On June 22, 2025, the United States launched a series of airstrikes against three Iranian sites allegedly linked to its nuclear program: Isfahan, Natanz, and Fordow. The operation, carried out by the U.S. Strategic Command, involved B-2 stealth bombers and GBU-57 bunker-buster munitions. President Donald Trump hailed the strikes as a “magnificent victory” that demonstrated the supremacy of American air power.
However, Scott Ritter—a former United Nations weapons inspector and former U.S. military intelligence officer—sees the operation as more of a staged performance than a genuine military action. In a recent video, he harshly criticized what he described as a “military spectacle devoid of substance,” arguing that the strikes amounted to little more than “a made-for-TV performance” lacking strategic seriousness.
Empty Targets, Hollow Symbolism
According to Ritter’s assessment, most of the targeted sites were either devoid of equipment or had no remaining strategic infrastructure, due to prior Israeli strikes or deliberate Iranian evacuation. The Natanz and Isfahan sites, he notes, contained no critical material, while the Fordow facility was hit with six heavy bombs that only damaged entrances and exits—leaving the core infrastructure intact.
“This was not a serious military strike,” Ritter said. “I’ve planned real military operations before. Real targets have real value.” He argues that deploying expensive assets like the B-2 to strike empty facilities served no purpose beyond producing a media spectacle designed to appease public opinion.
A Political Message, Not a Military One
So why carry out such a limited and largely symbolic operation? Ritter believes the aim was less about national security and more about salvaging Donald Trump’s image after a botched escalation—and simultaneously supporting his embattled ally, Benjamin Netanyahu.
The context traces back to a surprise Israeli strike on Iran, tacitly backed by Washington. But Iran’s forceful retaliation upended the calculus of deterrence. Tehran not only refused to yield to threats but responded with damaging strikes deep inside Israeli territory, exposing vulnerabilities in Israel’s defenses. Trump suddenly found himself cornered—caught between supporting an ally and avoiding an uncontrollable regional war. His solution: a one-off, limited strike to “save face” without triggering broader escalation.
According to Ritter, the U.S. even sent clear signals to Iran that this was a singular operation, which explains why no U.S. assets in the Middle East were used. Instead, the operation was executed through the Strategic and Pacific Commands.
Tactical Retreat in the Language of Power
While the operation may appear strategically pointless, Ritter sees in it a form of political pragmatism. The American strike, though largely theatrical, gave all parties an opportunity to de-escalate without incurring humiliating losses. Washington maintained an image of strength without being drawn into an open conflict; Netanyahu gained a momentary morale boost during a critical juncture; and Iran was left space to avoid responding, without compromising its posture.
Conclusion: Theater Over Strategy
In the final analysis, Scott Ritter offers a scathing critique of a U.S. military operation devoid of strategic purpose, driven more by political optics than by concrete military goals. It was, he argues, a performance staged on the international stage to bolster a beleaguered president and shore up a faltering ally—not to disable a nuclear program or deter an adversary. Yet paradoxically, this theatrical gesture may have bought the region a brief moment of calm, pulling it back—at least temporarily—from the brink of a broader war.
By Belgacem Merbah
Comments
Post a Comment