The combined American-Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facility in June 2025 is among the most significant military actions the Middle East has seen in decades. Much more than a tactical strike, the campaign was a measured gamble—a bid to cripple Iran’s nuclear advancements and send a clear message, even risking igniting a broader conflict. Washington dubbed it “Operation Midnight Hammer,” while Israel referred to its portion as “Operation Rising Lion.” Combined, they were the most aggressive effort yet to shatter Iran’s nuclear momentum.
It did not come overnight. During the months before the strikes, global anxiety about Iran’s nuclear course had risen sharply. The International Atomic Energy Agency had, for the first time in two decades, found Iran to be in breach of its safeguards due to secret plans and unreported nuclear stockpiles. The declaration by Tehran of a new enrichment facility and advanced centrifuges further heightened alarm.
Israeli intelligence estimated that Iran had accumulated sufficient enriched uranium for several warheads, although U.S. agencies calculated that Tehran had not yet made the last moves to construct one. Diplomacy being stuck and the threat to Israel being termed as existential, the military option became the priority.
The operation itself was an exercise in coordination and precision. The United States pledged 125 planes, among them B-2 Spirit stealth bombers carrying the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a 30,000-pound bunker-busting bomb used to attack deeply buried targets. The campaign opened with the launch of Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from a submarine in the Gulf of Oman, clearing the way for the B-2s. Decoys and electronic deception systems camouflaged their entry as they slipped into Iranian airspace. Fordow, Iran’s best-defended facility, was hit first with several bunker busters, followed soon with further attacks on Natanz and Isfahan. Fourteen of the behemoth bombs were dropped altogether within less than an hour.
Israel’s initial wave had previously pounded Natanz, leveling substations and scarring underground halls. The American attacks built on the effect, with huge craters seen around Fordow and hammering the uranium-conversion plants at Isfahan with cruise missiles. Official pronouncements out of Washington and Jerusalem described the strikes as catastrophic, but classified intelligence was more subdued. Experts concluded that Iran’s program had been set back by several months, not years, partly because Tehran had spread much of its enriched uranium in expectation of such an attack.
The human cost was dire. Israeli attacks killed top nuclear scientists, including men long at the heart of Iran’s program, and top security commanders. Civilian deaths also were substantial, with Iranian officials tallying hundreds killed and thousands injured. Beyond the material destruction, the loss of technical skill and leadership inflicted a heavy psychological blow on the nuclear establishment in Tehran.
Iran’s response was swift. Leaders condemned the raids as illegal acts of aggression and threatened vengeance. Within days, Tel Aviv civilians were killed by missiles raining down on Israel. The Revolutionary Guard promised continued retaliation and warned American forces throughout the region that they would not be secure. Proxies in Yemen for Gaza announced themselves ready to enter the fray, and the warning to shut down the Strait of Hormuz—a measure that would shake world energy markets—was made again with added fervor.
Capitals around the globe responded with alarm. Israeli officials cheered what they presented as a decisive move against an existential threat, while Washington contended the attacks were justified to stem a rapidly expanding menace. The U.S. president welcomed the mission as a huge success but maintained that the objective was deterrence, not an expansive war.
Many governments, however, expressed outrage. Russia called the strikes reckless, while the United Nations urged restraint and renewed diplomacy. Arab governments called for calm, fearing being drawn into a spiraling regional war. European leaders recognized their discomfort with Iranian nuclear development but cautioned that an escalation might render a political settlement all but impossible.
The wider implications of this campaign can stretch much farther than the wreckage it left. Strategically, the attacks have gained time, but not an end to the problem. Iran still has both the capability and the desire to rebuild. More ominously, the attacks could incentivize other states to hide or speed up nuclear programs, fearing that transparency only provokes attack. For the United States and Israel, the strikes brought an ephemeral triumph, but potentially risked unleashing unforeseen waves of reprisal and instability.
The Middle East is now on a knife-edge. Iran’s capability for responding asymmetrically—cyberattack, terrorism, or proxy war—remains daunting. Energy markets are still under threat, and the international nonproliferation regime has been shaken. Over the coming months, the strength of diplomacy, the validity of deterrence, and the resolve of all parties to retreat from escalation will decide whether this action is hailed as a turning point that avoided catastrophe—or as the match that set off a much bigger fire.