The world has been observing closely as the United States significantly ramped up its conflict with Iran by conducting precision strikes on three of Iran’s most important nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The operation, which was codenamed Midnight Hammer, used 125 U.S. military aircraft, including seven B-2 stealth bombers and submarine-launched cruise missiles. The attacks, said Gen Dan Caine, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, were carefully coordinated, with planes flying an 18-hour distance and decoys deployed into the Pacific to deceive Iranian defenses.
The Fordow facility, which is deep inside a mountain, was attacked with fourteen GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators, the only bombs designed to penetrate such hardened targets. Early satellite imagery showed new craters and blocked tunnel entrances, implying severe damage, although Iranian officials said the locations were evacuated and key materials had been extracted beforehand. The U.S. holds that the attacks have stalled Iran’s nuclear plans substantially, but the full magnitude of the damage is still being assessed.
Why did the U.S. choose to attack now? The reason is in a tangled web of strategic reasoning and precedent. Israel had already launched significant attacks on Iranian nuclear and military facilities, annihilating Hezbollah and destroying Iran’s state-of-the-art air defenses. With Iran’s regional allies weakened and its own military leadership disorganized, both Israel and the U.S. perceived an opportunity to devastate Iran’s nuclear program.
As the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Emily Harding put it, having Iran’s nuclear program half-destroyed would have been the worst possible outcome, inviting a quick dash for a nuclear weapon. The American attack was calculated to introduce certainty to the devastation and make a definitive point: survival of the regime is Iran’s priority, and overwhelming force will meet with restraint, not escalation.
Iran’s reaction is subject to fevered speculation. Tradition has seen Iran escalate with caution, being more interested in proportionate, tit-for-tat responses rather than full-scale war. According to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Iran’s national security strategy since the conclusion of the Iran-Iraq War has focused on avoiding the prospect of a large conventional war. Tehran has frequently given early warning of its retaliatory attacks, struck hardened military targets to keep casualties low, and dramatized its successes for internal consumption.
Following the U.S. attacks, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian pledged that the U.S. “must receive a response for their aggression,” and Iran’s UN representative referred to a “proportionate response.” Security experts say Iran can pick among a few possibilities: swift missile strikes on U.S. bases in the region, swarms of attacks on naval targets, or a postponed, surprise attack after tensions have dissipated. Nonetheless, Iran is handicapped by the loss of influential military commanders, weakened proxies, and the need to maintain warm relationships with Gulf Arab neighbors.
The regional and international response has been a combination of condemnation, appeals for restraint, and strategic hedging. The UK, France, and Germany reaffirmed their opposition to a nuclear Iran and called on Tehran to go back to the negotiations. Gulf nations have appealed for de-escalation, concerned about the economic and security consequences of further conflict. Russia has provided Iran with rhetorical backing but did not go so far as to take actual action, and the UN Secretary General issued a warning of risky escalation. Inside the U.S., the attacks have set off heated controversy.
A PBS NewsHour survey says that public opinion is severely divided by party lines, with 84% of Republicans and 76% of Democrats opposing the strikes. Close to three-quarters of Americans are concerned with Iranian retaliation, and close to half view Iran as a top national security threat. Trump’s approval rating is stable but in negative territory, demonstrating broad reservations about the prudence and implications of his foreign policy.
The future of Iran’s nuclear program is uncertain. Most analysts place the estimate of the U.S. attacks delaying Iran’s nuclear plans by as much as a year if reconstruction begins immediately. Iran can try a frantic dash to nuclear breakout, further bury and armour its remaining infrastructure, or negotiate a face-saving deal. The unraveling of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the looming sunset of the main constraints have put the region on tenterhooks, with the specter of increased escalation looming large.
With the dust yet to settle, intelligence outfits and policymakers are in a mad scramble to gauge the real extent of the strikes and try to predict Iran’s next steps. The regional stability, global energy supply chain, and prospects for nonproliferation couldn’t possibly have hung any higher.