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.

Sea Power at Risk: What Every American Needs to Understand Now

Introduction 

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Every once in a while, something stops you in your tracks — not because it surprises you, but because it sadly confirms what you already knew deep down. That happened to me again recently, thanks to an article my old shipmate, Captain David Lennon, USNR (Ret.), sent my way — part of an ongoing decade-long conversation we’ve been having about where naval power is headed, and how the world around us is changing faster than many realize.

The article described a sobering reality: the UK simulated an attack on its own air defenses, modeled after the first night of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It wasn’t pretty.

What it revealed — and what Captain Lennon and I both see with growing clarity — is that the way we think about air superiority, naval strength, and even national security itself must urgently evolve.

Old Assumptions Are Crumbling

For decades, we built our strategy around two key ideas:

  • That we could achieve and hold air superiority across an entire theater
  • That our home bases would remain safe while our forces projected power abroad

Today, both assumptions are under direct assault.

I’ll admit, I’m deeply nostalgic about the Navy.
There’s nothing quite like standing watch on a destroyer’s deck in the warm air of the Pacific, watching the sunset melt into the horizon, feeling the salt spray on your face, and the gentle roll of the ship beneath your boots.
You smell the ocean, you hear the distant call of seabirds, and you feel part of something bigger than yourself.

Every sailor should have the chance to experience the thrill of far-off ports, the pride of representing America abroad, and the awe of watching our best and brightest launch and land from the deck of a mighty aircraft carrier.
It’s a feeling that stays with you for life — a connection to the sea, to service, and to something that must be protected at all costs.

But the battlefield is changing.

Air superiority is no longer theater-wide — it’s trench to trench, rooftop to rooftop, fought with swarms of cheap drones, cyberattacks, and hypersonic weapons that can strike deep into what we once called the “rear areas.”
Even home bases can no longer be assumed safe.

As someone who later spent a career in the technology sector, I can tell you from firsthand experience: cyber threats are not hypothetical.
They’re already here — probing, stealing, destabilizing.

Maritime cyber vulnerabilities are now national vulnerabilities.

The Harsh Lesson of a Simulated Attack

The urgency of this shift was driven home by a recent UK military exercise.

In a simulation based on the first night of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the UK tested its own air defenses against a similar attack profile — and the results were sobering.

Despite having some of the world’s most advanced air and missile defense systems, the simulation exposed serious vulnerabilities at home bases, highlighting gaps that adversaries could exploit.

This exercise reinforced the grim reality: modern missile and drone attacks can overwhelm even advanced defenses if bases are not prepared for constant, layered threats.
No nation can afford to assume that domestic facilities are automatically safe anymore.

As Newsweek recently reported, the UK has invested nearly $48 million in a “world-leading synthetic training system” called Gladiator, designed to replicate real-life scenarios during exercises. However, the war-gaming exercise in question did not account for several of Russia’s next-generation weapons, such as the Zircon and Kinzhal hypersonic missiles — threats that have challenged even the most advanced air defense systems.

While Russia has claimed these hypersonic weapons are nearly impossible to intercept, Western analysts remain skeptical, and Ukraine has successfully shot down several using U.S.-made Patriot systems.

Planning for a Navy in a New Era

Here’s the hard part:

How do we plan and build the fleet we need if we don’t have the budget, the shipbuilders, or the industrial base ready to deliver it?

How do we harden our forward positions and our homeland if procurement cycles still move at peacetime speed, while threats evolve at wartime speed?

Efficiency matters.
Cost-effectiveness matters.
Dialogue matters.
High technology matters.

And urgency matters most of all. Whatever we do, we must hustle.

This is Why “Charting the Course” Matters
This is why we launched the Charting the Course education series at Americans for a Stronger Navy.

We’re not just presenting expert opinion — we’re inviting a national conversation about the future of sea power, economic security, and America’s place in the world.

Because the stakes couldn’t be higher.
Because being a maritime nation matters.
Because naval statecraft matters.
Because — despite what some may dismiss as a catchphrase — Peace Through Strength still matters.

We can’t afford to get this wrong.
We can’t afford silence, division, or delay.

A Final Word

Captain Lennon and I served together decades ago aboard a U.S. Navy destroyer, but our commitment to service never really ended.
Today, that service continues — through conversations like these, through sharing insights, and through rallying Americans to remember that sea power has always been at the heart of our security, prosperity, and peace.

We invite you to join us.

Charting the Course is open to all, free of charge, and designed to spark the kind of dialogue — and action — that America desperately needs right now.

Let’s move — together.

Sea power is America’s future — and it’s a future worth fighting for. Join the conversation today: Charting the Course

China Watch: A New Era of Maritime and Space Integration

As part of China’s ongoing push to enhance its global military and strategic presence, a significant development has emerged with the deployment of the Liaowang-1, China’s next-generation maritime space tracking vessel. This vessel is a direct response to the increasing integration of space operations with naval activities, marking a major leap in China’s ability to track U.S. military satellites and missile launches on a global scale. It’s not just about satellite monitoring—this ship’s capabilities have far-reaching implications for naval and space-based military operations, reshaping how global surveillance and intelligence will be conducted.

What This Means for the U.S. and Its Allies

The Liaowang-1 enhances China’s ability to track intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) tests, providing crucial data on missile trajectories and satellite orbits. More than just a space-tracking ship, this vessel also plays a key role in China’s growing anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities, providing real-time telemetry from space and missile launches. For the U.S. Navy and its allies, this development presents new challenges, as China can now monitor naval movements, space launches, and satellite trajectories over vast distances.

00

Moreover, this new vessel underscores China’s strategic ambition to exert greater control over both the high seas and space. With Liaowang-1 operating from international waters, China is signaling its intent to be a dominant player not only in maritime power but also in space warfare—a domain that is becoming increasingly integral to national defense.

Why Americans Should Care

The U.S. Navy is at the forefront of global naval operations, ensuring the safety and security of international trade routes, conducting deterrence operations, and supporting allies around the world. China’s advancements in space and missile tracking, as exemplified by Liaowang-1, directly challenge the U.S. Navy’s ability to operate freely and securely. By enhancing its space surveillance capabilities, China is positioning itself to challenge U.S. technological and strategic dominance.

In an era where naval power and space capabilities are increasingly intertwined, the United States must be proactive in adapting its strategies and technologies to ensure continued maritime supremacy. The U.S. Navy’s ability to secure its operations, maintain intelligence superiority, and protect vital infrastructure relies on staying ahead in the race for space-based military assets.

Implications for the Navy and National Security

The deployment of Liaowang-1 highlights a critical shift in how modern naval and space operations are conducted. The U.S. Navy will need to strengthen its own space-based capabilities to ensure that it remains a step ahead in this high-stakes geopolitical game. The Navy’s strategic advantage depends on continued investment in satellite defense, advanced tracking systems, and the integration of space operations into traditional naval doctrines.

In response to these threats, the U.S. must prioritize modernizing its naval fleets, enhancing its cyber and space defense infrastructures, and forging stronger alliances with global partners. The challenge posed by China’s expanding surveillance and space capabilities is not just a military issue; it is a critical component of national security, requiring a unified, cross-domain defense strategy.

Looking Ahead: What’s at Stake

As we delve deeper into the Charting the Course educational series, the growing influence of China in both maritime and space domains will continue to be a focal point. It’s crucial for Americans to understand how these developments impact national security and the U.S. Navy’s readiness. Strengthening our naval forces and space defense capabilities isn’t just an option—it’s an imperative to safeguard our interests and uphold global stability in an increasingly competitive and unpredictable world.

The world is watching as China asserts its space and naval dominance. The question is: will the U.S. be ready?


Taiwan, Trade, and Sea Power: The Economic Catastrophe We Can’t Ignore

210728-N-FO714-1033 TAIWAN STRAIT (July 28, 2021) The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Benfold (DDG 65) transits the Taiwan Strait while conducting routine underway operations. Benfold is forward-deployed to the U.S. 7th Fleet area of operations in support of a free and open Indo-Pacific. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Deanna C. Gonzales)

Introduction

In a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Senator Tom Cotton posed a sobering question to Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command: What would happen to the global economy if China attacked or invaded Taiwan?

The answer, echoed by both military and civilian experts, is nothing short of catastrophic.

Investor Ken Griffin warned that a rupture over Taiwan could send the world into “great depression circumstances.” Ian Easton of the Naval War College has long warned of China’s ability to disrupt global trade and exploit vulnerabilities in the Indo-Pacific. The U.S. Navy and our allies cannot afford to treat these concerns as hypothetical.

Why Taiwan Matters to the Global Economy

Taiwan is not only a leading global manufacturer of semiconductors—it is also a key node in international shipping. Roughly one-third of the world’s trade passes through the South China Sea. Any disruption caused by Chinese military action—especially a blockade or invasion of Taiwan—would choke critical sea lanes and sever the supply chains that power everything from cars to smartphones to critical defense systems.

What Ken Griffin Got Right

In January 2024, Griffin put it bluntly:

“If there were a rupture around Taiwan, it would be catastrophic to both the Chinese and to the American economy.”

Griffin wasn’t talking about market jitters—he was warning about supply chain collapse, capital flight, manufacturing shutdowns, and global financial panic. These effects wouldn’t just hit Wall Street—they would impact farmers, truckers, teachers, and service members alike.

Sea Power Is Economic Poweruh

This is why Americans for a Stronger Navy continues to sound the alarm. The U.S. Navy isn’t just a military force—it’s a shield for global commerce. Sea power ensures stability in the Indo-Pacific and protects the economic lifelines that Americans depend on.

Today’s tools of deterrence extend beyond warships. Ships, drones, AI—they all play a critical role in keeping trade flowing and conflict at bay. Without continued investment in these technologies and the people who operate them, our economy and our alliances remain vulnerable.

Blockade drills and military posturing by China are not symbolic—they are preparation. And we must respond with strategic clarity, industrial readiness, and unwavering public support for naval strength.

Conclusion: Americans Deserve to Know

This isn’t just a military issue—it’s an economic one. The American people deserve to understand what’s at stake, and what it means to be unprepared.

If we fail to invest in our fleet, fortify our alliances, and educate the public, we risk more than just ships—we risk our prosperity.

#StrongerNavy | StrongerNavy.org | #Taiwan | #SeaPower | #EconomicSecurity | #INDOPACOM | #USNavy | #ShipsDronesAI

Australia’s Naval Reality Check—America Should Take Notes

If Australia is vulnerable, what does that mean for America?

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

In a recent article for The Australian, Jennifer Parker—an expert associate at the National Security College, Australian National University, and an adjunct fellow in naval studies at the University of New South Wales Canberra—examined China’s latest naval maneuvers near Australia. Her analysis sheds light on vulnerabilities that should concern not just Australia, but the United States as well.

A stark reality: China’s naval task force is actively testing Australia’s response—militarily, politically, and diplomatically. A Chinese fleet operating near Australia’s waters isn’t just a message to Canberra; it’s a signal to the world that Beijing is expanding its reach.

For Americans, this should be a wake-up call. Australia, a key U.S. ally, has long enjoyed security from major conflicts. Yet, China’s maneuvers off its coast expose vulnerabilities in a way that should concern every nation reliant on maritime security, global trade, and naval power.

If China can challenge Australia’s sovereignty at sea today, what stops it from doing the same to America and its allies tomorrow?

China’s Strategy: Testing and Expanding

The deployment of a Chinese naval task group so close to Australia is no accident. It follows a pattern:

  • Probing reactions. Just as it has done in the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, and Latin American ports, China is assessing how the world will respond to its growing military presence.
  • Disrupting global security norms. Conducting live-fire drills near civilian air routes, refusing to issue proper warnings, and testing defense response times all serve a greater goal—normalizing an expanded Chinese naval footprint.
  • Challenging the free world. This is about more than Australia. China is signaling that it has the capability—and the intent—to pressure democratic nations and reshape global power structures in its favor.

This matters to the United States because we rely on the same global shipping lanes, trade networks, and security partnerships that China is testing right now.

Lessons for the U.S. Navy and America

Jennifer Parker’s article points out an uncomfortable truth: Australia’s navy is struggling to meet growing demands. Its limited number of warships, outdated replenishment capabilities, and defense spending shortfalls are now under the spotlight.

But let’s not pretend this problem is unique to Australia.

  • The U.S. Navy is stretched thin. With growing commitments in the Indo-Pacific, Middle East, and beyond, America is already balancing a smaller fleet against greater global threats.
  • Shipbuilding capacity is a bottleneck. While China launches warships at record speed, the U.S. struggles to maintain its current fleet.
  • Defense funding debates mirror Australia’s. At just 2% of GDP, U.S. defense spending is below Cold War levels, and ship procurement continues to face budgetary and political hurdles.

Australia’s vulnerabilities should be a case study for the United States. If a key U.S. ally is struggling to keep pace with China’s naval expansion, America cannot afford to take its own naval dominance for granted.

What Needs to Happen Next?

The right response is not panic—it’s preparation. America must learn from Australia’s situation and take the following steps:

  1. Increase Naval Readiness
    • The U.S. must expand and modernize its fleet, ensuring it has the ships, submarines, and logistical support needed to deter threats.
    • Fleet maintenance and shipyard infrastructure must be prioritized so that existing assets remain operational.
  2. Strengthen Strategic Alliances
    • The U.S.-Australia partnership is critical—joint naval exercises, intelligence sharing, and strategic basing agreements must be expanded.
    • Coordination with Japan, the Philippines, India, and other Indo-Pacific allies must also be reinforced.
  3. Engage the American Public
    • Most Americans aren’t aware of how dependent the U.S. economy and security are on naval power.
    • China isn’t just flexing its military strength—it’s waging a long-term strategic contest to control global trade, technology, and resources.
    • If we don’t educate and rally support for a stronger Navy now, we risk falling behind when it matters most.

Final Thought: A Call to Action

Australia is waking up to the reality that it must invest in naval power to protect its interests. America should take this moment to do the same.

We don’t need alarmism. We need action.

The choice is simple: Invest in a stronger Navy today, or risk facing a crisis tomorrow.

An Open Letter: Strengthening America’s Maritime Future

Dear Captains Hendrix and Sadler,

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Thank you for your recent article, Restoring Our Maritime Strength, which provides a compelling blueprint for addressing the urgent challenges facing the U.S. Navy and the broader maritime industry. Your insights underline the critical need for immediate, decisive action to secure America’s maritime future. As a former U.S. Destroyer Navy sailor and the founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, I wholeheartedly support many of the recommendations outlined in your piece, though I believe there is room to expand and refine the conversation further.

Recognizing the Threats

Your framing of the maritime challenges posed by China’s growing naval and economic dominance is sobering and accurate. The convergence of military, commercial, and strategic threats from adversaries like China and Russia requires a holistic approach to maritime security. However, these challenges are not just Navy problems; they are American problems. As you noted, the decline in U.S. shipbuilding capacity and the neglect of our maritime industrial base have left us vulnerable. This is where public understanding and support become crucial.

Mobilizing Public Engagement

While your article rightly focuses on policy and institutional reform, the broader American public must be engaged in this conversation. Without public buy-in, even the most robust plans risk losing momentum. We must explain to Americans why our maritime strength is foundational to national security, economic stability, and global leadership. Initiatives like the “Ships for America Act” are a good starting point, but they need champions who can connect these policies to everyday American interests—from jobs in the shipbuilding industry to the safety of international trade routes.

Expanding the Workforce and Industrial Base

Your call to revitalize the maritime industrial base is vital, but it must also include targeted efforts to expand and diversify the workforce. Career Technical Education (CTE) programs, apprenticeships, and incentives for careers in shipbuilding and repair can rejuvenate a sector that has been overlooked for too long. Creating “maritime prosperity zones” could serve as a model for incentivizing investment in these industries while offering opportunities to underfunded high school and community college communities.

Addressing Maintenance and Readiness

The maintenance backlog you describe is a glaring vulnerability. Your suggestion of public-private partnerships to expand dry dock capacity is pragmatic and actionable. However, we must also address inefficiencies within existing shipyards. Streamlining repair processes, modernizing facilities, and investing in advanced technologies like AI and robotics can accelerate maintenance timelines and reduce costs.

Leadership and Culture

The emphasis on cultivating warfighting leaders is critical. As you noted, the Navy must identify and elevate officers who can think and act decisively in high-stakes environments. However, this cultural shift should also extend beyond leadership to include every sailor, including those with an interest in peace through strength. A Navy ready to face 21st-century challenges must foster innovation and adaptability at all levels.

Dale A. Jenkins, distinguished Staff Director of the Council on Foreign Relations, Senior Advisor for Americans for a Stronger Navy, and author of Diplomats and Admirals, has noted, “Leadership within the Navy must not only prioritize operational readiness but also inspire a culture of innovation and strategic foresight at every level of command.” His extensive experience underscores the necessity of aligning leadership reforms with strategic imperatives.

Dr. Steven Wills, Senior Advisor at the NAVALIST Center for Maritime Strategy and Senior Advisor for Americans for a Stronger Navy, reinforces this sentiment: “To meet the multifaceted challenges of the modern maritime domain, the Navy must embrace technological innovation and cultivate a culture prepared for high-intensity conflict.” His expertise highlights the importance of integrating advanced strategies with a focus on readiness.

Cybersecurity and Emerging Technologies

While your article focuses primarily on traditional maritime strategies, the increasing threat of cyber warfare cannot be ignored. My decades of experience in telecommunications and web technologies have demonstrated how adversaries exploit vulnerabilities in telecommunications and critical infrastructure to gain strategic advantages. A robust cybersecurity framework must be integrated into the Navy’s modernization plans, ensuring that new ships and systems are protected from digital threats. Additionally, emerging technologies like uncrewed systems and quantum sensing should play a prominent role in our maritime strategy.

Conclusion

I understand that many Americans feel overwhelmed by calls for urgent action on numerous fronts and are skeptical of government programs that promise change but fail to deliver. That is why it is essential to approach these efforts with a focus on accountability, transparency, and tangible benefits for the American people. By demonstrating clear progress and measurable outcomes, we can rebuild trust and show that investing in our maritime strength is an investment in our shared future.

Your article provides a vital roadmap for reinvigorating America’s maritime strength, but the implementation of these ideas will require a unified effort from policymakers, the Navy, industry leaders, and the American public. At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we are committed to fostering the public understanding and support necessary to drive these changes. Together, we can chart a course toward a stronger, more resilient Navy that is prepared to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow.

‘Charting the Course: Navigating the Future of American Naval Power’- Setting Sail: Foundations of U.S. Naval Strategy

Welcome to ‘Charting the Course: Navigating the Future of American Naval Power’- Setting Sail: Foundations of U.S. Naval Strategy.

As we continue our insightful journey in this podcast series, today marks a significant milestone. In our previous episodes, co-hosts Dale and myself have set the stage, introducing the overarching themes and goals of our series.

We’ve laid the groundwork, discussing the vital role and impact of the U.S. Navy in a global context. Now, we’re excited to dive deeper into specific topics that define the future of American naval power.

We are honored to present Dr. Steven Wills, a distinguished navalist, historian, and former U.S. Naval officer, in our first in-depth episode titled ‘Developing and Implementing Effective U.S. Navy Strategies.

With over 30 years of experience in surface warfare, naval strategy, and national security, Dr. Wills brings unparalleled insights into the complexities and necessities of a forward-thinking Naval strategy.

Throughout our series, we’re committed to exploring various dimensions of Naval power, from strategic challenges to fleet size and composition.

Dr. Wills, an esteemed author of significant works like ‘Strategy Shelved’ and ‘Where are the Carriers?’, co-authored with former Navy Secretary John Lehman, enriches our discussion with his perspectives, shaped by his contributions to notable publications like the U.S. Naval War College Review and U.S. Naval Institute News.

Join us as we build on our past discussions, charting the evolving course of American naval power, and delve into its indispensable role in the ever-changing tapestry of global security.

Speakers and Sessions

Episode 1: Dr. Steven Wills, Navalist for the Center for Maritime Strategy at the Navy League of the United States. –  The Anatomy of Naval Strate – December 28, 2023

Dive deep into the world of naval strategy with Dr Steven Wills, who brings a keen eye to the intricacies of strategy development, its challenges, and the integration of diverse naval capabilities. This session promises a thorough exploration of what constitutes U.S. Navy strategy, its objectives, and how it shapes the nation’s maritime future.

Episode 2: Dr. Bruce Jones, Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for East Asia Policy Studies, Strobe Talbott Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology, Brookings Institution. – Maritime Power Through History and Future – January 4, 2024

Join Dr. Bruce Jones for a historical and global perspective on maritime power. This session connects past and present maritime dynamics, exploring the influence of trade, climate change, and geopolitical shifts. Gain insights into how historical narratives of maritime prowess inform the current dynamics of power and influence in the global maritime domain.

Episode 3: Dr. Sam Tangredi, Leidos Chair of Future Warfare Studies and professor of national, naval, and maritime strategy at the U.S. Naval War College. January 11, 2024.

Embark on a technological journey with Dr. Sam Tangredi, an authority on the integration of AI in naval warfare. This session addresses how AI, big data, and human-machine interfaces are revolutionizing naval operations. Learn about the ethical, legal, and strategic dimensions of AI in the Navy and its profound impact on future naval force structure and capabilities.

Episode 4: Dr. Scott Savitz, Senior Engineer at the RAND Corporation – Innovation at Sea: Non-Lethal Weapons and Uncrewed Platforms – .January 18, 2024.

Explore the cutting-edge of naval innovation with Dr. Scott Savitz, focusing on non-lethal weapons and uncrewed platforms. Understand how these technologies are reshaping naval strategy and operations, their potential risks, and their role in maintaining strategic advantage over global rivals. This session promises insights into the future of naval warfare and national security.

Episode 5: Bryan Clark, senior fellow and director of the Center for Defense Concepts and Technology at Hudson Institute – The Technological Horizon of Naval Warfare – February 1st, 2024.

Delve into the future with as we examine the broad implications of emerging technologies like AI, big data, machine learning, and more in naval warfare. This session covers the integration challenges these technologies pose, their strategic impact, and their role in enhancing interoperability and effectiveness with global allies.⁰

Episode 6: Seth Cropsey, President Yorktown Institute. – Navigating Today’s Naval Challenges – February 8, 2024.

Join us as we explore the complexities of modern naval power with Seth Cropsey, a seasoned expert with extensive experience in the U.S. Naval and Department of Defense realms. This session offers an in-depth look at the current challenges and opportunities facing the Navy, particularly in the context of global rivalries. Discover the strategic insights that set the stage for a comprehensive understanding of contemporary naval dynamics.

Episode 7: Jon Rennie, co-founder, president, and CEO of Peak Demand Inc., – Leadership and Culture in Modern Naval Power –February 15th, 2024.

Conclude our series with Jon Rennie, focusing on the crucial elements of leadership, culture, and the balance between tradition and modernization within the Navy. This session highlights the importance of leadership in navigating the multifaceted challenges and opportunities in naval power, offering a holistic view of the organizational dynamics at play.

For a list of speakers and bios click here.

What to Expect:

  • Delve into the Pentagon’s strategies for harnessing AI technology to counter China’s military growth.
  • Gain insights into the groundbreaking “Replicator” initiative and its impact on AI system development.
  • Navigate the complex landscape of budgetary challenges within the defense sector.
  • Understand the pivotal role of Naval strategy in shaping global geopolitics.
  • Discover the critical steps involved in preparing a future-ready Navy.
  • How AI is reshaping naval warfare and unlocking new potentials.

From Depths to Skies: Exploring the Future Landscape of U.S. Naval Power.

Segment: An Interview with Captain Brent Sadler on U.S. Naval Strategy and Policy

Bill Cullifer, founder

Editor’s Note: This segment is a continuation of our series “From Depths to Skies: Exploring the Future Landscape of U.S. Naval Power.” After exploring the future landscape of US Naval Power the RAND Perspective on U.S. naval power, we now converse with Captain Brent Sadler, a retired Navy officer and an expert on Naval strategy. Captain Sadler, currently a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, has penned “U.S. Naval Power in the 21st Century: A New Strategy for Facing the Chinese and Russian Threat,” a pivotal read for those invested in our national security.

“The world is on the cusp of a dangerous decade, and whether it becomes a violent peace or worse is a function of how we as a nation choose to respond. Conventional thinking has not delivered the results or the forces needed to effectively compete with China and Russia.” – Brent Sadler

This is how Captain Brent Sadler, a retired Navy officer and an expert on naval power, begins his book U.S. Naval Power in the 21st Century: A New Strategy for Facing the Chinese and Russian Threat. In this book, he proposes a new strategy for U.S. naval power that integrates diplomacy, military operations, and economic statecraft to counter the challenges posed by China and Russia in the maritime domain.

As the founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, I recognize the importance of a strong U.S. Navy more than anyone. The Navy protects our shores, our allies, and our way of life. But the Navy is facing new challenges in the 21st century, from China’s growing military power to Russia’s aggressive behavior.

That is why I reached out to Captain Sadler and asked him to share his insights and recommendations on U.S. naval power and how to overcome these challenges. He was very gracious to spend a few minutes in between meetings to discuss an office visit for a more in-depth series of conversations.

Highlight

In our brief conversation, Captain Sadler highlighted:

Urgency: The U.S. Navy must respond swiftly to deter threats from China and Russia. He stressed on fortifying maritime infrastructure, including shipyards and ports.

Public Awareness: He appreciated efforts to enlighten Americans about the Navy’s significance.

Naval Vision: He resonates with the vision of expanding the Navy fleet, infusing new technologies, devising fresh strategies, and bolstering alliances.

Future Discussions: Captain Sadler is keen on delving into his strategy’s nuances in our subsequent sit-down in Washington D.C.

Strategy

Captain Sadler’s book proposes a holistic naval strategy encapsulating diplomacy, military operations, and economic statecraft.

He bases his strategy on:

• Ensuring a credible deterrence posture.

• Augmenting maritime security cooperation.

• Broadening maritime domain awareness.

• Championing maritime governance and norms.

This strategy dovetails with the RAND Perspective, emphasizing innovation, alliances, and presence for the Navy’s evolution.

Conclusion

Join us in our upcoming interviews with Captain Sadler. Dive deeper into his work in Washingtom D.C.

Remember, as Americans, our Navy’s future strength and readiness lie in our hands. Let’s rally together for a robust U.S. naval power.

U.S. Naval Power in the 21st Century: A New Strategy for Facing the Chinese and Russian Threat