On June 21, 2025 (US time), the United States launched a bold and unprecedented military operation, bombing three of Iran's key nuclear facilities, Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. This marked the first direct U.S. attack on Iranian soil, escalating the ongoing Israel-Iran war that ignited on June 13, 2025. The strikes, executed with B-2 stealth bombers and Tomahawk missiles, aimed to cripple Iran's nuclear program, a long-standing concern for both Washington and Tel Aviv. As the dust settles, the world grapples with the implications: What exactly happened? How will this reshape the regional conflict? And can it truly halt Iran's nuclear ambitions? This blog post explores these questions, offering a comprehensive assessment of the strikes, their significance for the war, and their impact on Iran's nuclear future. It updates some of the earlier pieces at the blog today.

The Strikes: What Happened?

The U.S. operation targeted Iran's nuclear infrastructure with surgical precision, hitting three critical sites:

Fordo: A fortified, mountain-encased uranium enrichment facility, designed to withstand conventional attacks. The U.S. deployed B-2 bombers armed with GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators, or "bunker busters," capable of penetrating deep underground.

Natanz: Iran's primary enrichment hub, where aboveground fuel production and electrical systems were devastated, likely disabling thousands of centrifuges due to power disruptions.

Isfahan: A nuclear research centre, also struck, though its role in enrichment is less significant.

President Donald Trump, in a televised address, hailed the operation as a "spectacular military success," claiming the facilities were "completely and totally obliterated." The Pentagon confirmed the use of 30 Tomahawk missiles launched from Navy submarines, alongside the B-2 sorties, in close coordination with Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was briefed before and after the strikes, underscoring the U.S.-Israel alliance.

Iran, however, painted a different picture. The Atomic Energy Organization acknowledged the attacks but insisted no radioactive contamination occurred and off-site damage was minimal. Crucially, Iran claimed it had relocated enriched uranium stockpiles prior to the strikes, mitigating losses. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the U.S. action as "outrageous," warning of "everlasting consequences" and reserving the right to retaliate under the U.N. Charter. Iran's threats include targeting U.S. bases in Bahrain, Qatar, or Iraq and potentially disrupting the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for global oil.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) provided a more balanced assessment, confirming significant damage to Natanz's aboveground infrastructure and centrifuge cascades, with lesser impact at Fordo due to its underground fortifications. No radiological leaks were detected, but Iran's nuclear agency vowed to rebuild, signalling defiance.

The strikes followed Israel's surprise attack on June 13, which killed over a dozen Iranian nuclear scientists and senior military officials, escalating tensions after the IAEA declared Iran non-compliant in May 2025 for amassing 409 kg of 60% enriched uranium, enough for multiple bombs if enriched to 90%. Trump, initially favouring diplomacy, pivoted to military action after a June 8 briefing highlighted the nuclear threat, despite pushback from isolationist MAGA allies.

Significance for the Ongoing War

The U.S. strikes have transformed a regional conflict into a potential global flashpoint, with far-reaching consequences:

1.Escalation of Hostilities: The Israel-Iran war, already marked by tit-for-tat missile and drone attacks (e.g., Iran's Operation True Promise III), now involves a superpower. Iran's vowed retaliation risks drawing in U.S. allies hosting American troops, such as Gulf states, or even Hezbollah and Houthi proxies, though their capacity is weakened. Civilian tolls are mounting, over 430 dead in Iran, 24 in Israel, and both sides' targeting of oil and energy infrastructure raises environmental and economic alarms.

2.Global Economic Ripples: Brent crude surged 14% to $78.50 post-strikes, with fears of Iranian action in the Strait of Hormuz, which carries 20% of global oil, pushing prices toward $120–$130 per barrel. Such a spike could strain economies worldwide, particularly in energy-dependent regions like Europe and Asia.

3.Diplomatic Fallout: European efforts to de-escalate have collapsed, and Iran's threat to exit the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) could undermine global non-proliferation norms. Latin American leaders, like Mexico's, have called for dialogue, but the U.S.'s unilateral action, without congressional approval, has sparked domestic criticism. Democrats, led by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and some Republicans, like Rep. Thomas Massie, decry the lack of authorisation, while hawks like Senators Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz back the strikes.

4.U.S. Domestic Politics: Trump's base is fractured, with isolationists like Steve Bannon uneasy about entanglement, contrasting with neoconservative support. The strikes, a defining moment in Trump's second term, could shape his foreign policy legacy amid legal and political scrutiny.

Can the Strikes Prevent a Revived Nuclear Program?

The ultimate question is whether the U.S. strikes can derail Iran's nuclear ambitions. The answer is complex:

1.Short-Term Disruption: The strikes have undoubtedly set back Iran's program. Natanz's damaged infrastructure and centrifuge losses could delay enrichment by months, extending the "breakout time" needed for weapons-grade uranium. Israel's prior assassination of nuclear scientists further hampers expertise. However, Iran's claim of relocating uranium stockpiles suggests it retains material for 9–10 bombs if enriched further.

2.Long-Term Resilience: Experts, including the IAEA, emphasise that Iran's nuclear program is too dispersed and hardened to be eradicated by airstrikes alone. Fordo's underground design and Iran's pre-emptive evacuations limited the strikes' impact. Historical examples, like Israel's 1981 Osirak strike on Iraq, show that such attacks delay but rarely eliminate nuclear programs. Iran's insistence on rebuilding, coupled with its retained "nuclear knowhow," underscores this resilience.

3.Risk of Weaponisation: Paradoxically, the strikes may push Iran closer to a bomb. The psychological and political impact, amplified by regional tensions from the Gaza war, could prompt Iran to exit the NPT and openly weaponise, viewing a nuclear deterrent as essential. U.S. intelligence suggests Iran could produce a crude bomb in months, though a reliable delivery system might take years. The strikes' failure to destroy uranium stockpiles leaves this threat intact.

4.Diplomatic Dead End: The strikes have shattered prospects for near-term negotiations, with Iran withdrawing from talks post-Israel's June attacks. A long-term deal, as floated by Israeli officials, would require U.S.-led diplomacy with rigorous inspections, but current escalations make this improbable. Sustained pressure, through strikes, sanctions, and covert operations, may be needed to deter rebuilding, but this risks perpetual conflict.

The U.S. bombing of Iran's nuclear sites on June 21, 2025, is a pivotal moment, aligning Washington with Israel's campaign to thwart Iran's nuclear aspirations. While the strikes inflicted significant damage, Iran's fortified facilities, relocated stockpiles, and defiant posture suggest only a temporary setback. The Israel-Iran war, now a broader regional crisis, risks spiralling into a prolonged conflict with global economic and diplomatic fallout. Rather than neutralising Iran's nuclear program, the strikes may accelerate its weaponisation absent an unlikely diplomatic breakthrough. Iran is preparing its inevitable retaliation.