CLEMENT MANYATHELA: Was Operation Midnight Hammer a success or a spectacular failure?

   Listen to the full commentary below:

Was it a success or a failure? Success in terms of the actual damage caused by US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities and success in terms of opening up diplomatic channels. 

Iran says its nuclear infrastructure, especially Fordow, which is Iran’s most important nuclear enrichment facility, it’s buried deep inside a mountain to guard it from attacks. The attacks didn’t obliterate it, as Donald Trump claimed. Some officials have downplayed the impact. The Pentagon stated that it’s still awaiting a damage assessment. 

Insofar as diplomacy is concerned, Iran believes the US actions have betrayed diplomacy. The US, by the way, now says diplomacy must take over; it has no plans to launch more strikes. 

But the question is, what does Iran do now? Should it retaliate? And if it retaliates, does it retaliate against the US or Israel? 

What does retaliation look like for Iran? They control some militia in the region, which are near US bases, in the Middle East. Is that the way to go? America said if they retaliate, they will regret it. 

And why did America get involved at this stage? What threat was America facing? That’s why I asked, was this action backed by American foreign policy or by pressure from Benjamin Netenyahu? You don’t just intervene militarily in a sovereign state unless that decision is grounded in facts. For instance, does the US have information that the supreme leaders in Iran have ordered weaponisation? America says that question is irrelevant. Really? If US intelligence has not indicated that Iran has made a decision to build a nuclear weapon, what is this attack then grounded on? 

Here is Benjamin. Thanking Trump for attacking Iran. 

Let’s get some context. 

Benjamin Netanyahu has been claiming for years that Iran is close to producing an unclear weapon - in 1996, 2002, 2012, 2015, and again on 12th June 2025.

He has been saying the same thing since 1996, guys. 

Okay. Maybe you are wondering. Maybe he is right this time around. Well, let’s hear from the US’s intelligence director, Tulsi Gabbard: She had said that the US clearly has no evidence that Iran is building a weapon. She has since come out to say the media misquoted her, because the Trump administration clearly had different views from hers. 

Now, the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio was asked yesterday, during a TV show, whether America had intelligence that the supreme leader ordered weaponisation.

So, what did America rely on to make this decision to attack Iran? And I am asking this, and we have to be careful, because it’s the same America that claimed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. 20 years later, did they ever find those weapons of mass destruction? Or was that used to justify the invasion? 

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Rafael Mariano Grossi and his team have monitored nuclear sites in Iran. Remember, having nuclear facilities is not prohibited, so you can have the capability; the problem is when you weaponise it. 

He spoke yesterday on CNN. And said they didn’t have information that Iran planned to weaponise nuclear facilities.

So even the IAEA said there is no conclusive, credible evidence of a nuclear weapon. 

I think there are legitimate concerns about Iran’s nuclear activity. It has recently expanded rapidly, with 60% 60%-enrichment. And the question is, why did they escalate so rapidly? Because 60% is far beyond what you need for peaceful nuclear energy. 

There was an international concern about this. As I said, enriching uranium is not forbidden. However, when you are the only country in the world that enriches 60% of its population and continues to do so, it’s a concern. Connotation occurs when there is a resolution against them or an attack, or something they dislike; they respond by enriching themselves further. This dynamic is not healthy. 

But the Trump administration walked away from a deal with Iran back in 2018, which had been negotiated by Barack Obama. 

Some people are now saying, Ukraine gave up nukes and got invaded.

Saddam Sussain gives up nukes, gets invaded and executed. 

Gaddafi gave up chemical weapons and got invaded. 

Do you think Iran is going to give us its nuclear programmes, given these attacks? 

Will we suddenly see a regime change in Iran? Cause the US and Israel say the current one is oppressive and dangerous. 

Economic sanctions by the West were not enough leverage for Iran to give up its nuclear weapons; now, military force has been used. 

Naive to think this is going to change Iran’s viewpoint and lead to unconditional surrender. 

Would Iran be stupid to leave those assets vulnerable? 

I doubt this will bring Iran to the negotiating table.