Summary
U.S. strikes hit Iran’s Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan nuclear sites
Trump claims strikes crippled Iran’s nuclear program
Iran vows retaliation after U.S. bunker-buster assault
Fordow’s deep fortifications may have survived U.S. bombs
Global fears grow over radioactive risks, regional fallout
When U.S. warplanes roared over Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan on June 22, 2025, they ignited a firestorm of geopolitical consequences. President Donald Trump hailed the operation as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, claiming the sites were “completely and obliterated.”
Iran’s leaders, however, vowed retaliation, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warning of “everlasting consequences.” Building on Israel’s earlier strikes, this U.S. intervention marks a pivotal moment in a decades-long standoff. For readers seeking clarity on this complex crisis, this article unpacks the historical roots, technical details, global reactions, expert insights, and unanswered questions surrounding the strikes, offering a thorough analysis of what happened and what lies ahead.
Roots of the U.S.-Iran-Israel nuclear standoff
Tensions between the U.S., Iran, and Israel trace back decades. Still, the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [JCPOA] offered a fleeting hope for stability. The deal curbed Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, allowing international inspections of sites like Fordow and Natanz. In 2018, the U.S. withdrew, reimposing sanctions that devastated Iran’s economy. Iran retaliated by accelerating uranium enrichment, reaching 60% purity by 2025—perilously close to the 90% needed for weapons-grade material, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA].
Israel, viewing Iran’s nuclear progress as a direct threat, launched covert operations and cyberattacks, culminating in Operation Rising Lion on June 13, 2025. That campaign targeted Natanz and Isfahan, killing senior Iranian officials and scientists. Diplomatic efforts faltered, with U.S.-Iran talks in Oman and Italy collapsing in the spring of 2025. An IAEA report on May 31, 2025, declared Iran non-compliant, citing undeclared enrichment activities. These events set the stage for the U.S. strikes, as years of mistrust boiled over into direct military action.
Anatomy of the U.S. airstrikes
On June 22, 2025, at 3 a.m. local time, U.S. forces struck three linchpins of Iran’s nuclear program: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Each site serves a distinct purpose. Fordow, nestled 80-90 meters beneath a mountain near Qom, houses advanced centrifuges for uranium enrichment, making it Iran’s most fortified facility. Natanz, 140 miles south of Tehran, hosts thousands of centrifuges in partially underground halls, producing most of Iran’s near-weapons-grade uranium. Isfahan, a sprawling research complex, supports uranium conversion and reactor development.
The U.S. deployed six B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, each carrying two GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators—30,000-pound bombs designed to penetrate fortified targets. These “bunker-busters” can pierce 18 meters of concrete or 61 meters of earth, though experts question their ability to reach Fordow’s deepest chambers. Navy submarines fired 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Natanz and Isfahan, targeting surface infrastructure. A senior U.S. official noted that Isfahan’s fortified design posed unique challenges, requiring precise intelligence. Israel provided critical reconnaissance, ensuring coordination, although it did not participate in the strikes.
Trump claimed the operation destroyed Iran’s nuclear capacity, stating, “A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow”. Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency acknowledged the attacks but insisted no significant damage occurred, with deputy broadcaster Hassan Abedini claiming, “The enriched uranium reserves had been transferred from the nuclear centers”. No independent damage assessments exist, and concerns about radioactive or chemical leaks persist, though Saudi Arabia reported no regional contamination.
Official reactions: A global chorus of voices
President Trump, flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, addressed the nation from the White House on June 21, 2025. “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and obliterated,” he declared, warning Tehran that retaliation “WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT”. On Truth Social, he emphasized Fordow’s destruction, adding, “This is a HISTORIC MOMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ISRAEL, AND THE WORLD”.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the strikes as “outrageous” and a breach of international law, stating, “Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people”. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran called the attacks a “savage assault,” vowing to continue its nuclear work. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reportedly in a secure bunker, promised “severe punishment” but offered no immediate response. Hardline editor Hossein Shariatmadari urged missile strikes on U.S. naval assets in Bahrain and closing the Strait of Hormuz, citing a Quranic call to “Kill them wherever you shall overtake them”.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Trump’s “bold decision,” asserting, “Your bold decision to target Iran’s nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history”. President Isaac Herzog echoed this, framing the strikes as vital for global security.
Russia’s Dmitry Peskov warned of a “catastrophe” if nuclear materials were mishandled, while China’s Foreign Ministry urged diplomacy to stabilize energy markets. European nations, including France, Germany, and the UK, expressed “deep concern,” pushing for de-escalation. Saudi Arabia and Oman called for restraint, while Cuba’s President Miguel Díaz-Canel denounced the strikes as a path to wider conflict. South Korea convened security talks, wary of economic fallout.
International institutions: Alarms and appeals
UN Secretary-General António Guterres labeled the strikes a “dangerous escalation,” urging “maximum restraint” to avoid a regional war. Security Council meetings on June 20 stalled, with U.S. vetoes blocking Russian and Chinese proposals.
IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi expressed grave concern, noting, “Nuclear facilities must never be attacked regardless of circumstances”. He withdrew inspectors from Iran for safety and offered to assess the damage, warning that strikes could cause “a sharp degradation in nuclear safety and security”. Grossi confirmed no radiological leaks but highlighted risks at Isfahan, a key research hub.
NATO adopted a wait-and-see approach, with no plans for involvement. Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen vowed to target U.S. warships, with official Hizam al-Assad stating, “Trump must bear the consequences”. Hezbollah signaled “full mobilization,” raising fears of proxy attacks.
Expert insights: Measuring the strikes’ impact
Analysts offer nuanced perspectives on the strikes’ effectiveness. IAEA’s Grossi noted that Israel’s June 13 attacks on Natanz likely damaged thousands of centrifuges by disrupting power, but Fordow’s fortifications limit similar success. “There is a great probability that approximately 14,000 operational centrifuges located at one of the underground halls have been severely damaged if not destroyed altogether,” he told the BBC regarding Natanz.
Gary Samore, a former U.S. nonproliferation official, cautioned that airstrikes delay but don’t eliminate nuclear programs. “Israel’s 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor led to a covert program that went undetected until 1991,” he said, suggesting Iran could rebuild swiftly if materials were preserved.
Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former British defense expert, argued that Fordow’s strikes likely killed workers but posed no regional radiation risk, as the site focuses on enrichment, not reactors. “Uranium and its byproducts are harmful on contact, but they won’t cause widespread fallout,” he told NBC News.
Vali Nasr from Johns Hopkins warned that Trump’s demand for “unconditional surrender” kills diplomatic prospects, potentially pushing Iran toward a nuclear deterrent. Toby Dodge of the London School of Economics doubted Fordow’s destruction, noting, “Even GBU-57 bombs may not penetrate 90 meters of rock”. Former diplomats Daniel Kurtzer and Stephen Simon argued that targeting Fordow risks dragging the U.S. into regime-change efforts, a move unpopular with Americans.
Kelsey Davenport of the Arms Control Association emphasized the loss of IAEA oversight. “With Iran on the threshold of nuclear weapons, inspections are critical for ensuring that there is no diversion of nuclear material,” she said. David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security suggested Israel’s capture of Iran’s nuclear archive could aid targeting but stressed that only a diplomatic deal with robust inspections could halt Iran’s ambitions long-term.
Comparing Iran’s nuclear sites: Before and after
This table highlights the strategic roles and resilience of each site. Fordow’s depth complicates U.S. claims of destruction. Natanz’s scale makes it a prime target, but underground halls may have survived. Isfahan’s surface exposure allows easier strikes but lower strategic loss.
| Site | Purpose | Protection Level | Pre-Strike Status [IAEA] | Reported Damage [U.S./Iran] | Recovery Potential |
| Fordow | Uranium enrichment | 80-90m under mountain | Enriching to 60%, advanced centrifuges | U.S.: Destroyed / Iran: Surface damage only | High, due to deep fortification |
| Natanz | Primary enrichment hub | Partially underground | 14,000 centrifuges, 60% enriched uranium | U.S.: Obliterated / Iran: Power systems hit | Moderate, rebuild possible in months |
| Isfahan | Nuclear research, fuel production | Surface-level, some bunkers | Research reactors, uranium conversion | U.S.: Crippled / Iran: Minimal impact | High, less critical assets |
Consequences of Iran’s nuclear program
The strikes aim to delay Iran’s ability to produce weapons-grade uranium. IAEA reports from May 2025 estimated Iran could enrich enough material for a bomb in under a week if Fordow remained operational. If the strikes damaged Fordow’s centrifuges, this timeline could extend to months. However, Iran’s claim of relocating enriched uranium suggests resilience. Experts like Samore warn of covert sites, noting Iran’s history of concealing facilities until 2002.
Iran’s nuclear scientists, already targeted by Israel’s June attacks, face further losses, potentially hampering expertise. Yet, the program’s dispersed nature—over 30 facilities, per the Nuclear Threat Initiative—complicates total disruption. A secret “Plan Kabir” could accelerate hidden enrichment, analysts suggest.
Iran’s potential retaliation strategies
Iran vowed swift retaliation. Araghchi’s “all options” warning includes missile strikes on U.S. bases in Bahrain, Qatar, or the UAE, home to 40,000 U.S. troops. Closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which 30% of global oil flows, could disrupt markets. On June 22, Iran launched ballistic missiles at Israel, killing at least three and signaling its intent.
Proxy groups pose additional threats. Houthi rebels targeted U.S. warships in the Red Sea, while Hezbollah’s “full mobilization” could spark border clashes with Israel. Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria, responsible for a 2024 attack that killed three U.S. soldiers, may escalate. Cyberattacks on U.S. infrastructure also loom as a low-cost retaliation option.
Regional and global economic impacts
Oil prices surged 6-11% after Israel’s June 13 strikes, and U.S. involvement could push Brent crude above $100 per barrel. The International Monetary Fund projects a 0.5% drop in 2025 global growth if disruptions persist, risking stagflation. Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, reliant on stable energy markets, urged restraint to avoid supply chain chaos.
The U.S. faces domestic economic pressure. A Washington Post poll showed 45% of Americans oppose the strikes, fearing higher fuel costs and war fatigue. Congressional critics, including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, called the operation “grounds for impeachment,” citing lack of authorization.
Iran’s domestic political dynamics
The strikes galvanized patriotic sentiment in Iran, with state media broadcasting rallies. Social media posts on X showed Iranians uniting against “Western aggression,” strengthening the regime’s grip. However, urban youth and opposition groups, already frustrated by economic woes, may exploit civilian casualties to fuel dissent. Israel’s June attacks killed over 200, including 70 in a residential strike, stoking anger. Continued losses could erode regime stability, though analysts doubt a near-term collapse.
Diplomatic pathways and global powers
The U.S. signaled limited intent, contacting Iran via diplomatic channels to clarify that regime change is not the goal. Yet, Trump’s demand for peace on U.S. terms dims prospects for talks. Iran canceled a June 15 meeting in Oman, and Araghchi expressed distrust in U.S. intentions.
Russia and China may bolster Iran’s defenses. Moscow’s Maria Zakharova questioned the strikes’ precision, asking, “What if they miss by a millimeter?”. China, reliant on Iranian oil, could push for UN sanctions, though U.S. veto power limits this. European diplomats, led by France and Germany, met Iranian officials in Geneva on June 20, but no breakthroughs emerged.
Media narratives and public sentiment
Western media, including The New York Times and CNN, emphasized U.S. military precision, while Iranian outlets like IRNA framed the strikes as attacks on sovereignty. Russian media highlighted civilian risks, amplifying anti-U.S. sentiment. On X, Trump supporters celebrated, but global users expressed alarm, with one post stating, “This could spiral into World War III”.
In the U.S., public opinion splits. A Washington Post poll found 30% of Americans unsure about the strikes, reflecting uncertainty about long-term costs. In Iran, state-controlled narratives dominate, but underground dissent on platforms like Telegram hints at growing frustration.
Unanswered questions driving uncertainty
Did the strikes truly cripple Iran’s nuclear program? Without IAEA inspections, no one can confirm the damage. Could Iran have secret facilities, as it did before 2002? Will Tehran escalate with direct attacks on U.S. assets, or rely on proxies? How will this affect global nonproliferation efforts, especially with Russia and China backing Iran? Can diplomacy salvage peace, or is a wider war inevitable? These questions linger, shaping the volatile path ahead.
Latest news update
The U.S. warns of Iran’s potential retaliation within 48 hours after airstrikes on its nuclear sites, with Pentagon forces on high alert. Missile defense systems, including THAAD and Aegis destroyers, are deployed to counter threats. F-22 and F-35 jets are positioned in Qatar and Turkey for air superiority. Cyber defenses are also braced for possible Iranian attacks on U.S. infrastructure. Read more about the Pentagon’s warning.
***
Follow us everywhere and at any time. BulgarianMilitary.com has responsive design and you can open the page from any computer, mobile devices or web browsers. For more up-to-date news, follow our Google News, YouTube, Reddit, LinkedIn, and Twitter pages. Our standards: Manifesto & ethical principles.