Who is General Dan Caine, the ‘architect' of US airstrikes on Iran?

The American strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities came after a week of conflict between Israel and the Islamic Republic. General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was a key architect of 'Operation Midnight Hammer', according to several US officials and people familiar with the deliberations. Although he had largely remained out of the spotlight, he has emerged as an influential figure behind the scenes read more
Caine is the 22nd Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Reuters/File Photo
The US joined forces with Israel in the most significant Western military move against Iran since its 1979 Islamic Revolution, despite appeals from across the globe urging caution and a return to talks.
The American strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities came after a week of open fighting between Israel and Tehran.
Read latest updates about America joining Israel-Iran war here.
General Dan Caine , chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the US carried out strikes using 75 precision-guided weapons, including bunker-buster bombs and over two dozen Tomahawk missiles, targeting three Iranian nuclear facilities.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Caine and US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth addressed reporters at the Pentagon, describing the most serious military campaign of Donald Trump's presidency.
ALSO READ | Did US strikes destroy Iran's nuclear sites? Can it still build a nuclear bomb?
But who is Dan Caine, and what role did he play in the operation?
Here's a look:
Who is Dan Caine?
Caine was a major architect of 'Operation Midnight Hammer', several US officials and people familiar with the deliberations told The Wall Street Journal.
Though he had mostly stayed out of the spotlight, he has come out as an influential figure behind the scenes.
So, what do we know about him?
Caine is the 22nd Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the country's top-ranking military officer and the main military adviser to the President, the Secretary of Defence, and the National Security Council.
Before taking on this role on April 11, 2025, he served as Associate Director for Military Affairs at the Central Intelligence Agency.
Caine addressed reporters at the Pentagon, describing the most serious military campaign of Donald Trump's presidency. Reuters
Over the years, Caine has held several roles across operations, staff duties and joint commands. His background includes serving as an F-16 fighter pilot, weapons officer, White House staff member, and special operations officer.
He has also taken part in various leadership and security programmes, including courses at Harvard Kennedy School and Syracuse University's Maxwell School.
ALSO READ | Did US use Indian airspace to launch strikes on Iran's nuclear sites?
As a Command Pilot, Caine has flown more than 2,800 hours in F-16s, with over 150 hours in combat. Between 2009 and 2016, he served part-time in the National Guard while also working as an entrepreneur and investor.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
On September 11, 2001, he was one of the pilots deployed to guard the skies above Washington after the terror attacks. This was the first time fighter jets had been sent to defend the US capital.
He returned to active service and served as deputy commander in the US-led fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria from May 2018 to September 2019, according to his military biography.
The same biography also describes him as a 'serial entrepreneur and investor'.
What did he say during the briefing?
Wearing his military uniform, Caine gave a calm and detailed account of how the strikes on Iranian nuclear sites were carried out.
He called for patience and said that the battle damage assessment 'is still pending, and it would be way too early for me to comment on what may or may not still be there.'
Caine described the operation as a 'complex and high-risk mission' known only to a small group of people, and said it included the use of decoys to maintain secrecy.
.@TheJointStaff General Dan Caine outlines 'Operation Midnight Hammer' from the Pentagon this morning. You don't get better than General Caine, he is the best of the best, and the real deal—God Bless our United States Military, the GREATEST in the WORLD🌎🇺🇸🦅 pic.twitter.com/Tc2h2IMPPP — Dan Scavino (@Scavino47) June 22, 2025
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
As part of the plan, B-2 stealth bombers flew over the Pacific towards Guam on Saturday to divert attention, he said. The actual B-2 bombers used in the mission had already taken off earlier and flew under the cover of darkness for 18 hours to reach their target on Saturday night.
He said the B-2s flew nonstop and had to refuel several times mid-air, making it the fleet's longest mission since 2001.
According to Caine, 14 bunker-buster bombs were dropped in total, with the first two released at 2 am Iran time. The operation also involved a US submarine, which fired over two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles at key targets on the surface.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
He added that Iran did not launch fighter jets or surface-to-air missiles during the strike, a sign that it was likely caught off guard.
How Iran might respond remains uncertain. Possible actions could include attacks on US forces across West Asia, efforts to block a key oil route, or a move to accelerate its nuclear programme.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that it would be unwise for Iran to strike American bases in the region or the countries that host them.
With inputs from agencies

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Hindustan Times

32 minutes ago

• Hindustan Times

Iran oil doomsday in Hormuz may be more fear than reality: Bousso

, not 55km , in paragraph 8) Iran oil doomsday in Hormuz may be more fear than reality: Bousso * US strikes on Iran spur fear of disruption to Middle East oil exports * Iran able to block the Strait of Hormuz, has tried in the past * Disruptions likely to be met by swift response from US Navy By Ron Bousso LONDON, - U.S. strikes on several Iranian nuclear sites represent a meaningful escalation of the Middle East conflict that could lead Tehran to disrupt vital exports of oil and gas from the region, sparking a surge in energy prices. But history tells us that any disruption would likely be short-lived. Investors and energy markets have been on high alert since Israel launched a wave of surprise airstrikes across Iran on June 13, fearing disruption to oil and gas flows out of the Middle East, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint between Iran and Oman through which around 20% of global oil and gas demand flows. Benchmark Brent crude prices have risen by 10% to over $77 a barrel since June 13. While Israel and Iran have targeted elements of each other's energy infrastructure, there has been no significant disruption to maritime activity in the region so far. But President Donald Trump's decision to join Israel by bombing three of Iran's main nuclear sites in the early hours of Sunday could alter Tehran's calculus. Iran, left with few cards to play, could retaliate by hitting U.S. targets across the region and disrupting oil flows. While such a move would almost certainly lead to a sharp spike in global energy prices, history and current market dynamics suggest any move would likely be less damaging than investors may fear. CAN THEY DO IT? The first question to ask is whether Iran is actually capable of seriously disrupting or blocking the Strait of Hormuz. The answer is probably yes. Iran could attempt to lay mines across the Strait, which is 34 km wide at its narrowest point. The country's army or the paramilitary Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps could also try to strike or seize vessels in the Gulf, a method they have used on several occasions in recent years. Moreover, while Hormuz has never been fully blocked, it has been disrupted several times. During the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, the two sides engaged in the so-called "Tanker Wars" in the Gulf. Iraq targeted Iranian ships, and Iran attacked commercial ships, including Saudi and Kuwaiti oil tankers and even U.S. navy ships. Following appeals from Kuwait, then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan deployed the navy between 1987 and 1988 to protect convoys of oil tankers in what was known as Operation Earnest Will. It concluded shortly after a U.S. navy ship shot down Air Iran flight 655, killing all of its 290 passengers on board. Tensions in the strait flared up again at the end of 2007 in a series of skirmishes between the Iranian and U.S. navies. This included one incident where Iranian speedboats approached U.S. warships, though no shots were fired. In April 2023, Iranian troops seized the Advantage Sweet crude tanker, which was chartered by Chevron, in the Gulf of Oman. The vessel was released more than a year later. Iranian disruption of maritime traffic through the Gulf is therefore certainly not unprecedented, but any attempt would likely be met by a rapid, forceful response from the U.S. navy, limiting the likelihood of a persistent supply shock. HISTORY LESSON Indeed, history has shown that severe disruptions to global oil supplies have tended to be short-lived. Iraq's invasion of neighbouring Kuwait in August 1990 caused the price of Brent crude to double to $40 a barrel by mid-October. Prices returned to the pre-invasion level by January 1991 when a U.S.-led coalition started Operation Desert Storm, which led to the liberation of Kuwait the following month. The start of the second Gulf war between March and May 2003 was even less impactful. A 46% rally in the lead-up to the war between November 2002 and March 2003 was quickly reversed in the days preceding the start of the U.S.-led military campaign. Similarly, Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 sparked a sharp rally in oil prices to $130 a barrel, but prices returned to their pre-invasion levels of $95 by mid-August. These relatively quick reversals of oil price spikes were largely thanks to the ample spare production capacity available at the time and the fact that the rapid oil price increase curbed demand, says Tamas Varga, an analyst at oil brokerage PVM. Global oil markets were also rocked during the 1973 Arab oil embargo and after the 1979 revolution in Iran, when strikes on the country's oilfields severely disrupted production. But those did not involve the blocking of Hormuz and were not met with a direct U.S. military response. SPARE CACITY The current global oil market certainly has spare capacity. OPEC , an alliance of producing nations, today holds around 5.7 million barrels per day in excess capacity, of which Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates hold 4.2 million bpd. The concern today is that the vast majority of the oil from Saudi Arabia and the UAE is shipped via the Strait of Hormuz. The two Gulf powers could bypass the strait by oil pipelines, however. Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, producing around 9 million bpd, has a crude pipeline that runs from the Abqaiq oilfield on the Gulf coast in the east to the Red Sea port city of Yanbu in the west. The pipeline has capacity of 5 million bpd and was able to temporarily expand its capacity by another 2 million bpd in 2019. The UAE, which produced 3.3 million bpd of crude oil in April, has a 1.5 million bpd pipeline linking its onshore oilfields to the Fujairah oil terminal that is east of the Strait of Hormuz. But this western route could be exposed to attacks from the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen, who have severely disrupted shipping through the Suez Canal in recent years. Additionally, Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar currently have no clear alternatives to the strait. It is possible that Iran will choose not to take the dramatic step of blocking the strait in part because doing so would disrupt its own oil exports. Tehran may also consider any further escalation fruitless in light of U.S. involvement and will instead try to downplay the importance of the U.S. strikes and come back to nuclear negotiations. In the meantime, spooked energy markets, fearing further escalation, are apt to respond to the U.S. strikes with a sharp jump in crude prices. But even in a doomsday scenario where the Strait of Hormuz is blocked, history suggests markets should not expect any supply shock to be persistent. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest , your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn and X. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.

Mint

32 minutes ago

• Mint

‘US lost its credibility': China raps Donald Trump govt over attacks on Iran nuclear sites

China claimed the US attack on Iran's nuclear facilities had damaged the Donald Trump-led government's credibility and warned that the situation "may go out of control", its state broadcaster reported, following a UN Security Council meeting on Sunday. The US on Sunday bombed multiple nuclear sites of Iran, including Fordow, which is Iran's most important nuclear enrichment facility. President Donald Trump said the US had "obliterated" Tehran's main nuclear sites, joining Israel in the biggest Western military action against Iran since its 1979 revolution. The UN Security Council met on Sunday to discuss US strikes on Iran's nuclear sites. Russia, China and Pakistan urged the 15-member body to call for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in the Middle East, reported Reuters. China's UN Ambassador Fu Cong said the involved parties should avoid the "impulse of force, avoid exacerbating conflicts and adding fuel to the fire," as per the news report. Fu said parties, especially Israel, "should immediately cease fire to prevent the situation from escalating and avoid the spillover of war." Iran was hurt, but "the United States' credibility was also damaged - both as a country and as a participant in any international negotiations', Fu added. State media commentary late on Sunday said the US move was extremely dangerous and provocative. Reuters said, citing the Global Times newspaper, that the external military interference would never bring peace, and only "deepen regional hatred and trauma." Guo Jiakun, a spokesperson for China's foreign ministry, said on Monday that attacking nuclear facilities that were under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency was "a serious violation of the United Nations Charter," the news agency said. China has proposed to help strengthen communication and coordination with all parties, and restore peace in the Middle East, Guo said at a regular press briefing. Guo also said Chinese citizens in Iran who were willing to leave had all been evacuated to safe areas. With the help of China's foreign ministry, the Chinese embassy in Iran and other authorities, "3,125 Chinese citizens have been safely evacuated from Iran," Reuters reported, citing Guo. The evacuated residents are from Hong Kong and Taiwan. China considers democratically governed Taiwan as its own territory. In Israel, the Chinese embassy has organised the evacuation of more than 500 citizens from the country, reported the news agency.

The Print

32 minutes ago

• The Print

Will Russia & China back Iran after US strikes? They're quiet, calculating allies

The Russian foreign ministry, in a wordy statement , condemned American strikes on 'several nuclear facilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran.' Russia even reiterated its previous statement – that the US attack stood in 'violation of international law, the UN Charter, and relevant resolutions by the UN Security Council, which has consistently and unequivocally deemed such actions unacceptable.' How does this play out for powers like Russia and China, which have continued to speak out against any military action? In March this year, Russia, China, and Iran jointly stated that Tehran's nuclear programme is 'exclusively for peaceful purposes, and not for the development of nuclear weapons.' Israel's Operation Rising Lion seemed to be an independently led series of strikes against Iran. But after six bombers flew 18 hours to attack three nuclear sites in Iran, Israel's action now seems to have been part of a broader deception strategy—which the United States utilised to dismantle Iran's nuclear programme. In its call for peace, Russia further demanded 'an immediate end to aggression and for stepping up efforts to bring the situation back onto a peaceful, diplomatic track.' Russia's position on the crisis remains standard—calling for peace, negotiations, and diplomacy as effective channels for a resolution. Meanwhile, no part of Russia's statement claims direct intervention in the crisis, which must come as no surprise. Although a strategic partner of Iran, Russia's offerings have been more implicit, such as supporting Tehran's civilian nuclear programme or defence exports. While the Kremlin itself is fighting a war next door, it may still offer to play the role of a cardinal peacebroker between the US and Iran—and prove to be the most effective of all. Russia remains the best-suited friend for Iran in the present crisis. Moscow stands as Iran's most strategically placed partner in the region. It not only possesses deep regional expertise but has operated militarily and diplomatically across the Middle East for decades. And if Iran is to receive any meaningful backing against the US and its allies, it can come only from a capable nuclear power like Russia. A most unlikely situation. Meanwhile, as Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi proceeds to meet President Vladimir Putin, Russia could project a few probable security guarantees on Iran's behalf. This could include assurances against regime-change operations—an option President Donald Trump has openly considered on his social media—recognition of Iran's sovereignty and right to self-defence, and possible military non-aggression agreements brokered through multilateral channels. As for the United States and its allies, Russia may push for Iran's recommitment to nuclear limits under renewed international supervision, ending any proxy attacks on American and allied forces and perhaps securing more regional support for Iran. Aside from peace brokerage, Russia can offer its military-technical cooperation—which can include upgrading Iran's advanced air defence systems, sharing real-time satellite surveillance data to help Iran monitor US troop movements or detect incoming attacks, and providing space surveillance support. But what about this conflict's likely impact on Russia? It's less of a blow and more of an opportunity. As global crude oil prices surge, Moscow might return as the most reliable oil exporter globally. Second, there will likely be reduced American attention toward the Black Sea, Eastern Europe, and the Arctic—which are fundamental to the Kremlin's strategic vision for the region. It has also restored Russia's position in the global power lexicon, which had weakened after the Ukraine war. Also read: Trump tried to belittle India, but his Iran gamble has handed Modi unexpected diplomatic space China's response China, too, has condemned the attack, citing violation of the UN charter and international law. While this seems to be the standard response, Tehran values solidarity. China, however, would not directly engage in the conflict for two big reasons. First, Beijing likes to maintain strategic ambiguity over military risks and prefers to exert influence through diplomacy, economic leverage, and other indirect means. Directly confronting the US—whose prominence, mainly in terms of naval presence, has only grown—offers little advantage. Second, China's primary concern is energy stability. Direct involvement in a Gulf conflict would jeopardise its vital oil imports. While disruptions to Iranian oil exports would undoubtedly impact China, any direct military involvement would force Beijing to undertake a substantial and risky reconfiguration of its broader energy import strategy with other Gulf partners—which would be risky and unaffordable. However, there are other possible ways for Beijing to support Iran. While China avoids overt arms transfer to hot zones, it can covertly share technology that may include missile guidance technology, drones, cyber tactics, and so on. There was a strong role of space technology in the US's attacks on Iran, allowing it to strike nuclear bases with precision and without being detected. China could covertly offer limited space technology to support Iran, which Russia is also likely to offer. As permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Russia and China possess significant diplomatic influence that they can jointly utilise to advocate for Iran's position and pressure the UN to take meaningful actions. Meanwhile, the effectiveness of this diplomatic support against America's non-concessional stance on Tehran's nuclear ambitions remains to be seen. But both Russia and China are well-positioned to lead global efforts through multilateral institutions such as the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency. They can push for an international recognition of the potential radioactive and humanitarian consequences of further escalation, and urge a shift from punitive frameworks to preventive diplomacy. Rishi Gupta is a commentator on global affairs. Views are personal. (Edited by Zoya Bhatti)