When President Donald Trump set a firm boundary regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions, U.S. bombers were quickly put on alert to act, according to General Jason Armagost, who led the operation in June.
General Armagost told Fox News Digital that the mission was a pivotal moment. Back in spring, Trump had communicated with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, urging “progress” in nuclear discussions and establishing a 60-day timeframe.
Upon hearing about the ultimatum, Armagost, who heads the 8th Air Force and oversees all bomber units, immediately began crafting a strategy to present the President with military options. The Pentagon’s approach involved strategic deception, successfully catching both Iran and the international community off guard.
During this time, White House envoy Steve Witkov held meetings with Iranian officials in Oman, but discussions reportedly stalled due to Iran’s insistence on maintaining what they termed “civilian” nuclear enrichment rights. Trump stated, “Two months ago, I gave Iran 60 days to negotiate. They should have taken it seriously,” following the military strike. Armagost reflected on the pressure of that 60-day warning, noting that they were aware of the potential for a military response.
The operation was designed to be “far more extensive” than the one strike carried out by the B-2 bomber crew. “We were preparing a range of options to support our strategy, and this was a significant strike, but we were always asking, what’s next?”
Lucky for the planners, the Iranian nuclear site was in a remote area, which alleviated concerns about collateral damage. However, meticulous planning was still necessary regarding who would be present during the attack.
Fourteen B-2 pilots embarked on a 30-hour mission from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to Iran, where they unleashed powerful bunker-busting munitions deep within underground nuclear facilities. “Global missions come with challenges,” Armagost noted. “You deal with various weather conditions and the complexities of time zones, which can affect operational readiness.”
Aerial refueling capabilities made this extensive operation feasible despite potential setbacks from weather or fuel issues. Fortunately, meticulous preparations and backup plans kept the B-2 aloft.
According to Armagost, this capability firmly positioned the U.S. as a superpower, contrasting sharply with the more regionally focused bomber fleets of Russia and China.
The general argued that success shouldn’t solely be measured by the precision of strikes but also by their deterrent impact. “About 30 hours after the strike, there was a ceasefire,” he remarked, suggesting that the Iranians recognized the shift in their strategic landscape. “All our adversaries will take notice and likely reconsider their choices.”
After the attack, Ayatollah Khamenei warned that Americans could face unprecedented retaliation. The U.S. later responded with a minor strike on an airbase in Qatar, resulting in minimal damage and no casualties.
Days after the June 24 incident, Iran and Israel came to a ceasefire agreement. Armagost also expressed concern about the reduced number of American bombers compared to the 770 available during the Cold War; the current figure is approximately 140.
Looking ahead, the Air Force is focusing on the B-21, a next-generation stealth bomber expected to be significantly cheaper and easier to update than its predecessor, the B-2. Plans are in motion to procure around 100 of these aircraft, with deliberations ongoing regarding the necessity for more.
In the grand scheme of things, Armagost believes this is a crucial national conversation. “We must determine what capabilities are essential for global presence as we face multiple adversaries.” He drew parallels between the recent operation and historic missions from 80 years ago, such as those that led to Japan’s surrender in World War II.
“There’s about a six-week difference in timing. Both were strategic actions that shifted the course of history,” Armagost stated. “No one wants Iran to possess nuclear weaponry. This was about reinstating deterrence against a regime recognized for its instability.”
