Fredonia Project Sitrep 8 Us Domestic
DATE-TIME GROUP: 301800ZJUNE25
FROM: EMBASSY OF FREDONIA, WASHINGTON, D.C.
TO: MFA NAGADOCHES
CLASSIFICATION: CONFIDENTIAL // FREDONIAN EYES ONLY
SUBJECT: SITREP: U.S. POLICY DEVELOPMENTS (23-29 JUNE 2025)
SUMMARY:
IN ACCORDANCE WITH MFA DIRECTIVE 1826-APRIL-1, THIS EMBASSY HAS INITIATED A REGULAR SERIES OF ANALYTICAL DISPATCHES REGARDING THE INTERNAL DYNAMICS OF THE UNITED STATES. THE SERIES, DESIGNATED “THE FREDONIA PROJECT,” WILL BE CIRCULATED UNDER STANDARD SITREP PROTOCOL. UNAUTHORIZED PUBLICATION HAS BEEN OBSERVED VIA THIRD-PARTY ENTITY KNOWN AS “THE STEADY STATE.” PRESUMED LEAK. NO ACTION REQUIRED.
On June 21, 2025, the United States launched a significant military operation, dubbed “Operation Midnight Hammer,” targeting three key Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. This action marked a direct U.S. intervention in the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, with President Donald Trump announcing that the strikes had “totally obliterated” these sites and were a “spectacular military success.”
Details of the Operation:
Targeted Facilities:
Fordo Fuel Enrichment Plant: A heavily fortified, deeply buried uranium enrichment site near Qom. This facility, built deep inside a mountain, was believed to be a critical part of Iran’s nuclear program.
Natanz Nuclear Facility: Iran’s largest enrichment complex, containing vast halls of centrifuges, some underground. Natanz had previously been targeted by Israeli strikes on June 15, which reportedly damaged its above-ground sections and key electricity infrastructure.
Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center: A crucial conversion and research facility involved in preparing raw materials for enrichment and reactor use.
Military Assets and Execution: The strikes involved a large formation of seven B-2 stealth bombers, launched from the U.S., each armed with GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) “bunker buster” bombs, the world’s most powerful. Submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles also struck surface infrastructure targets in Isfahan. The operation, described by the Pentagon as the largest B-2 combat operation in U.S. history, involved more than 125 U.S. aircraft, including fighter jets, tankers, and surveillance aircraft, and utilized over 75 precision-guided weapons. The strikes occurred between 6:40 PM and 7:05 PM EST.
Destruction:
Satellite Imagery: Satellite images released by Planet Labs PBC and analyzed by Sanad (Al Jazeera’s fact-checking agency) and the Associated Press show what appears to be significant damage. The damage is difficult to assess, since most of what needed to be destroyed is underground. At Fordo, images revealed two craters from bunker-busting bombs and a damaged air defense site. Aerial imagery of Fordo also showed six large craters and ash blanketing the mountainside. At Natanz, satellite images showed damage to the above-ground electric substation and pilot fuel enrichment plant, with the subterranean enrichment halls likely “severely damaged if not destroyed altogether” due to power loss, according to the IAEA. Buildings at the Isfahan center were reportedly “torched and destroyed.”
Authorization, Consultation and Funding of Military Action:
President Trump made the decision to launch the strikes, with senior officials including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth present in the Situation Room as the operation unfolded. General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, provided details on the execution. However, there was limited prior consultation with Congress and U.S. allies.
Authorization and Consultation: President Trump unilaterally authorized the strikes as Commander-in-Chief. He did not seek or receive prior congressional authorization. Instead, the administration informed Congress after the bombers left Iranian airspace. General Caine and Defense Secretary Hegseth stated that the U.S. did not notify other regional partners in advance and only briefed Congress after the strikes were conducted and the B-2 bombers had left Iranian airspace. This lack of advance congressional authorization drew criticism from some lawmakers, who argued it violated the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act.
The Trump administration’s decision to bypass Democrats in the authorization process was largely a continuation of its “go-it-alone” and highly partisan approach to foreign policy, a strategy that risks “saddling his Republican Party with political ownership of the military action.” The administration’s rationale, articulated by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), was that the “imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act.” (Milatt comment: There was no imminent danger; none. That was rationalization, not reality.). Vice President JD Vance stated, “We’re not at war with Iran. We’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program,” attempting to frame the action as a targeted strike rather than a broader conflict requiring a declaration of war. (Milatt comment: VP Vance has served in the US military. It is striking that he does not appear to understand that the US cannot be at war with a policy. To be clear; lobbing bombs seems a pretty indication that war is between countries, not pieces of paper.)
Some U.S. allies housing American troops were informed as the planes were already in the air. The U.S. did alert Israel ahead of the strikes, and President Trump spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following the operation.
Funding: While no specific public statements about immediate funding for this particular operation were made, the Trump administration was pushing for an additional $350 billion in national security funds as part of a larger tax breaks bill currently under consideration.. It is presumed that the military action would be funded through existing defense appropriations and potentially supplemented by these new funds.
Effectiveness of Operation Midnight Hammer: Depends on Who is Talking
President Trump’s Assertions:
Immediately after “Operation Midnight Hammer,” President Trump asserted on Truth Social and in public addresses that the Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan had been “completely and totally obliterated” and that “monumental damage” had been inflicted. He claimed the “biggest damage took place far below ground level” and that underground tunnels were “all collapsed.” (Ambassador comment: Given President Trump’s relationship with fact, Fredonia’s delegation continues to wait for conclusive findings.)
Proof of Destroyed Nuclear Material:
Limited Impact on Nuclear Program: While significant damage to above-ground infrastructure and some underground sections was confirmed by satellite imagery, initial intelligence assessments, and later reporting, indicated that the bombs did not “obliterate” Iran’s nuclear weapons program or the core of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, particularly enriched uranium stockpiles. The Washington Post, citing leaked intelligence, reported growing doubts over the effectiveness of the strikes and “minimal impact” on Iran’s nuclear program.
The Institute for Science and International Security noted that while enrichment capabilities were severely set back, Iran still retained stockpiles of enriched uranium at various levels, which could be further enriched to weapons-grade if surviving centrifuges were installed elsewhere.
Iranian and IAEA Statements: Iran’s nuclear agency and the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), both stated that there was no immediate sign of off-site radioactive contamination near the targeted sites, and no increase in radiation levels was detected. This suggests that any nuclear material, if present, was either contained or moved prior to the strikes as Iranian officials claimed.
Experts and intelligence officials largely conclude that the strikes constituted a significant setback to Iran’s enrichment capabilities, possibly delaying their program for months or even years, but did not eliminate it.
Not surprisingly, the President rejected any pushback from anyone and characterized the attack as a definitive end to what he dubbed “the 12-day war,” akin to the end of World War II, a nonsensical statement at best.
Post-Attack Preparedness:
On the evening of June 21, President Trump issued a warning to Iran against retaliation, stating that “ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT.” (Ambassador comment: It is unclear whether Iranian leaders who are more used to demarches and other diplomatic communications, understand the significance of all capital letter messages on Truth Social from President Trump.) He also warned that if peace did not come quickly, the U.S. would target “other targets with precision, speed, and skill,” many of which “can be taken out in a matter of minutes.” (Milatt comments: Given that the attack did not appear to include plans to go after uranium that had been moved, this threat may not have been taken terribly seriously.)
U.S. and Israeli Preparedness: U.S. forces in the region were placed on high alert, with increased protection for forces in Iraq and elsewhere. General Caine stated that the Pentagon was “fully postured to respond to any Iranian retaliation or proxy attacks.”
Iranian Threats: Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) vowed “regrettable responses,” stating that the U.S. had “placed itself at the forefront of aggression” and that the “number, dispersion, and size of U.S. military bases in the region are not a strength, but have doubled their vulnerability.” Strikes which Iran subsequently carried out yielded some damage and zero casualties.
Diplomatic Efforts (and their perceived failure): Prior to the strikes, the U.S. had engaged in back-channel nuclear negotiations with Iran, and President Trump had given a two-week deadline for a diplomatic resolution. (Milatt comment: Given President Trump’s tenuous relationship with the truth, it is unlikely that the Iranians (and everyone else) believed anything he said.) Iranian officials said the bombing blew up US diplomatic efforts.
Reactions of World Powers and US Allies:
It appears at this moment that we may have missed the worst (most immediate) retaliation, but it is not entirely unlikely that something will come along later. There were several calls to limit retaliation and more war.
Alarm and Calls for Restraint: Most world powers and many U.S. allies reacted with alarm and urged de-escalation and a return to diplomacy.
United Nations: Secretary-General António Guterres condemned the use of force, and urged de-escalation, repeating that “there is no military solution.”
Russia: Strongly condemned the U.S. bombings and Iran’s Foreign Minister traveled to Moscow for “serious consultations.”
Europe (UK, France, Germany): Responses were measured but cautious. The UK offered conditional support, France expressed “concern” and urged restraint. Germany called on Iran to “immediately begin negotiations.”
Middle East (beyond Israel): Saudi Arabia expressed “great concern” and called for urgent diplomacy. Iraq and Qatar warned the strikes risked destabilizing an already volatile region. Pakistan condemned the strike, warning of “severely damaging implications.”
Praise from Israel: Unsurprisingly, Israel lauded the U.S. strikes.
Reactions by Iranians to the Bombs’ Effectiveness (Washington Post):
According to reports, including those cited in the Washington Post and other news outlets, the Iranian reaction to the perceived failure of the U.S. bombs to “obliterate” their nuclear program was a mix of defiance, claims of resilience, and warnings of retaliation.
Iranian Defiance and Resilience: Iranian officials downplayed the damage, with some claiming the sites had been evacuated in advance and that no irreversible damage was done to critical underground complexes.
Iranian Vows of Retaliation: Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) vowed “regrettable responses,” emphasizing that the “number, dispersion, and size of U.S. military bases in the region are not a strength, but have doubled their vulnerability.”
Iranian Increased Paranoia and Internal Security: The Iranian regime reportedly increased counterintelligence measures, and there were reports of arrests of hundreds of Iranians, reflecting the regime’s paranoia about infiltration.
Implications for Small, Western Liberal Democratic Allies of the US and US Budget
The U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities and the subsequent reactions have profound implications for small, Western liberal democratic allies of the U.S.:
Increased Instability and Insecurity: The direct U.S. military involvement in the Middle East significantly escalates regional tensions, increased risks of proxy attacks, terrorism, and economic disruption. This instability could spill over into their own domestic security.
Strain on Alliances and Multilateralism: President Trump’s unilateral decision-making, erodes the trust and effectiveness of existing alliances. Small democracies rely on a strong, predictable, and rules-based international system to remain stable.
Economic Vulnerability: Small economies are highly susceptible to the global economic fallout from regional conflicts.
Difficult Diplomatic Position: These allies may feel pressured to align with U.S. policy even if it contradicts their own security interests or values.
Undermining Democratic Norms: The U.S. administration’s actions can set a dangerous precedent and be perceived as undermining democratic norms and the rule of law. This can have a ripple effect, emboldening authoritarian tendencies or weakening democratic institutions within smaller allied nations.
Pressure for Increased Defense Spending: If the U.S. signals a reduced commitment to collective security, small allies may face increased pressure to significantly boost their own defense spending, potentially at the expense of social programs or economic development.
What Else Happened During This Week
There was a two day NATO meeting in the Netherlands on 24-25 June. President Trump, reportedly remained at the meeting for 2 1/2 hours, and missed most of the one on one meetings he was supposed to have held with other NATO leaders, including a one-on-one with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The NATO leaders agreed to increase their contributions to NATO, to 5% GDP (including 3.5% of GDP on core defense requirements and 1.5% on defense- and security-related investments like infrastructure and industry).
Much time was spent by Congressional Republicans in Washington on their wildly unpopular budget bill (One Big Beautiful Bill), which saw some very conservative Republicans bolt toward the Democrats rather than sign onto a measure which promises to strip health care and food and environmental protections from their poorest constituents. (Ambassador comment: It will be interesting to watch the Republicans defend their already deeply unpopular Budget bill which is cutting jobs, reducing or eliminating social programs like food stamps and Meals on Wheels, slashing Medicaid to ensure funding of extending tax breaks for the wealthiest, and eliminating vaccines and other procedures to ensure the health of the population, while spending at least 350 million USDollars on the apparently less-than-successful attack on Iran and another 40 million USDollars on the under-attended military celebration of President Trump’s 79th birthday) Popular Democrats, from Governor Gavin Newsom of California to Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Alexandria Orcasio Cortez from New York joined together to object – loudly – to the budget bill.
Political newcomer, Zorhan Mamdani, was elected with a comfortable margin to be the Democratic Party’s candidate in the Mayoral election in New York City. He’s only 33 years old, a Democratic Socialist and a practicing Muslim, who is extraordinarily charismatic and campaigned on straightforward, popular policies to help the City’s poor. (Ambassador Comment: The Democratic Party is, as usual, in an uproar over this unexpected result – the other candidate Andrew Cuomo is and was deeply unpopular with a majority of the New York voters. It seems to this observer that the Democratic Party might want to embrace the win as confirmation of one possible strategy that works. Given that two other very popular Democratic Socialists, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Bernie Sanders – who caucus with the Democrats – have been attracting record crowds and money, it may be that the success of message is stronger than any one demographic-be it ethnicity, age, religion or gender.)
Another Indicator Of The Slide To Authoritarianism (Ambassador comment: This week we saw more, new indicators of the slow move of the Trump Administration toward full on authoritarianism. To quote from Professor Timothy Snyder’s book Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century: Defend Institutions and Believe in the Truth.
The Institution which should be defended is the process of democracy, the institutions that prioritize it and those that ensure it works and continues. The untrue assertion that the nuclear weapon was just seconds away was the excuse for the unnecessary rush to war which Trump used to refuse to coordinate his plans with the opposition party, and to coordinate with branches of government not just within the White House. The attack didn’t work as hoped. On the one hand, Trump’s apparent refusal to include anyone outside his bubble may have resulted in an ineffectual attack. On the other, the Republican Party and the President’s coterie of “advisers,” now own the failure and the cost. The real point here is that ignoring standard process is an indicator that the US administration is moving toward autocracy.
Believing in the Truth: Refusing to believe in, much less state, the truth is another clear indication of a slide to authoritarianism. To quote Snyder, “To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.” Trump exhibits other indicators regarding the truth: he lies constantly and about everything – including the most observable activities. And, he repeats the lies over and over and over; both of those are signs of increasing authoritarianism, and his “exaggerations” about the observable effects of Operation Midnight Hammer” is just one more indicator that the US administration is moving toward dictatorship.)