Simplicius: Shayrat Redux? Trump's "Invisible" Fleet Leaves Mirage of "Devastation" in Iran📂 Archived Message
Posted by sashimi on June 23, 2025, 8:11 pm
23 Jun 2025
First, let us briefly overview how the strikes reportedly went down. Chatter erupted yesterday when B-2s and refueling craft took off from their homebase of Whiteman AFB and began tracking west toward Guam (for further refueling) and Diego Garcia. However, that "visible" strike package was the diversion, while the real package flew east from mainland US under complete cover, to hit Iran directly from its western flank.
In reality, the subterfuge appeared part of an elaborate game, given that emerging details point to the entire charade being just that.
There are various reports going around that through the usual Swiss back channels Trump's administration essentially informed Iran of the strikes, implying that as long as Iran does not respond it will be a 'one-off' attack. If true, this would be clear indication that the proposed back-channel agreement would require Iran to allow the US strike package to pass unharmed, and give the US its face-saving off-ramp from the conflict. This was one of the possibilities we predicted days ago in the premium article and now seems increasingly likely to be the case.
This is not Trump's first time: recall the infamous 2017 Tomahawk attack on Syria's Shayrat base which was billed as some kind of 'devastating' deathblow, when it turned out to be a show-strike nothingburger which left a few potholes on the runway and did no real damage. This is Trump's way of alleviating neocon pressure - a sort of purity test for his Israeli handlers.
But the big question is, what really happened: was the strike entirely fake, as some suggest? Recall that there is zero evidence any B-2s even flew over Iran, with the package including dozens of fired Tomahawk missiles from an Ohio class submarine 400 miles away. Many are now spouting off about the day's favored word of 'subsidence', caused by the bunker busters. But not all experts are convinced, like this ex-US artillery officer who knows a thing or two about shell craters:
Previous Message
Now that imagery has emerged, I think my take from last night is vindicated - the damage seen thus far is not consistent with extremely large "bunker-buster" bombs but with lighter standoff weapons that caused only surface damage. The Iranians also clearly had ample warning.
Now that imagery has emerged, I think my take from last night is vindicated - the damage seen thus far is not consistent with extremely large "bunker-buster" bombs but with lighter standoff weapons that caused only surface damage. The Iranians also clearly had ample warning.
It's possible the craters are merely from the submarine-launched Tomahawks, though they do look large enough to be from a much more powerful weapon.
My personal take, though, is that most likely a back-channel agreement was made for the B-2s to have safe passage to do a limited 'show strike'.
The evidence?
Firstly, the fact that it was a small strike, which even experts agree utilized far fewer MOPs (Mass Ordnance Penetrators) than required. The problem is, since half the operative B-2 fleet was used as 'diversion', the remaining half (7 x B-2s) could only carry 14 x total penetrators, and these had to be divided between several facilities including Natanz, on top of Fordow. That means Fordow only received six hits, far fewer than needed. For it to receive more, the B-2s would have had to do numerous runs, or extend the campaign - which could have gotten messily off-script. By signaling a 'token' strike, Trump likely mollified Iran into not responding.
The second piece of evidence is that - besides the various intel and rumors of back channel deals - new satellite imagery revealed that Iran had dozens of dump trucks carrying out "unusual activity" at Fordow two days before the attack: -- Cont'd at https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/shayrat-redux-trumps-invisible-fleet