US Strike on Iran
On June 22, 2025, US warplanes flew over Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, sparking a firestorm of geopolitical consequences. President Trump praised the operation as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, claiming that the sites were “completely and utterly obliterated.”
Iran’s leaders have vowed retaliation, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warning of “eternal consequences.” Building on Israel’s previous strikes, the United States’ intervention represents a pivotal moment in a decades-long standoff.
For readers seeking clarity on this complex crisis, this article reviews the historical roots, technical details, global reactions, expert insights, and unanswered questions surrounding the strikes, providing a comprehensive analysis of what happened and what lies ahead.
Roots of the nuclear standoff between the United States, Iran, and Israel
Tensions between the United States, Iran, and Israel date back decades. However, the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [JCPOA] offered some hope for stability. The agreement limited Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief and allowed international inspections at sites such as Fordow and Natanz.
In 2018, the United States withdrew, reimposing sanctions that devastated Iran’s economy. Iran retaliated by accelerating uranium enrichment to 60% purity by 2025, dangerously close to the 90% required for weapons-grade material, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA].
Israel, seeing Iran’s nuclear development as a direct threat, launched covert operations and cyberattacks, culminating in Operation Rising Lion on June 13, 2025. That campaign targeted Natanz and Isfahan, killing high-ranking Iranian officials and scientists.
Diplomatic efforts failed, with US-Iran talks in Oman and Italy collapsing in the spring of 2025. On May 31, 2025, the IAEA declared Iran non-compliant due to undeclared enrichment activities. These events laid the groundwork for the US strikes, as years of mistrust erupted into direct military action.
An analysis of the US airstrikes follows.
On June 22, 2025, at 3 a.m. local time, US forces targeted three key components of Iran’s nuclear program: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Each site has a distinct purpose.
Fordow, located 80–90 meters beneath a mountain near Qom, houses advanced centrifuges for uranium enrichment, making it Iran’s most fortified site.
Natanz, 140 miles south of Tehran, houses thousands of centrifuges in partially underground halls, producing the majority of Iran’s near-weapons-grade uranium. Isfahan, a sprawling research complex, facilitates uranium conversion and reactor development.
The United States sent six B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, each carrying two GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators, 30,000-pound bombs designed to penetrate fortified targets.
These “bunker-busters” can penetrate 18 meters of concrete or 61 meters of earth, but experts doubt their ability to reach Fordow’s deepest chambers. Navy submarines launched 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Natanz and Isfahan, targeting surface infrastructure.
A senior US official stated that Isfahan’s fortified design presented special obstacles that required precise intelligence. Israel provided critical reconnaissance and coordination but did not participate in the strikes.
Trump claimed that the operation destroyed Iran’s nuclear capacity, claiming that “a full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow…” Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency acknowledged the attacks but maintained that no significant damage had occurred, with deputy broadcaster Hassan Abedini claiming, “The enriched uranium reserves had been transferred from the nuclear centers.”
There are no independent damage assessments, and there are ongoing concerns about radioactive or chemical leaks, despite Saudi Arabia’s report of no regional contamination.
Official Reactions: A global chorus of voices.
On June 21, 2025, President Donald Trump addressed the nation from the White House, flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
“Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely obliterated,” he declared, warning Tehran that retaliation “will be met with far greater force than what was witnessed tonight.”
He emphasized Fordow’s destruction on Truth Social, saying, “This is a historic moment for the United States of America, Israel, and the world.”
Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, condemned the strikes as “outrageous” and a violation of international law, saying, “Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interests, and people.”
Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization described the attack as a “brutal assault” and pledged to continue nuclear work. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reportedly in a secure bunker, promised “severe punishment” but made no immediate response.
Hossein Shariatmadari, a hardline editor, urged missile strikes on US naval assets in Bahrain and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, citing a Quranic call to “Kill them wherever you shall overtake them.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Trump’s “bold decision,” claiming that “your bold decision to target Iran’s nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history.” President Isaac Herzog echoed this, describing the strikes as critical to global security.
Russia’s Dmitry Peskov warned of a “catastrophe” if nuclear materials were mishandled, while China’s Foreign Ministry urged diplomacy to keep energy markets stable.
European nations, including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, expressed “deep concern” and urged a de-escalation. Saudi Arabia and Oman urged restraint, while Cuba’s President Miguel Díaz-Canel saw the strikes as a potential source of conflict. South Korea convened security talks, concerned about economic consequences.
International institutions: Alerts and appeals
UN Secretary-General António Guterres described the strikes as a “dangerous escalation” and urged “maximum restraint” to prevent a regional war. The US vetoes blocked Russian and Chinese proposals, stalling Security Council meetings on June 20.
IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi expressed deep concern, stating, “Nuclear facilities must never be attacked, regardless of the circumstances.”
He withdrew inspectors from Iran for safety reasons and offered to assess the damage, warning that strikes could cause “a sharp degradation in nuclear safety and security.” Grossi confirmed that there were no radiological leaks, but he warned about risks in Isfahan, a key research hub.
NATO adopted a passive stance, expressing no intention to become involved. Iran-backed Houthi groups in Yemen have vowed to attack US warships, with official Hizam al-Assad stating that “Trump must bear the consequences.” Hezbollah signalled “full mobilization,” raising the possibility of proxy attacks.
Expert insights: Measuring the strikes’ impact.
Analysts provide nuanced perspectives on the strike’s effectiveness. Grossi of the IAEA noted that Israel’s June 13 attacks on Natanz likely disrupted power to thousands of centrifuges, but Fordow’s fortifications limit similar success.
“There is a great probability that approximately 14,000 operational centrifuges located at one of the underground halls have been severely damaged if not destroyed altogether,” he told the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Former US nonproliferation official Gary Samore cautioned that airstrikes merely postpone nuclear programs, not eradicate them.
“Israel’s 1981 strike at Iraq’s Osirak reactor led to a covert program that went undetected until 1991,” he said, suggesting Iran could rebuild quickly if materials were preserved.
Former British defense expert Hamish de Bretton-Gordon argued that Fordow’s strikes most likely killed workers but did not pose a regional radiation risk because the site focused on enrichment rather than reactors.
“Uranium and its byproducts are harmful on contact, but they won’t cause widespread fallout,” the scientist told NBC News.
Vali Nasr from Johns Hopkins
Vali Nasr from Johns Hopkins warned that Trump’s demand for “unconditional surrender” damages chances for peaceful diplomacy. Moreover, he suggested it might drive Iran to build a nuclear deterrent for its security.
Toby Dodge of the London School of Economics, meanwhile, questioned whether demolishing Iran’s Fordow facility was feasible. He noted that even GBU-57 bombs may struggle to penetrate 90 meters of solid rock.
Additionally, former diplomats Daniel Kurtzer and Stephen Simon raised concerns about targeting Fordow directly. They argued such actions could pull the U.S. into regime-change efforts, which most Americans strongly oppose.
Kelsey Davenport of the Arms Control Association highlighted the loss of IAEA oversight. “With Iran on the threshold of nuclear weapons, inspections are critical for ensuring that there is no diversion of nuclear material,” according to her.
David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security said Israel’s capture of Iran’s nuclear files could support precise strikes. He stressed that only a diplomatic deal with strong inspections can truly stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions in the long term.
Comparison of Iran’s nuclear sites: Before and After
This table highlights the strategic role and resilience of each site. Fordow’s depth complicates the US claims of destruction. Natanz’s size makes it an obvious target, but underground halls may have survived. Isfahan’s surface exposure makes strikes easier but results in lower strategic losses.
The consequences of Iran’s nuclear program
The aim of the strikes is to hinder Iran’s capacity to generate weapons-grade uranium. According to IAEA reports from May 2025, Iran could enrich enough material for a bomb in less than a week if Fordow continued to operate.
The timeline could extend by several months if the strikes damage Fordow’s centrifuges. However, Iran’s claim to have relocated enriched uranium suggests resilience. Experts such as Samore warn about covert sites, citing Iran’s history of concealing facilities until 2002.
Israel’s June attacks have already targeted Iran’s nuclear scientists, exposing them to additional losses and potentially jeopardizing their expertise.
However, the program’s dispersed nature (more than 30 facilities, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative) complicates total disruption. Analysts believe a secret “Plan Kabir” could accelerate hidden enrichment.
Iran’s Potential Retaliation Strategies
Iran promised swift retaliation. Araghchi’s “all options” warning includes missile strikes on US bases in Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE, which are home to 40,000 US troops.
Closing the Strait of Hormuz, which transports 30% of global oil, could disrupt markets. On June 22, Iran launched ballistic missiles at Israel, killing at least three people and signaling its intentions.
Proxy groups pose additional threats. Houthi rebels targeted US warships in the Red Sea, and Hezbollah’s “full mobilization” may result in border clashes with Israel.
Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria, which were responsible for a 2024 attack that killed three US soldiers, could escalate. People also view cyberattacks on US infrastructure as a cost-effective form of retaliation.
Regional and global economic impacts
Oil prices rose by 6–11% following Israel’s June 13 strikes, and US involvement could push Brent crude above $100 per barrel. If disruptions continue, the International Monetary Fund predicts a 0.5% drop in global growth in 2025, potentially leading to stagflation.
Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which rely on stable energy markets, urged caution to avoid supply chain disruptions.
The United States is experiencing domestic economic pressure. According to a Washington Post poll, 45% of Americans are opposed to the strikes, citing concerns about rising fuel costs and war fatigue.
Congressional critics, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, described the operation as “grounds for impeachment,” citing a lack of authorization.
Iran’s Domestic Political Dynamics
The strikes sparked patriotic sentiment in Iran, with state-run media broadcasting rallies. Social media posts on X depict Iranians banding together against “Western aggression,” bolstering the regime’s grip. However, urban youth and opposition groups, who are already frustrated by economic hardship, may use civilian casualties to fuel dissent.
Israel’s attacks in June claimed over 200 lives, including 70 in a residential strike that sparked outrage. Continued losses could undermine regime stability, but analysts doubt a near-term collapse.
Diplomatic Pathways and Global Powers
The United States signaled limited intent by contacting Iran through diplomatic channels to clarify that regime change was not its goal. However, Trump’s demand for peace on US terms dims the prospects for negotiations. Iran cancelled a meeting in Oman on June 15, and Araghchi expressed doubts about the United States’ intentions.
Russia and China could strengthen Tehran’s defenses. Moscow’s Maria Zakharova cast doubt on the strikes, asking, “What if they miss by a millimeter?” China, reliant on Iranian oil, may push for UN sanctions, though U.S. veto power makes that unlikely. European diplomats, led by France and Germany, met Iranian officials in Geneva on June 20 but achieved no progress.
Media narratives and public opinion
Western outlets like The New York Times and CNN highlighted the precision of U.S. military strikes. Iranian media, including IRNA, portrayed the strikes as a violation of national sovereignty.
Russian coverage focused on civilian risks, reflecting strong anti-U.S. sentiment. On X, Trump supporters celebrated the operation’s success.
Many global users voiced concern, with one post warning, “This could lead to World War III.” Public opinion in the United States remains divided. A Washington Post poll found that 30% of Americans were unsure about the strikes, indicating concern about long-term costs.
In Iran, state-controlled narratives predominate, but underground dissent on platforms such as Telegram suggests growing discontent.
Unanswered questions drive uncertainty.
Please clarify whether the strikes significantly impacted Iran’s nuclear program. We cannot confirm the damage without IAEA inspections. Could Iran have secret facilities like it did before 2002? Will Tehran launch direct attacks on US assets or rely on proxies?
How will the situation affect global nonproliferation efforts, particularly since Russia and China support Iran? Can diplomacy maintain peace, or is a larger war inevitable? These questions remain, shaping the volatile path ahead.
The most recent news has been released.
The United States warns that Iran may retaliate within 48 hours of airstrikes on its nuclear sites, with Pentagon forces on high alert. Missile defense systems, such as THAAD and Aegis destroyers, are used to counter threats.
F-22 and F-35 fighter jets are stationed in Qatar and Turkey for air superiority. Cyber defenses are also preparing for potential Iranian attacks on US infrastructure. Learn more about the Pentagon’s warning.
References
- Naval News—US Airstrikes on Iranian Nuclear Sites
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Statements
- BBC—US Attacks on Iran’s Nuclear Infrastructure
- Al Jazeera—Iran Vows Retaliation After Strikes
- The New York Times – Analysis of the US-Iran Conflict
- Reuters—Trump Says Fordow Obliterated
- CNN – Global Fallout from US Strike on Iran
- Washington Post—Public Opinion on Iran Strikes
- Arms Control Association—Iran Nuclear Program Update
- Institute for Science and International Security
