What Will Happen to the Strait of Hormuz and Oil? Iran’s Threat and Its Global Impact
Will Iran retaliate after the U.S. strikes on their nuclear program?
Several key points after watching the briefing from the U.S. Pentagon this morning.
No leaks - Total secrecy. A side note: No Democrats were notified before the execution of Operation Midnight Hammer.
Operation Midnight Hammer was a meticulously planned, high-risk U.S. military strike that inflicted significant damage on Iran’s nuclear facilities using advanced stealth technology, deception, and precision munitions. Involving over 125 aircraft, 14 GBU-57 MOPs, and 24 Tomahawk missiles, it marked a historic deployment of B-2 bombers and showcased U.S. global strike capabilities.
While initial assessments indicate severe damage to Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, the long-term impact on Iran’s nuclear program remains uncertain, pending further evaluation.
The operation has heightened regional tensions, with Iran vowing retaliation, and its unilateral execution has sparked domestic controversy over constitutional authority.
The B-2 bombers going to Guam did several things - kept people guessing, but also let China know that we are pre-positioning assets in case they attack Taiwan.
The following video is an unconfirmed post on X.
Details of Operation Midnight Hammer
Operation Midnight Hammer was a U.S. military operation conducted on June 21-22, 2025, targeting three Iranian nuclear facilities—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—in response to Iran’s advancing nuclear program. Authorized by President Donald Trump, the operation aimed to “destroy or severely degrade” Iran’s nuclear weapons infrastructure. Below is a comprehensive overview of the operation, drawing from verified sources, including Pentagon briefings and reputable news reports, with critical analysis to ensure accuracy.
Overview and Objectives
Codename: Operation Midnight Hammer
Date and Time: Initiated midnight ET, Friday, June 20, 2025, with strikes occurring between 6:40 p.m. and 7:05 p.m. ET on Saturday, June 21 (2:10 a.m. to 2:35 a.m. local time in Iran on June 22).
Objective: To cripple Iran’s nuclear weapons program by targeting key uranium enrichment and storage facilities, specifically Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, without targeting Iranian troops or civilians.
Authorization: Ordered by President Trump, who announced the strikes as a “very successful attack” via Truth Social, claiming the sites were “completely and totally obliterated.”
Context: The operation followed Israeli strikes on Iran starting June 13, 2025, under Operation Rising Lion, and came after Trump’s public warning that he would decide on U.S. involvement within two weeks. The strikes were executed earlier than anticipated, suggesting a strategic misdirection.
Operational Details
Operation Midnight Hammer was a highly classified, multi-domain mission involving unprecedented coordination across U.S. military commands. It was designed to maintain tactical surprise and minimize detection by Iranian defenses.
Key Components
Aircraft and Assets:
Seven B-2 Spirit Stealth Bombers: Launched from Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, these bombers flew an 18-hour mission, the largest B-2 operational strike in U.S. history and the second-longest B-2 mission ever, surpassed only by post-9/11 operations.
Over 125 Aircraft: Included stealth fighters, refueling tankers, surveillance platforms, and support aircraft from multiple commands (U.S. Central Command, Strategic Command, Transportation Command, Cyber Command, Space Command, and European Command).
U.S. Navy Submarine: A guided missile submarine in the CENTCOM region launched over 24 Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles targeting surface infrastructure at Isfahan.
Weapons Used:
14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs): These 30,000-pound “bunker-buster” bombs, designed to penetrate hardened underground targets, were used for the first time in combat. Two were dropped by the lead B-2 on Fordow, with 12 others targeting Fordow and Natanz.
Over 24 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles: Fired at Isfahan, targeting uranium storage and infrastructure.
75 Precision-Guided Munitions: Included high-speed suppression weapons to protect B-2s from air defenses.
Total Munitions: Approximately 75 precision-guided weapons, ensuring minimal collateral damage.
Deception and Secrecy:
Decoy Operation: A portion of the B-2 strike package was sent west toward the Pacific, creating the illusion of a deployment to Guam, known only to a small group of planners in Washington and Tampa.
Minimal Communication: The main strike package maintained near-radio silence during the 18-hour flight to avoid detection.
Operational Security: The mission was highly classified, with only a limited number of U.S. officials aware of its timing and nature, ensuring surprise.
Execution Timeline:
Midnight ET, June 20: B-2 bombers launched from Missouri, with some heading west as a decoy and the main package flying east.
5:00 p.m. ET, June 21: A U.S. submarine launched over 24 Tomahawk missiles targeting Isfahan.
6:40 p.m. ET (2:10 a.m. Iran time): The lead B-2 dropped two GBU-57 MOPs on Fordow, followed by additional bombers striking Fordow and Natanz.
6:40 p.m. to 7:05 p.m. ET: All strikes completed within 25 minutes, with Tomahawk missiles hitting Isfahan as the final element.
Post-Strike: U.S. forces exited Iranian airspace without resistance and began their return, with no shots fired by Iran.
Coordination and Support:
In-Flight Refueling: Multiple refuelings were conducted during the 18-hour flight to sustain the B-2s.
Escort and Suppression: Upon entering Middle Eastern airspace, B-2s linked with fighter jets and support aircraft in a “complex, tightly timed maneuver” to suppress Iranian air defenses.
Command Structure: Led by General Eric Kurilla of U.S. Central Command, with oversight from Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dan Caine.
Iranian Response
No Immediate Resistance: General Caine reported that Iran’s fighters did not fly, and its surface-to-air missile systems failed to detect or engage U.S. forces, allowing the strike package to enter and exit unchallenged.
Retaliation: Early Sunday, June 22, Iran launched missile attacks on Israel, injuring at least 16 people, as reported by emergency services. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the U.S. strikes and vowed to defend Iran, reserving “all options” for response.
Damage Assessment
Initial Reports: Pentagon officials, including General Caine, stated that all three sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—sustained “extremely severe damage and destruction.”
Specific Impacts:
Fordow: The deeply buried facility, targeted by 12 GBU-57 MOPs, was heavily damaged but not entirely destroyed, as it is built within a mountain.
Natanz: Hit by two MOPs and additional munitions, Natanz suffered significant damage to its uranium enrichment capabilities.
Isfahan: Tomahawk strikes targeted surface infrastructure, including uranium storage, with severe damage reported.
Uncertainty: While Trump claimed the sites were “obliterated,” Caine and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth cautioned that a full damage assessment would take time, and it was premature to confirm the complete elimination of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. A senior Iranian source claimed some enriched uranium was relocated before the strikes.
Radiation Levels: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the IAEA reported no increase in radiation levels post-strike, suggesting no significant release of nuclear material.
Political and Strategic Context
U.S. Domestic Reaction:
Support: Congressional Republicans and some Democrats, like Senator John Fetterman, endorsed the strikes, citing Iran’s role as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Criticism: Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senator Bernie Sanders, condemned the operation as unconstitutional, arguing Trump bypassed Congress, violating the Constitution’s war powers clause.
International Response:
Allies: France and Italy expressed concerns about Iran’s nuclear program but urged de-escalation and diplomacy within the Non-Proliferation Treaty framework.
Adversaries: Russia and China condemned the strikes as “irresponsible,” with Iran’s Foreign Minister planning to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin to coordinate a response.
Geopolitical Implications: The operation escalated tensions in an already volatile Middle East, following Israel’s strikes and the ongoing Iran-Israel conflict. The strikes pushed the region closer to a broader conflict, with fears of Iranian retaliation against U.S. bases or proxies.
Operation Midnight Hammer was a meticulously planned, high-risk U.S. military strike that inflicted significant damage on Iran’s nuclear facilities using advanced stealth technology, deception, and precision munitions. Involving over 125 aircraft, 14 GBU-57 MOPs, and 24 Tomahawk missiles, it marked a historic deployment of B-2 bombers and showcased U.S. global strike capabilities. While initial assessments indicate severe damage to Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, the long-term impact on Iran’s nuclear program remains uncertain, pending further evaluation. The operation has heightened regional tensions, with Iran vowing retaliation, and its unilateral execution has sparked domestic controversy over constitutional authority.
How the Iranians will respond is an open-ended question.
The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the global energy markets, is once again at the center of geopolitical tensions. Recent reports suggest that Iran’s parliament has approved a plan to close this critical chokepoint, pending final approval from the country’s Supreme National Security Council and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. This development, if confirmed, could send shockwaves through global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) markets. In this article, we verify the parliamentary decision, explore the potential consequences of a Strait closure, and provide insights for investors navigating this volatile situation.
Verifying Iran’s Parliamentary Decision
On June 22, 2025, multiple sources reported that Iran’s parliament unanimously endorsed a plan to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to U.S. airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. According to Pravda EN, a Russian news outlet, the decision awaits final approval from Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and Supreme Leader Khamenei. Iranian state media and lawmakers, including Revolutionary Guards Commander Esmail Kosari, have emphasized that the closure remains “on the agenda” and could be implemented if deemed necessary.
However, the information comes primarily from Iranian state-affiliated sources and secondary reports, raising questions about its immediacy and intent. Iran has a history of threatening to close the Strait during periods of heightened tension, but it has never followed through, as such a move would also harm its own oil exports. The lack of independent confirmation from Western or neutral sources suggests the parliamentary vote may be a strategic signal rather than a definitive action. For now, the closure remains speculative, pending the Security Council’s decision, which could hinge on further escalation with the U.S. or Israel.
The Strait of Hormuz: A Global Energy Lifeline
The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s most critical oil chokepoint, facilitating the daily transit of approximately 20 million barrels of crude oil—about 20% of global consumption—and a third of the world’s LNG. Major exporters like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait, Qatar, and Iran rely on the Strait to ship oil and gas to global markets, particularly in Asia. China, India, Japan, and South Korea account for 67% of the Strait’s crude oil flows, with China alone importing 47% of Iran’s seaborne crude.
A closure, even if brief, would disrupt this vital artery, creating immediate supply shortages and price volatility. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned that any disruption would have “significant consequences” for global oil markets, with analysts predicting Brent crude prices could surge to $90 per barrel or higher.
Impact on Global Oil Markets
A closure of the Strait of Hormuz would roil global energy markets, with far-reaching economic implications:
Price Spikes: Analysts at Citigroup and Goldman Sachs estimate Brent crude could climb to $90 per barrel, with some scenarios projecting prices exceeding $100 or even reaching $120-$130 if disruptions persist. Such spikes would exacerbate global inflation, increase fuel costs, and strain economies dependent on imported oil.
Supply Chain Disruptions: The Strait’s closure would halt oil exports from major Gulf producers, creating a supply shock. While some countries, like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, have bypass pipelines (e.g., Petroline), their capacity—around 7 million barrels per day—cannot fully offset the loss of 20 million barrels daily.
Currency Volatility: Heightened geopolitical risks could destabilize regional currencies, prompting investors to seek safer markets, further complicating global trade.
Impact on Exporters
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations—Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman—along with Iraq and Iran, would face severe economic challenges if the Strait were closed:
Saudi Arabia and Iraq: As the largest oil exporters through the Strait, Saudi Arabia (moving the highest volume) and Iraq (exporting 3.3 million barrels daily) would see shipments halted, slashing government revenues and risking economic crises.
Iran: Paradoxically, Iran would harm itself by closing the Strait, as it relies on the waterway for its own oil exports, primarily to China. A closure could cripple Tehran’s economy, already strained by sanctions.
Qatar: A major LNG exporter, Qatar’s gas shipments to Asia and Europe would be disrupted, though its LNG routes to India bypass the Strait, offering some resilience.
Impact on Purchasers
Oil and LNG importers, particularly in Asia, would bear the brunt of a closure:
China: As Iran’s largest oil customer and a major importer of Gulf crude, China would face significant supply disruptions, potentially forcing it to seek costlier alternatives or exert diplomatic pressure on Iran to reopen the Strait.
India: Importing 90% of its crude, with 40% transiting the Strait, India is highly vulnerable. While it has diversified sources (e.g., Russia and the U.S.), a closure would spike domestic fuel prices and threaten energy security.
Japan and South Korea: These nations, heavily reliant on Gulf oil, would face immediate supply constraints, driving up energy costs and impacting industrial output.
Why Iran Might Hesitate
Despite the rhetoric, several factors deter Iran from closing the Strait:
Economic Self-Interest: Blocking the Strait would halt Iran’s own oil exports, which account for a significant portion of its revenue. China, a key ally, would likely oppose such a move.
Military Limitations: Former Pentagon official Michael Rubin argues that Iran lacks the military capacity to sustain a closure for more than a few days, as U.S. naval forces could intervene.
Global Backlash: A closure would alienate major powers, including China and India, and invite international sanctions or military retaliation, further isolating Iran.
Analysts at Kpler assign a “very low probability” to a full blockade, citing these disincentives. Iran’s recent tactics, such as GPS jamming in the Strait rather than direct seizures, suggest a preference for disruption over outright closure.
What Investors Should Watch For
As tensions simmer, investors in energy markets should monitor the following developments in the coming days:
Security Council Decision: The Supreme National Security Council’s final verdict on the closure plan will be pivotal. Statements from Iranian leadership, particularly Supreme Leader Khamenei, could signal intent.
Oil Price Movements: Brent crude has already surged to $77 per barrel following the U.S. strikes. A further climb toward $90 or beyond could indicate market fears of an imminent closure.
Naval Activity: Reports of Iranian Navy or IRGC vessels maneuvering near the Strait, as noted in recent military channels, may escalate concerns. Conversely, U.S. or allied naval deployments could deter Iran.
Diplomatic Efforts: Watch for statements from China, India, or European nations urging de-escalation, as their economic stakes in the Strait are significant.
Alternative Routes: Monitor the utilization of bypass pipelines like Saudi Arabia’s Petroline or Iran’s Goreh-Jask pipeline, though their limited capacity may not mitigate a full closure.
Conclusion
The reported approval by Iran’s parliament to close the Strait of Hormuz, pending Security Council approval, underscores the fragility of global energy markets amid escalating U.S.-Iran tensions. While the threat is serious, Iran’s economic and military constraints make a sustained closure unlikely.
Nevertheless, even a brief disruption could spike oil prices, disrupt supply chains, and challenge exporters and importers alike. Investors should stay vigilant, tracking geopolitical signals and market indicators to navigate this high-stakes situation. As the world awaits Iran’s next move, the Strait of Hormuz remains a critical flashpoint for global energy security.
One primary concern for every United States Citizen is the potential for sleeper cell activation in the continental United States.
I would also like to express a concern about false flags. Our government has successfully implemented operations in the past, and this presents a perfect opportunity for different factions to attempt to create problems for the current administration. Trust nothing, and question everything.
Stay vigilant and tuned to Energy News Beat for updates on this developing story. If you see something, say something.
Is Oil & Gas Right for Your Portfolio?
Great report and analysis.
🥵mess.