could become a target for future “gray zone” operations, aiming to destabilize the regime through information warfare or by exacerbating internal frustrations.
Expert Perspectives on the Conflict and Naval Implications
Leading military and strategic experts offer diverse and often nuanced insights into the recent US strikes, Iran’s capabilities, and the broader implications for naval strategy and regional stability.
Table 2: Notable Expert Commentary on US-Iran Naval Dynamics
Expert NameAffiliationKey Statement/InsightSource
————
Gen. Kenneth “Frank” McKenzie (Ret.)Former CENTCOM CommanderTrump’s previous actions taught Iranians he “was not afraid to employ military power.” Threatening the nuclear program is key to threatening the regime. Iran’s missile/drone force “exposed as hollow.” Underground launch facilities are easier targets than deep nuclear sites. US basing strategy “outdated.” Iranians are “master negotiators.”
Gen. Michael “Erik” KurillaCENTCOM HeadProvided “wide range of options” for strikes. Continuously assesses US posture and risk. Iran’s regional domination cannot be realized if regional states integrate with US. US is “transitioning from security guarantor to security integrator.”
Adm. James G. Stavridis (Ret.)Former Supreme US Commander in EuropeTrump’s two-week deadline might be a “very clever ruse to lull the Iranians into a sense of complacency.”
Adm. Robert Natter (Ret.)Retired US Navy AdmiralIran has mines in Strait of Hormuz and missiles for US ships/sites; expects asymmetric response.
Bryan ClarkCenter for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA)“Only the US Has the Capabilities to Take Out Iran’s Nuclear Program.” Iran is “weaker and more vulnerable than it has been in decades.” US carriers operate less in Persian Gulf due to Iranian anti-ship capabilities. Iran could pull off “complex attack” causing damage/casualties.
Seth G. JonesCenter for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)Focuses on defense strategy, military operations, irregular warfare. Authored “Three Dangerous Men: Russia, China, Iran, and the Rise of Irregular Warfare.” US unprepared for irregular warfare, needs to leverage commercial sector. Iran engages in “soft war” and information campaigns.
Michael EisenstadtThe Washington InstitutePreventive attack likely “opening round of a lengthy campaign.” Iran would prioritize ballistic missiles for nuclear delivery. Believes Iran would use nuclear weapons only in extremis.
Mohammed AlbashaBasha Report (Yemen expert)Houthis, Kataib Hezbollah, and other Iranian-backed groups are “most likely to attack U.S. interests.” Expects “symbolic retaliation rather than full-scale escalation,” but “nothing can be ruled out.”
Jonathan SchanzerFoundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)“The nuclear program is no longer.”
Andrea StrickerFDDIran’s program “likely set back by years… which means more work ahead.” US/Israel need to ensure uranium stockpiles/centrifuges are recovered/destroyed.
Captain Brent SadlerHeritage Foundation“Iran’s regime seems unable to change its tact, and is driving headlong into even more punishing attacks from USA. It is in fact a clear demonstration (if one needed) of the bloodthirsty worldview of the mullahs running Iran. The people of Iran have long been dissatisfied with the religious fanatics and its IRGC muscle, any crack in the regime’s brutality could rapidly see its demise – not regime change from outside but by Iranian people power.”
Perspectives from Former CENTCOM Commanders
General Kenneth “Frank” McKenzie (Ret.), who commanded US Central Command (CENTCOM) from 2019 to 2022, possesses deep familiarity with the Iranian threat. He posits that President Trump’s previous forceful actions have instilled in Iranians the understanding that he “was not afraid to employ military power”. McKenzie maintains that “threatening the nuclear program is a key element of any threat to the regime”. He assessed Iran’s ballistic missile and drone force as “exposed as hollow” following its unsuccessful attacks on Israel. McKenzie also suggested that “underground launch facilities are much easier to target than the deep nuclear sites”. He cautioned that the “window” for effective strikes “will not stay open forever,” as Iran will eventually replace air defenses and further harden its nuclear sites. Furthermore, McKenzie criticized the current US basing strategy in the Middle East as “outdated and poorly positioned to meet the central threat in the region: Iran,” advocating for a more flexible western basing network. He also noted that while “the Iranians aren’t particularly effective fighters, they are master negotiators”.
General Michael “Erik” Kurilla, the current head of CENTCOM, is known for his hardline stance on Iran and his advocacy for aggressive military action. He confirmed having provided “a wide range of options” to the administration for strikes on Iran’s nuclear program. Kurilla emphasized the continuous assessment and adjustment of US posture and risk, stating that Iran’s goal of regional domination “cannot be realized if the region’s states continue to expand integration with each other and deepen partnership with the United States”. He also highlighted the US’s transition “from security guarantor to security integrator” in the Middle East.
Commentary from Retired US Navy Admirals
Retired Navy Admiral James G. Stavridis, former Supreme US Commander in Europe, speculated prior to the strikes that President Trump’s two-week deadline might have been a “very clever ruse to lull the Iranians into a sense of complacency”. Retired US Navy Admiral Robert Natter, commenting on the strikes, discussed Iran’s military capabilities, including its capacity to plant mines in the Strait of Hormuz and fire missiles at US ships and land sites, generally acknowledging Iran’s potential for asymmetric responses.
Analysis from Leading Defense Think Tanks
Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), asserts that “Only the US Has the Capabilities to Take Out Iran’s Nuclear Program”. He believes Iran is “weaker and more vulnerable than it has been in decades”. Clark noted that US carriers have been operating less frequently in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz, spending more time in the Arabian Sea, as a direct response to Iran’s increased capability to attack large ships. He cautioned that Iran “might be able to pull off a complex attack that could degrade U.S. air defenses enough to get a couple of missiles through. It might not sink a ship, but it would certainly cause a lot damage and casualties and be a big public relations coup for the Iranians”.
Seth G. Jones, President of the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), focuses on defense strategy, military operations, and irregular warfare. He authored “Three Dangerous Men: Russia, China, Iran, and the Rise of Irregular Warfare”. Jones highlights the US’s unpreparedness for the evolving nature of irregular warfare and the necessity of leveraging the commercial sector for capabilities such as battlefield awareness, unmanned systems, and influence operations against adversaries like Iran. He also points to Iran’s engagement in “soft war” tactics and information campaigns.
Michael Eisenstadt, the Kahn Senior Fellow and director of The Washington Institute’s Military and Security Studies Program, specializes in Persian Gulf and Arab-Israeli security affairs and nuclear proliferation. In his work “Attacking Iran’s Nuclear Program: The Complex Calculus of Preventive Action,” he argues that a preventive attack will likely be “the opening round of a lengthy campaign” rather than a one-off event. Eisenstadt suggests that if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it would prioritize ballistic missiles as its primary delivery system due to their survivability and penetration capabilities. He believes Iran would only use nuclear weapons in extremis, if the survival of the Islamic Republic were directly threatened.
Captain Brent Sadler, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, has weighed in on the strategic importance of targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities. He noted that Fordo, being “roughly 80 to 90 meters inside of a mountain,” is the “hardest target to hit” and requires American strikes with specialized weaponry like the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, delivered by heavy bombers such as the B-2. Sadler also expressed hope for a peaceful resolution, suggesting that if the Iranian people “enact a regime change,” Fordo could be “taken peacefully and disbanded with the IAEA on the ground watching it happen in real time”.
The collective expert commentary reveals an enduring debate regarding whether the recent strikes constitute a “decisive blow” or merely the beginning of a “protracted campaign.” While President Trump and some analysts like Jonathan Schanzer suggest the nuclear program is “obliterated” or “over” , more nuanced perspectives from Pentagon officials and think tank experts like Andrea Stricker and Michael Eisenstadt indicate a significant setback, not a definitive end. Eisenstadt’s framing of the attack as the “opening round of a lengthy campaign” underscores the strategic uncertainty surrounding the long-term impact. This implies that policymakers must prepare for a sustained effort to counter Iran’s nuclear ambitions, requiring ongoing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) to detect rebuilding efforts , continuous diplomatic pressure, and the credible threat of further action. The “decisive blow” narrative, while politically appealing, may obscure the need for a more enduring and complex strategy.
Furthermore, these expert analyses illuminate the evolving nature of deterrence in the Middle East. General McKenzie’s observations on Trump’s willingness to use military power and General Kurilla’s focus on “security integration” suggest a shift in US deterrence strategy. However, the persistent threats from Iranian proxies and Bryan Clark’s warnings about complex asymmetric attacks indicate that traditional military deterrence against a state actor may not fully address the “gray zone” tactics employed by Iran and its proxies. This necessitates that the US Navy and broader military adapt its deterrence posture to address both conventional and asymmetric threats. This involves not only maintaining superior firepower but also developing capabilities to counter drones, mines, and missile attacks from non-state actors, as well as enhancing regional partnerships for integrated defense. The vulnerability of US bases and naval assets to such attacks requires a re-evaluation of force protection and basing strategies.
Finally, the interplay of military action and diplomatic leverage is a recurring theme. Vice President JD Vance’s statements about the strikes creating an environment for a “reset” of relations and an “opportunity for the Iranians to take the smart path” towards talks directly contrast with Iran’s Foreign Minister Araghchi’s assertion that the strikes have “blown up any possibility of diplomacy”. This highlights a fundamental disagreement on the role of military force in facilitating diplomacy. General McKenzie’s observation that Iranians are “master negotiators” who will “play for time” adds another layer of complexity. The military action, while intended to degrade Iran’s capabilities, simultaneously complicates diplomatic pathways. The US appears to be operating from a position of “peace through strength” , attempting to compel Iran back to the negotiating table from a weakened position. However, Iran’s strong condemnation and threats suggest a hardening of its stance, potentially making a diplomatic resolution more elusive in the short term. The long-term outcome will depend on whether military pressure can genuinely compel a shift in Iranian strategic calculus or merely entrench defiance.
Broader Geopolitical and Economic Implications
The US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities have generated ripple effects that extend far beyond immediate military engagements, impacting global markets and the strategic balance across the Middle East.
Impact on Global Oil Markets and Maritime Security
The intensifying hostilities are poised to significantly affect global oil markets. Iran’s repeated threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping corridor, would have profound consequences, leading to substantial increases in insurance premiums and costlier rerouting of oil shipments. Concurrently, the ongoing threat of Houthi attacks in the Red Sea could further disrupt shipping, elevate costs for global logistics companies, and diminish the strategic impact of Western naval forces in the region. The US thus faces simultaneous maritime threats in two strategically vital waterways: the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea. Beyond maritime trade, the conflict has already impacted air travel, with British Airways canceling flights to the UAE and Qatar and diverting a Dubai-bound airliner. Israel also responded by closing its airspace.
This situation heralds a “new normal” of regional instability and supply chain vulnerability. The direct US intervention and Iranian threats to critical chokepoints indicate that the Middle East is entering a prolonged period of elevated instability. The rerouting of maritime traffic around the Cape of Good Hope and flight cancellations are immediate indicators of this new reality. Global energy and trade markets will likely experience sustained volatility and increased costs. Businesses and governments reliant on these routes will need to factor in higher insurance premiums, longer transit times, and potential disruptions, leading to a re-evaluation of global supply chain resilience and diversification strategies. This conflict, therefore, has far-reaching economic consequences that extend well beyond the immediate region.
Evolving Strategic Balance and Deterrence Posture
The direct involvement of the US signals a significant shift in Washington’s posture, increasing the likelihood of sustained Iranian retaliation against US personnel, assets, and allies in the region. In response, the US military has deployed additional fighter jets and refueling tankers to the region, and bases are on heightened alert. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that the operation’s scope was “intentionally limited,” intended to send a specific message. General Kurilla emphasized that the US is “transitioning from security guarantor to security integrator” in the Middle East, necessitating a “sufficient and a sustainable posture” and improved foreign military sales to partners. Bryan Clark notes that Iran is “weaker and more vulnerable than it has been in decades,” with its proxies suffering major losses and expended missile inventories. The conflict presents significant geopolitical and economic risks, particularly in the energy, shipping, and security sectors, requiring ongoing monitoring and readiness for unforeseen circumstances.
Outlook for De-escalation or Further Conflict
The prospects for de-escalation remain precarious. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed grave alarm, warning of a “dangerous escalation” and a “growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control — with catastrophic consequences”. While UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer emphasized de-escalation and negotiating a solution, simultaneously moving military equipment to protect UK interests , US Vice President JD Vance stated that America has “no interest in boots on the ground” and does not fear a “protracted conflict,” viewing the attacks as an “opportunity for the Iranians to take the smart path” towards talks. However, Iran’s Foreign Minister Araghchi countered that the US attacks “will have everlasting consequences” and have “blown up any possibility of diplomacy”. Regional security experts like Mohammed Albasha anticipate “symbolic retaliation rather than full-scale escalation,” but also caution that “nothing can be ruled out”.
The challenge of de-escalation in this multi-actor conflict is substantial. Despite US assurances of “limited scope” and “no interest in protracted conflict” , and calls for de-escalation from international bodies, Iran’s strong rhetoric and its proxy network capabilities make rapid de-escalation difficult. The involvement of multiple state and non-state actors (Israel, US, UK, Iran, Houthis, Hezbollah) creates a complex web of interests and potential triggers. This conflict is highly susceptible to miscalculation and unintended escalation, where even “symbolic retaliation” could trigger further responses, leading to a tit-for-tat dynamic. The absence of direct communication channels between the US and Iran, coupled with differing interpretations of “deterrence” and “peace,” exacerbates this risk. International diplomacy remains crucial but faces significant hurdles in bridging the chasm created by direct military action.
Furthermore, the situation presents a paradox of Iranian weakness and asymmetric strength. While experts like Bryan Clark and General McKenzie assert that Iran is “weaker and more vulnerable than it has been in decades” in terms of conventional military capabilities , its capacity for asymmetric warfare through proxies and disruption of maritime chokepoints remains a significant threat. This creates a scenario where conventional military superiority does not guarantee security. Consequently, the US and its allies cannot rely solely on conventional military might to achieve their objectives or ensure regional stability. A comprehensive strategy must address Iran’s asymmetric capabilities, its proxy networks, and its willingness to leverage economic chokepoints. This requires not only military readiness but also robust intelligence, cyber defense, and diplomatic efforts to counter malign influence and de-escalate proxy conflicts.
Conclusion and Strategic Considerations
The US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities represent a critical juncture in Middle East security, marked by direct US military intervention and a heightened risk of regional escalation. The operation, “Midnight Hammer,” saw the US directly join Israel’s campaign against Iran’s nuclear program, employing advanced bunker-busting bombs and submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles against Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. The US Navy’s submarine force played a critical, covert role in these precision strikes, demonstrating deep-strike capabilities. This, coupled with significant surface fleet deployments, including two Carrier Strike Groups and multiple destroyers, underscores a substantial increase in US naval presence and strategic focus on the Middle East.
In response, Iran has vowed retaliation against US interests and threatened to disrupt critical global shipping lanes, particularly the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea, through its own capabilities and proxy networks. Expert assessments regarding the long-term effectiveness of the strikes are mixed; while the facilities are severely damaged, analysts differ on whether this constitutes a definitive end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions or merely a significant setback that necessitates a protracted containment strategy.
Based on this analysis, several strategic considerations emerge:
  • Sustained Deterrence and Force Protection: The US must maintain a robust and adaptable force posture in the region, particularly for naval assets, to deter both conventional and asymmetric Iranian retaliation. This includes enhanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) to detect proxy activities and potential maritime threats. General Kurilla’s emphasis on continuous posture assessments and adjustments is crucial for mitigating risks to US forces and allies.
  • Navigating Maritime Chokepoints: The US Navy’s 5th Fleet must remain vigilant and prepared to ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb. This may necessitate the development of new operational concepts and reinforced international cooperation to counter Iran’s potential use of naval mines and fast boats, as well as Houthi missile and drone threats. The economic implications of any disruption must be thoroughly integrated into strategic planning.
  • Long-Term Nuclear Containment Strategy: The strikes have likely set back Iran’s nuclear program by years, but they do not eliminate the “knowledge gain”. A sustained, multi-pronged strategy involving persistent intelligence gathering, diplomatic isolation, and strict multilateral sanctions will be necessary to prevent Iran from rebuilding or dispersing its nuclear infrastructure. Michael Eisenstadt’s view of a “lengthy campaign” should guide this enduring effort.
  • Managing Escalation Pathways: Given the high risk of unintended escalation in a multi-actor environment, clear de-escalation pathways and communication channels, even indirect ones, should be explored. The US should continue to emphasize the limited scope of its actions and its non-regime change objective to prevent miscalculation and unintended responses from Tehran.
  • Strengthening Regional Partnerships: Continued efforts to integrate regional partners into a collective security framework, as advocated by General Kurilla , are vital for shared defense and burden-sharing against Iranian aggression and its proxies. This collaborative approach enhances regional stability and distributes the burden of maintaining security in a volatile environment.
Posted on

U.S. Navy Destroyers Move to Support Israel Amid Rising Tensions with Iran

The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Thomas Hudner (DDG 116) patrols the Red Sea, Sept. 28, 2023.

Quick Take
The U.S. Navy has repositioned two guided-missile destroyers to the Eastern Mediterranean as Israel braces for potential retaliation from Iran. These warships bring advanced missile defense capabilities and reflect America’s commitment to stability and deterrence in a volatile region.

While those remain in place, the Trump administration cut its boosted naval presence in half over the past month, with the Harry S. Truman carrier strike group heading home to Virginia. The Carl Vinson strike group remains in the Arabian Sea according to news reports.

Naval News Reports

Naval assets also were involved in assisting Israel as Iran fired missiles at Tel Aviv, one official said. It was not immediately clear if ships fired interceptors or if their advanced missile tracking systems helped Israel identify incoming targets.

The United States also is shifting military resources, including ships, in the Middle East in response to the strikes.

The Navy has directed the destroyer USS Thomas Hudner, which is capable of defending against ballistic missiles, to begin sailing from the western Mediterranean Sea toward the eastern Mediterranean and has directed a second destroyer to begin moving forward so it can be available if requested by the White House, U.S. officials said according to the Associated Press.

Background
On June 13, Israel launched its largest airstrike campaign on Iranian territory in decades, targeting over 100 military and nuclear sites. Key IRGC commanders were reportedly killed. Iran is expected to retaliate, possibly through missile strikes or proxy forces like Hezbollah and the Houthis. The U.S. is reinforcing its regional presence by deploying two destroyers equipped with Aegis missile defense systems, while the Carl Vinson carrier strike group remains stationed in the Arabian Sea.

What You Need to Know
1. Why the Destroyers Matter
These Aegis-equipped ships can intercept ballistic and cruise missiles, providing a mobile layer of defense for U.S. assets and Israeli territory.

2. Shifts in U.S. Naval Posture
With one carrier strike group returning home, the deployment of destroyers ensures continued naval deterrence in the region.

3. Iranian Retaliation Is Likely
Despite previous interceptions, Iran retains thousands of missiles and may respond through direct attacks or its extensive proxy network.

4. Diplomatic and Strategic Signals
The U.S. has affirmed its support for Israel while distancing itself from direct coordination. European leaders are calling for de-escalation, but Israeli officials have vowed to continue operations as needed.

Why Americans Should Care
What’s unfolding is a powerful reminder that naval power isn’t just about ships—it’s about protecting global stability, ensuring access to trade routes, and deterring conflict before it erupts. From missile interception to regional assurance, the U.S. Navy plays a vital role in keeping Americans safe—at home and abroad.

Bottom Line
You can’t surge a Navy. America’s ability to respond swiftly in moments like these depends on the strength, readiness, and global reach of our fleet. At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we believe this is the clearest proof yet that sea power is national power—and we call on citizens, leaders, and allies to invest in the Navy that protects our future.

Posted on

Shipbuilding, Repair, and Shore Support: Why SIOP Matters More Than Ever

Introduction

At this year’s Sea-Air-Space Expo, a powerful message came through loud and clear: shipbuilding and repair aren’t just logistics or budgeting issues—they are strategic priorities. With the U.S. Navy facing growing demands across the Indo-Pacific and beyond, the ability to maintain and sustain our fleet has never been more important. One of the most important announcements at #SAS2025 came from NAVFAC leadership, who shared critical updates on the Navy’s long-term infrastructure plan: the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP).

What Is SIOP? The Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program is the Navy’s comprehensive, decades-long effort to modernize its four public shipyards: Norfolk, Pearl Harbor, Portsmouth, and Puget Sound. These yards are essential to maintaining our nuclear-powered fleet, and many of their facilities date back a century or more. SIOP aims to upgrade dry docks, replace aging infrastructure, optimize layout and workflow, and improve productivity and quality of service for 37,000 shipyard workers.

Why This Matters Fleet readiness is impossible without reliable infrastructure. Every day a ship sits idle in maintenance delays is a day it can’t defend our interests. As Rear Adm. Dean VanderLey of NAVFAC stated at #SAS2025, shore infrastructure is the foundation of American maritime power. And without modern, capable shipyards, our ability to project sea power and maintain naval dominance is at risk.

Smart Construction, Smarter Strategy SIOP isn’t just about fixing what’s broken. It’s about doing things better. NAVFAC leaders highlighted new strategies like early contractor involvement, modular/offsite construction, and industrialized building techniques—all aimed at delivering faster results at lower cost. For example, the dry dock at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard will require twice the concrete used to build the Pentagon. That’s a massive, multiyear undertaking—and it shows the scale and urgency of the mission.

A Civilian-Military Partnership Shipyard revitalization is more than a military investment. It represents an opportunity for public-private collaboration, workforce development, and industrial revitalization. It’s a call to rebuild America’s maritime edge with the help of skilled labor, advanced engineering, and modern project delivery.

Conclusion: Time to Stay Focused At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we believe this is the kind of long-term, bipartisan initiative that can reset the trajectory of our Navy and our civilian maritime capability. Shipbuilding is strategy. Repair is readiness. And shore support is the glue that holds it all together.

Let’s make sure SIOP gets the support, oversight, and public awareness it deserves.

#StrongerNavy | StrongerNavy.org | #SAS2025 | #Shipbuilding | #SIOP | #NAVFAC | #SeaPower

Posted on

Aegis Combat System Proves It Can Counter Hypersonic Threats

Introduction.

On March 24, 2025, the USS Pinckney (DDG 91) made history. Off the coast of Kauai, Hawaii, the Navy successfully completed Flight Test Other-40 (FTX-40)—also known as Stellar Banshee—using the Aegis Combat System to detect and simulate engagement with a hypersonic missile threat. This test is a major milestone in the United States’ ability to defend against rapidly emerging threats from near-peer adversaries like China and Russia, both of whom are investing heavily in hypersonic technology.

Test Details: Simulating the Future of Warfare

A Medium Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM) equipped with a Hypersonic Target Vehicle (HTV-1) was air-launched from a C-17 aircraft. The USS Pinckney used a simulated SM-6 Block IAU interceptor and Lockheed Martin’s latest Aegis Baseline 9 software to detect, track, and engage the target. While no live intercept occurred, the simulated engagement offered critical insights and data collection, validating the system’s ability to counter maneuvering hypersonic threats.

This test also previewed the system’s scalability. Aegis can be deployed at sea or on land—key flexibility in a complex global security environment. The test utilized a virtualized Aegis software configuration, a leap forward in adapting the system for next-generation warfare.

Building on Momentum: Past Successes and What’s Next

FTX-40 follows the success of FTM-32, known as Stellar Sisyphus, in which the USS Preble (DDG 88) intercepted a MRBM with an upgraded SM-6 Dual II missile in a live-fire test. These continued advancements will pave the way for FTM-43, which will aim to perform a live intercept against an HTV-1 target.

The collaboration between the U.S. Navy, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), Lockheed Martin, and other defense partners signals a renewed commitment to innovation and integrated missile defense.

Why Americans Should Care

Hypersonic missiles travel at speeds greater than Mach 5, can maneuver mid-flight, and are extremely hard to detect and counter with traditional systems. Adversaries like China and Russia are rapidly developing and testing these weapons. If successful, these weapons could bypass our current defenses and strike critical infrastructure, fleets, or even the homeland.

This test shows that the United States is not standing still. Our Navy is preparing for tomorrow’s battles—today. The Aegis Combat System’s evolving capabilities directly protect American service members at sea, allies abroad, and Americans at home. It’s another reason why investment in a stronger Navy isn’t optional—it’s essential.

Implications for the Navy

This test reinforces the Aegis system as the backbone of the Navy’s integrated air and missile defense strategy. With its growing flexibility, the system can support both forward-deployed naval units and U.S.-based missile defense installations. It also helps the Navy operate in contested environments—areas where hypersonic threats are expected to become commonplace.

Implications for Our Allies

Many of our closest allies—Japan, South Korea, Australia—also rely on Aegis-equipped ships or similar missile defense systems. Demonstrating this capability strengthens not only U.S. deterrence but also our credibility with partners. In a world where multilateral defense cooperation is key, proof of performance matters.

Closing Thought

FTX-40 didn’t just simulate a hypersonic intercept—it sent a clear message: The United States Navy is adapting and preparing to meet new challenges head-on. For Americans watching the headlines, this is a win worth knowing—and a mission worth supporting.