Israel's role in Midnight Hammer?
Executive summary
Israel played a consequential, preparatory and catalytic role in the chain of events that preceded and shaped Operation Midnight Hammer: its June 13 campaign, Operation Rising Lion, struck Iranian nuclear and military targets and—by multiple accounts—degraded Iran’s air defenses and intelligence posture in the days before the U.S. strike nine days later, creating the conditions for the U.S. operation [1] [2] [3]. Exactly how much of Midnight Hammer was planned in coordination with Israel versus independently decided by Washington remains contested and constrained by classified operational detail in available reporting [4] [5].
1. Israel opened the kinetic phase with Operation Rising Lion and hit key nuclear nodes
Israeli forces launched Operation Rising Lion on June 13, striking Tehran and several nuclear and military sites including heavy damage to Natanz and hits on Isfahan that Israeli sources framed as preemptive and aimed at Iran’s nuclear and IRGC infrastructure [1] [6] [3].
2. Israeli strikes altered the battlefield and prompted U.S. entry nine days later
Reporting across outlets places the U.S. Operation Midnight Hammer roughly nine days after Israel’s initial assaults, with analysts characterizing the U.S. action as occurring within a campaign context Israel had already opened—an escalation in which the U.S. targeted Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan after Israeli strikes had already struck parts of the same nuclear campus [1] [7] [8].
3. Israeli suppression of Iranian air defenses is reported as a direct enabler
Multiple accounts report that in the 48 hours before Midnight Hammer the Israel Air Force conducted strikes to neutralize or disrupt Iranian air defense systems in southern Iran, actions U.S. reporting and regional press say reduced Iran’s ability to contest follow‑on strikes and thus assisted the U.S. strike package’s freedom of action [2] [3].
4. Intelligence-sharing and diplomatic pressure: claimed but partly disputed elements
Several sources and commentators assert that Israel provided intelligence and political pressure that shortened U.S. timelines—U.S. and Israeli leaders were in close contact and some U.S. officials described Israeli urgency to strike quickly—yet public reporting also notes that many operational specifics were tightly held and that direct attribution of specific intelligence products or detailed tasking remains unverified in open sources [5] [9] [4].
5. Partnership rhetoric and competing narratives—who “enabled” whom?
U.S. and Israeli officials, friendly commentators and some lawmakers framed the two campaigns as complementary: Israel’s Rising Lion generated immediate tactical effects while the U.S. Midnight Hammer delivered heavier ordnance (including reported B‑2 and Tomahawk strikes) against the same nuclear infrastructure, with some U.S. domestic voices describing Israel as “essential” to the operation [6] [9] [3]. But independent analysts and regional writers emphasize a cascade effect—Israeli strikes “activated a network” of regional responses and created the political-military conditions for a U.S. choice to strike—leaving open whether the U.S. would or would not have acted absent Israeli moves [10] [11].
6. Operational facts, limits of public reporting, and alternative readings
Open-source accounts converge on the sequence: Israeli strikes on June 13, U.S. Midnight Hammer on June 21–22 targeting Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan with a large strike package (reports cite seven B‑2s, Tomahawks and over 125 aircraft), and reporting that Israel conducted pre‑strikes against air defenses in the 48 hours before Midnight Hammer [7] [3] [2]. Yet the precise division of labor—what intelligence Israel supplied, what targeting options were U.S. decisions, and whether Israel “forced” U.S. timing—remains a matter of competing claims in political messaging and is constrained by classified operational details that NPR and other outlets note were closely held [4] [5].
7. Implications and the political dimension
Beyond the tactical dimension, commentators warn that Israeli initiation and subsequent U.S. escalation have strategic consequences: they reduced Iran’s defensive posture, intensified regional proxy rhetoric and risked broader retaliation while producing debate in the U.S. about authorization and alliance management—an interplay of military enablement and political signaling that many sources identify as central to understanding Israel’s role [10] [11] [12].