The geopolitical landscape in the Middle East shifted dramatically over the weekend as President Donald Trump ordered precision airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, a move that has sent ripples of concern throughout the region.
The Iranian government, while attempting to downplay the impact of the strikes, acknowledged that the U.S. attack had inflicted significant damage on its nuclear program.
U.S. military officials classified the precision strikes targeting Iran’s three central nuclear sites as causing “extremely severe damage and destruction.”
In a rare affirmation, a senior Israeli official expressed satisfaction with the operation, indicating that Israel was willing to pause military actions if Iran ceased its missile attacks against Israeli territories.
However, the question of how Tehran will respond looms large, particularly regarding its military capabilities and the remnants of its nuclear program, much of which may have been severely impacted by the U.S. operation.
Iran’s allies, particularly in Russia and North Korea, criticized the U.S. strikes. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev even suggested that Moscow might consider providing Iran with a nuclear warhead in retaliation.
Despite such assertions, the Israeli official dismissed concerns about this possibility, citing ongoing discussions with Moscow about the Iranian nuclear issue.
Dubbed “Operation Midnight Hammer,” Trump’s military action was a contingency plan years in the making and avoided by previous administrations for nearly two decades.
Both Republican and Democratic leaders have long stressed that Iran must never achieve nuclear capabilities, yet diplomatic efforts and complex agreements have failed to deter Iran from enriching uranium close to weapons-grade levels.
Though the recent airstrikes were significant, there was little appetite in Washington for an extended conflict with Iran.
Vice President JD Vance emphasized on CBS that the United States is engaged in a fight against Iran’s nuclear ambitions rather than war against the nation itself.
Concerns regarding the potential for a broader conflict compelled many in Congress, especially among Democrats who support a tough stance on Iran, to advocate for a vote restricting Trump’s actions under the War Powers Act.
More than 60 members of Congress, including key leaders from both parties, urged the administration to secure congressional authorization for any further military actions.
While U.S. officials stressed the precision and narrow objectives of the strikes, Trump fueled fears of a larger military campaign by suggesting a change of government in Iran might become a goal of U.S. policy.
Seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers carried out the operation, deploying 14 Massive Ordnance Penetrators against Iranian facilities in Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan.
The U.S. strikes followed a series of Israeli operations in the days prior, targeting Iranian air defenses, nuclear facilities, and key military installations as part of a coordinated effort against Tehran’s military ambitions.
Despite the assertions of success from U.S. and Israeli officials, questions remain regarding whether Iran managed to relocate vital equipment from the targeted sites before the strikes were executed.
Addressing the nation following the attacks, Trump issued a stark warning to Iran, indicating that U.S. military operations could persist until Iran abandoned its nuclear program.
“There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,” Trump declared.
In response to the attacks, Iranian officials portrayed a united front, expressing confidence in their ability to recover and continue their nuclear pursuits.
Behrouz Kamalvandi, spokesperson for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, claimed that while there had been damage, the actual capabilities of the nuclear program remained intact.
Iranian state broadcaster IRIB’s deputy political director mentioned that the targeted sites had been previously cleared of critical materials, characterizing the attacks as ineffective.
Various regional leaders echoed calls for de-escalation and restraint in light of the airstrikes.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar urged all parties to seek peaceful resolutions, while Iraq condemned the U.S. actions as a threat to regional stability.
Oman took a more assertive stance, expressing clear denunciation of the U.S. strikes, reflecting its role as a mediator in U.S.-Iran relations.
Meanwhile, the European powers France, Germany, and Italy jointly expressed their commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, reaffirming their support for Israel’s position on the issue.
The latest U.S. action recalls past confrontations, notably Trump’s earlier decision to eliminate top Iranian commander Gen. Qassem Suleimani in 2020, which had prompted concerns over retaliation from Iran.
Despite fears of a vigorous Iranian response, Tehran opted for a restrained retaliation then, launching a ballistic missile attack on a U.S. base in Iraq rather than escalating the situation further.
Current assessments indicate that Iran’s options for retaliation may be considerably limited, largely due to the ongoing impacts of Israeli military operations that have weakened Tehran’s regional allies and proxies.
The International Revolutionary Guard Corps signaled that the U.S. could expect “regrettable responses” to its airstrikes, hinting at potential attacks on U.S. forces in the region.
They argued that Washington’s military presence, rather than being a deterrent, has made U.S. interests more vulnerable to attacks.
With over 40,000 American troops stationed across 10 countries and numerous military bases, security analysts are closely monitoring the situation.
Experts predict that retaliation could target international shipping, particularly in the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of the world’s oil supply flows.
Past conflicts between Iran and the U.S. have seen Tehran using its influence over regional shipping lanes to exert pressure.
The ongoing uncertainty in the region has shipping companies on edge, with Danish shipping giant Maersk reporting they are monitoring the situation actively while continuing operations through the Strait of Hormuz for the time being.
The weekend’s airstrikes and the ensuing reactions from various stakeholders in the region outline a complex and precarious situation, highlighting the potential for escalation in a region already fraught with tensions.
image source from：latimes
