In the early hours of June 22, 2025, local time, the United States launched a military attack on three critical nuclear facilities in Iran, employing ‘bunker buster’ bombs and Tomahawk missiles.
This decisive move follows more than a week of escalating Israeli strikes against various targets within Iran, which in turn prompted retaliatory actions from Tehran.
President Donald Trump commented that Iran’s nuclear program had been ‘completely and fully obliterated’, signaling a significant stance in the ongoing conflict.
In response, Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s Foreign Minister, condemned the U.S. action, declaring that America had ‘crossed a very big red line.’
Experts are now examining why President Trump decided to act at this particular moment and what the potential repercussions of such an action may be.
According to Javed Ali, a Middle East affairs expert at the University of Michigan and former National Security Council official, the nature and timing of the U.S. involvement suggest a strategic calculation from Trump.
For days leading up to the strike, Trump hinted strongly that military action was a possibility while also expressing openness to negotiations.
On June 20, he indicated a decision would be made ‘within the next two weeks’.
Trump’s unpredictability notwithstanding, the recent conditions likely led him to believe that the moment was ripe for U.S. military intervention.
In the days preceding the attack, Trump convened the National Security Council for two separate meetings, where he was presented with a range of military options: generally categorized into narrow, middle ground, and ‘go big’ strikes.
The approach taken was a middle-ground option, which involved targeting the Fordo facility, among others.
This was a notable choice, as ‘go big’ options could have included strikes on Iranian leadership, such as the Revolutionary Guard or even the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
In total, U.S. military Chiefs confirmed the deployment of 12 GBU-57 bombs, a type of 30,000-pound bunker buster dropped from B-2 bombers, specifically targeting Fordo and Isfahan.
The objective was clear: to destroy Iran’s capacity to produce or store highly enriched uranium swiftly and decisively.
As for the effectiveness of the strikes, it remains to be assessed in full.
While initial reports indicate that the bombs hit their intended targets and substantial damage occurred, the extent of the destruction is still uncertain.
General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, characterized the damage at the three facilities as ‘extremely severe.’
However, Trump’s description of Iran’s program being ‘fully obliterated’ may rely on optimistic initial assessments.
Crucially, Iran has yet to comment on the damage sustained, leaving many questions about the strike’s actual impact.
On a political level, Trump’s objectives appear to align with his long-standing stance against a nuclear-capable Iran, while simultaneously looking to avoid full-scale war.
This military strike may enable Trump to navigate those conflicting interests if indeed Iran’s nuclear program is critically compromised without resulting in deeper U.S. military engagement, barring an Iranian reprisal.
This brings us to the question of how Iran may choose to retaliate.
Historically, Iran has aimed for a proportional response to attacks, but the challenge lies in the asymmetry of power.
Iran lacks the capability to strike U.S. nuclear installations, either through conventional means or unconventional warfare techniques.
Nevertheless, tens of thousands of U.S. troops are stationed in the region—within range of Iranian missiles and drones.
However, Iran’s own military inventory is currently diminished, impacted by prior missile attacks targeting Israel and U.S. strikes on its missile sites.
Moreover, Iran’s proxy forces, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, are currently in survival mode, having sustained significant losses during previous Israeli assaults.
In this context, the Houthis in Yemen represent Iran’s remaining stronghold among its regional allies.
However, the Houthis have limited capacity and likely understand the potential repercussions of direct attacks against U.S. forces, having been subject to extensive U.S. strikes in previous operations.
Meanwhile, Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria capable of striking U.S. positions have been largely inactive in recent months.
Iran also possesses options outside the region, recalling past strategies that involved targeted assassinations, kidnappings, or terrorist acts organized through its Quds Force or intelligence services.
Yet, Iranian leaders find themselves in a precarious situation: any significant retaliation against the U.S. could invite a more robust military response.
This scenario echoes the aftermath of the U.S drone strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in January 2020, which initially prompted Iran to promise a strong response.
However, that response, involving missile attacks on the Ain al-Asad airbase in Iraq, ultimately did not claim American lives and led both Iran and the U.S. to step back from further escalation.
Nevertheless, the current circumstances are markedly different; Iran is already engaged in conflict with Israel, and the U.S. has targeted critical aspects of Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
As such, Supreme Leader Khamenei faces a difficult decision: should Iran retaliate, and if so, can it withstand the potential for a heavier U.S. military response?
In light of the U.S.’s pronouncements of ‘further attacks’, questions arise about what that escalation might entail.
The U.S. maintains the capacity to strike at senior Iranian leadership, with potential military actions targeting key personnel.
Additionally, the U.S. could choose to impact Iran’s economy by targeting its oil and gas infrastructure.
Such actions run the risk of destabilizing the global economy and could propel the U.S. deeper into military engagements, shifting the situation from a singular strike to a cycle of ongoing attacks and retaliations.
This may further widen the divisions among Trump’s administration, particularly among those who oppose U.S. military involvement abroad.
Despite the unfolding situation, President Trump has not entirely closed off the possibility of renewed diplomacy, stating there remains a window for talks.
However, Iran’s leadership has previously expressed an unwillingness to negotiate while facing attacks from Israel and the U.S.
Araghchi’s remarks after the strikes signaling that the time for diplomacy had passed reflect the increasing tension and uncertainty regarding potential peaceful resolutions.
image source from：theconversation
