In a dramatic escalation of the simmering conflict between Iran and Israel, the United States launched precision airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities last night, targeting sites critical to Tehran’s uranium enrichment programme.
The operation, described by President Donald Trump as a “spectacular military success,” has thrust the Middle East into a perilous new phase, with Iran vowing retaliation and the international community scrambling to avert a wider war.
The strikes, which occurred in the early hours of Sunday, hit the heavily fortified Fordo facility, buried deep beneath a mountainside south of Tehran, as well as the Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites. These locations are central to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, with Fordo’s underground centrifuges capable of enriching uranium to levels approaching weapons-grade.
The US deployed B-2 stealth bombers, armed with 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator “bunker-buster” bombs, alongside Tomahawk missiles launched from Navy submarines. The Pentagon has yet to release detailed assessments, but Trump claimed the facilities were “completely and totally obliterated,” a statement met with scepticism by some analysts.
Iranian officials confirmed the attacks but downplayed their impact. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran described the strikes as a “barbaric violation” of international law, insisting that no significant damage was inflicted. State media reported that key materials had been evacuated from the sites in anticipation of an attack, a claim echoed by Hassan Abedini, deputy political director of Iran’s state broadcaster, who said the country “didn’t suffer a major blow.”
Yet, the scale of the US operation—coordinated closely with Israel, according to Israeli officials—suggests a deliberate intent to cripple Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
The strikes mark the first direct US military action against Iran, a move that follows more than a week of Israeli airstrikes aimed at degrading Tehran’s air defences and missile capabilities. Israel’s campaign, launched on June 13th, was framed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a pre-emptive effort to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Iran, which maintains that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, responded with missile and drone attacks on Israeli cities, wounding dozens and killing at least 24, according to Israeli authorities.
Trump’s decision to intervene has divided opinion, even among his supporters. While House Speaker Mike Johnson praised the operation as a demonstration of “peace through strength,” some within the MAGA movement, wary of foreign entanglements, expressed unease. Senator Bernie Sanders, speaking at a rally in Oklahoma, condemned the strikes as an “act of war” undertaken without congressional approval, warning of a potential “escalatory spiral.”
Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi declared the attacks “outrageous” and promised “everlasting consequences,” reserving “all options” for retaliation.
The international response has been one of cautious alarm. The UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, reported no increase in radiation levels outside the targeted sites, alleviating fears of an immediate environmental disaster. Saudi Arabia, a regional rival of Iran, echoed this finding, noting no radioactive traces in Gulf states.
However, UN Secretary-General António Guterres called the strikes a “dangerous escalation,” urging all parties to pursue diplomacy. European foreign ministers, fresh from failed talks with Iran in Geneva, reiterated calls for Tehran to curb its nuclear programme, while South Korea convened an emergency meeting to assess the impact on global energy markets.
Iran now faces a stark choice. Doing nothing risks portraying the regime as weak, especially after its threats of “irreparable damage” should the US intervene. Yet, retaliatory strikes against US or Israeli targets could invite devastating counterattacks, given Iran’s already weakened military capabilities after nine days of conflict.
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner outlined three options: absorb the blow and seek diplomatic channels, launch limited strikes via proxies like the Houthis in Yemen, or risk a direct confrontation that could spiral into all-out war.
For Trump, the strikes are a high-stakes gamble. Having campaigned on keeping America out of costly Middle East conflicts, he now finds himself drawn into a war that could define his presidency. His rhetoric, blending triumphalism with calls for peace, reflects the tightrope he walks. “Iran must now make peace,” he said, warning of “far greater” attacks if Tehran retaliates.
Whether this show of force leads to negotiations or further bloodshed remains uncertain, but the Middle East braces for an unpredictable future.
As dawn broke over Tehran, residents voiced fears of what lies ahead. “We worry about our country, about our children,” one posted on social media, reflecting a nation caught between defiance and dread. For now, the world watches, hoping the region can step back from the brink.
