In a dramatic escalation of regional tensions, the United States has directly intervened in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran, launching airstrikes against three key Iranian nuclear facilities. The attacks, announced by US President Donald Trump, mark the most direct American military action inside Iran in decades and have ignited fears of a wider regional war.
Here’s what we know so far:
Targets of the Strikes:
US forces, reportedly utilizing B-2 stealth bombers and “bunker buster” bombs, targeted three significant Iranian nuclear sites:
Fordow: A heavily fortified uranium enrichment site built deep into a mountain near Qom. This facility was a primary target, with President Trump claiming a “full payload of BOMBS was dropped” on it, suggesting a major attempt at destruction.
Natanz: Iran’s main enrichment site, located approximately 220 kilometers (135 miles) southeast of Tehran. This facility had already sustained damage from earlier Israeli airstrikes.
Isfahan: Home to three Chinese research reactors, laboratories, and a uranium conversion facility. This site was also previously hit by Israeli attacks.
These three sites are considered critical to Iran’s nuclear program, with Fordow and Natanz being the only two where Iran has been enriching uranium up to 60% purity.
Claimed Success and Intent: President Trump declared the operation “very successful” and a “historic moment for the United States, Israel, and the world.” He stated that all US planes had safely exited Iranian airspace.
The stated aim of the strikes is to cripple Tehran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon and to set back Iran’s nuclear program, potentially permanently.
Prior Israeli Operations and US Coordination: The US strikes followed more than a week of Israeli attacks on Iran, which Israel stated were aimed at eradicating Iranian air defenses, offensive missile capabilities, and damaging nuclear enrichment facilities.
Israeli public broadcaster Kan cited an anonymous Israeli official stating that Israel was “in full coordination with the US” during its attacks on Iran.
Damage Assessment and Iranian Claims:
Initial reports from the US and President Trump claimed “complete success” and that Fordow was “gone.”
However, satellite imagery and assessments from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) paint a more nuanced picture.
At Natanz, the above-ground Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP) and electrical infrastructure were reportedly destroyed. While there were “direct impacts” on the main underground enrichment halls, the damage was not total, and no radiological impact was detected outside the facility.
For Fordow, due to its deep underground location, the full extent of the damage remains unclear. There is no independent confirmation that the underground enrichment halls were completely destroyed.
At Isfahan, four buildings were damaged, including a central chemical laboratory, a uranium conversion facility, a reactor fuel manufacturing plant, and an enriched uranium metal processing facility under construction. No increase of off-site radiation levels was reported. The IAEA also reported earlier that a centrifuge manufacturing workshop at the Isfahan complex had been hit by Israel.
Iranian state media, citing officials from the country’s public broadcaster, claimed that “no materials in these three nuclear sites that cause radiation” were present, suggesting that enriched uranium may have been removed before the bombings.
The US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities on June 21, 2025, have irrevocably altered the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, pushing an already volatile region to the brink of a wider, more devastating conflict. While the immediate aftermath is characterized by uncertainty and frantic diplomatic efforts, several trends are emerging that will shape the coming months and years.
Despite President Trump’s assertions of “total annihilation” of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Iranian officials have downplayed the damage, claiming many critical materials were relocated. While the full extent of the destruction at deeply buried sites like Fordow remains to be independently verified, it’s clear the attacks have not “ended” Iran’s nuclear program, but rather provoked a new phase of its evolution.
Iran’s immediate response has been a mix of calculated retaliation and defiant rhetoric. Waves of missiles and drones have been launched at Israel, with Tehran vowing “more devastating” responses if attacks continue. There’s a strong likelihood Iran will:
Intensify Proxy Attacks: Leverage its vast network of proxies—Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia militias in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen—to target US bases and interests in the region, as well as Israeli and Gulf state assets. The Houthis have already threatened to resume attacks on US vessels in the Red Sea.
Threaten the Strait of Hormuz: The narrow chokepoint through which 20% of global oil passes remains a potent leverage point for Iran. While a full closure would invite immediate US response, even temporary disruptions or attacks on tankers could send global energy markets into chaos.
Accelerate Nuclear Program: Despite the bombings, the strikes may paradoxically accelerate Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon, albeit covertly. Tehran has already reiterated its right to a civilian nuclear program and has been enriching uranium to 60%, a short technical step from weapons-grade. Withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) is a significant concern.
Cyber Warfare: Iran has demonstrated capabilities in cyberattacks, and targeting critical infrastructure or financial systems in rival nations is a likely asymmetric response.
Regional Realignments and Deepening Divisions
The US intervention has intensified existing fault lines and forced difficult choices for regional actors:
The US-Israel Alliance Solidified: The strikes underscore the unbreakable bond between Washington and Jerusalem, particularly concerning Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Israel’s earlier attacks on Iran were reportedly coordinated with the US, highlighting a united front against Tehran.
Gulf States on Edge: While outwardly condemning the strikes, Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE face a precarious balancing act. They rely on US security guarantees but are also vulnerable to Iranian retaliation. Recent attempts at de-escalation with Iran will be severely tested, potentially pushing them further into Washington’s orbit or forcing a more independent, defensive posture.
European Dilemma: European powers, traditionally advocates for diplomacy and the JCPOA, find themselves in a difficult position. While sharing concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, they are wary of a wider war and its economic consequences. They will likely continue to push for renewed nuclear talks, but their leverage may be diminished.
Russia and China’s Role: Iran will likely deepen ties with Russia and China, forming a stronger anti-US axis. These powers may offer economic lifelines and diplomatic cover, further complicating international efforts to isolate Tehran.
