American B-2 bombers flying near Iran under the guard of F-35 escorts were not challenged because, by the time anyone could have reacted, the most sensitive part of the mission was already over. The combination of stealth, electronic warfare and tightly choreographed regional partnerships left Iranian defenses with little to see, less to track and almost nothing they could safely shoot at.
What looked from the outside like a simple show of force was in reality a layered operation designed to deny Iran a clean targeting picture, limit escalation risks and quietly test how far U.S. and allied airpower could operate without triggering a fight.
The invisible core of the mission
The central reason nobody moved against the escorts is that the most valuable aircraft in the package, the B-2 Spirit, was engineered to be functionally invisible to the kind of radars Iran relies on. A senior U.S. officer has already described how Iranian systems simply did not detect B-2s during a recent operation, explaining that the bombers were able to approach and depart without appearing on the screens of the air defense network that was supposed to guard that airspace, a point underscored in detailed comments by a top US general. If the centerpiece of the formation is not seen, there is no obvious trigger for a challenge, and any escorts can operate in a supporting role rather than as bait for enemy fighters.
Stealth is not magic, but it is unforgiving to the defender: if radars are not positioned correctly, if operators are not trained to look for fleeting signatures, or if they hesitate to activate powerful emitters that might reveal their own locations, the window to react closes fast. In the Iran scenario, the B-2s appear to have exploited that gap, flying profiles that minimized exposure while the escorts managed the outer edges of the threat ring. By the time Iranian commanders could have pieced together what was happening, the bombers were already on their way out and any attempt to scramble fighters or light up long-range missiles would have risked exposing valuable assets for little chance of a successful intercept.
Why the F-35s were there at all
If the B-2s were so hard to see, it is fair to ask why they needed F-35 escorts in the first place. The answer lies in the way modern air campaigns are built around overlapping roles rather than single-platform heroics. The F-35 is not just a fighter, it is a sensor and electronic warfare node that can scout ahead, map emitters, and quietly suppress or confuse defenses that might otherwise get a lucky look at the bombers. U.S. officials and pilots have repeatedly framed the jet as a “quarterback” for other aircraft, and that is exactly how it functions when paired with a stealth bomber, providing a protective bubble that extends far beyond traditional close escort.
There is also a political and psychological dimension to putting F-35s on the wing of a B-2. The aircraft has become a symbol of high-end Western airpower, and its presence signals that Washington is willing to commit some of its most advanced assets to a mission. That symbolism has been highlighted in public messaging, including official posts that showcased how F-35s have escorted B-2s over U.S. territory in training, such as a formation over Washington, Missouri that was promoted as “peace through strength” in a widely shared F-35 escort photo. When that same pairing appears in a region as tense as the skies around Iran, it is meant to be noticed by governments and militaries, even if local radar operators never get a clean track.
Iran’s air defenses and the cost of a bad shot
Iran’s integrated air defense system is dense on paper, but it is also fragile in ways that matter when facing stealth aircraft. Long-range surface-to-air missile batteries and key radar sites are high-value targets that would almost certainly be at the top of any U.S. strike list if a confrontation escalated. Iranian commanders know that the moment they switch on their most capable sensors and start guiding missiles at a stealthy formation, they are also advertising their own positions to aircraft that specialize in hunting emitters. That tradeoff helps explain why, when B-2s and F-35s operate near their borders, the response is often caution rather than aggression.
There is also the risk of misidentification and the political cost of a miss. Firing on a target that later turns out to have been outside Iranian airspace, or hitting nothing at all after launching expensive missiles, would hand Washington a propaganda victory and potentially justify retaliatory strikes. Iranian leaders have lived through episodes where miscalculation in the air has had severe consequences, and that history encourages restraint when the picture is murky. In a scenario where stealth bombers are involved and escorts are designed to scramble the electromagnetic environment, the picture is almost guaranteed to be murky.
Allied F-35s and the regional message
The F-35s that accompany U.S. bombers near Iran are not always American. Israel has repeatedly flown its own F-35I Adir jets alongside U.S. bombers in what both countries describe as coordinated shows of force aimed at Tehran. In one high-profile example, Israeli F-35s escorted American bombers across the region in a mission explicitly framed as a signal to Iran, with the Israeli military publicizing images and flight paths that underscored how close the formation came to Iranian airspace, a detail that was highlighted when Israeli F-35 jets joined U.S. bombers on a regional flight.
Those joint flights matter because they complicate Iran’s calculus. Challenging an American bomber package that includes Israeli escorts would risk a confrontation not just with Washington but with Jerusalem, and it would do so in a context where both adversaries have superior situational awareness and strike options. The presence of allied F-35s also means that any Iranian attempt to probe the formation with fighters could be met by aircraft that already know the local airspace intimately and have trained for years against the specific threats Iran can field. That imbalance of capability and familiarity is another quiet reason why the escorts are rarely challenged.
Domestic debate versus operational reality
Back in the United States, the use of high-end assets like the F-35 and B-2 in missions around Iran has fed into a broader political argument about cost, strategy and risk. Critics of the current administration have questioned whether flying such expensive aircraft in tense regions is worth the potential for escalation, while supporters argue that visible strength deters conflict rather than inviting it. That debate has spilled into military and aviation communities, where some commentators have pointed out that the same politicians who question the F-35 program’s price tag are quick to rely on its capabilities when a crisis looms, a tension that has been discussed in detail in online forums such as a widely read aviation thread focused on the jet’s role in current operations.
From an operational standpoint, however, the logic is straightforward. If the United States wants to send a message to Iran without crossing the line into open conflict, it needs aircraft that can get close enough to matter while still retaining a decisive edge if something goes wrong. The B-2 and F-35 combination fits that requirement better than almost any other pairing in the inventory. The fact that these missions often conclude without a shot fired is not an argument against their value, it is evidence that the deterrent effect is working as intended, at least for now.
How the escorts shape the air picture
On a technical level, the F-35s guarding B-2s over or near Iran are doing far more than simply flying alongside the bombers. Their sensors are constantly building a three-dimensional map of the battlespace, detecting and classifying emitters, tracking aircraft and feeding that data back to the rest of the formation. In practice, that means the escorts often know more about what Iranian radars and fighters are doing than those forces know about the U.S. package they are trying to monitor. Analysts who have followed the program closely have emphasized how the jet’s fusion of radar, infrared and electronic support measures allows it to act as an information hub, a role that has been highlighted in specialist commentary and visual breakdowns shared by defense-focused observers, including detailed graphics circulated by accounts such as Pati Marins that illustrate how the aircraft manages the electromagnetic spectrum.
That information advantage directly affects Iran’s willingness to challenge the escorts. If Iranian pilots take off to intercept what they think is a bomber formation, they are likely flying into a battlespace where the F-35s already know their altitude, heading and weapons loadout, while the Iranians are still guessing about how many aircraft they are facing and where the B-2s actually are. In such a lopsided environment, the safest choice is often to shadow from a distance or stay on the ground, particularly when political leaders have signaled that they want to avoid giving Washington a pretext for a larger strike.
The culture of secrecy around stealth missions
One reason the public hears so little about these operations, and why myths quickly grow up around them, is the intense secrecy that still surrounds stealth missions. Official briefings tend to be sparse, focusing on broad messages rather than granular details about routes, tactics or timing. That vacuum is sometimes filled by enthusiasts and veterans who share anecdotes and reflections that hint at how these flights are planned and executed, including long-running personal blogs where former aircrew and analysts discuss the evolution of low-observable tactics and the mindset required to fly into heavily defended airspace, such as the reflections posted by an aviation writer on a site titled “Esteban vous salue”.
What emerges from those fragments is a picture of a community that is acutely aware of how quickly a mission near Iran could go wrong, and that plans accordingly. Routes are chosen to minimize exposure, timing is calibrated to exploit gaps in coverage, and every participant is drilled on what to do if a radar lights up or a missile battery starts to track. In that context, the absence of a challenge to F-35 escorts is not a mystery so much as the expected outcome of a system designed to deny the adversary a clean shot at any point in the mission.
Why restraint is the rational choice
When I look at the pattern of flights involving B-2s and F-35s around Iran, what stands out is how often all sides appear to choose restraint over confrontation. For Washington and its allies, the goal is to demonstrate reach and resolve without triggering a war, which means keeping the bombers safe while avoiding unnecessary humiliation of Iranian forces. For Tehran, the priority is to preserve its air defenses and avoid a clash it is unlikely to win, especially against aircraft that can strike from outside the range of many of its systems. In that balance, letting a stealthy formation pass unchallenged can be the least bad option.
That does not mean the situation is stable or risk free. Each mission tests the edges of what Iran will tolerate, and each unchallenged flight may encourage planners in Washington, Jerusalem or elsewhere to push a little closer next time. Yet as long as the B-2 remains hard to see and the F-35 continues to tilt the information balance in favor of the escorts, the structural incentives will keep pointing toward caution on the Iranian side. The quiet reality behind the dramatic images of bombers and stealth fighters near Iran is that the most effective show of force is often the one that never forces the other side to pull the trigger.
More from MorningOverview