By Imtiyaz Razak –

Dr. Imtiyaz Razak

On June 21, 2025 the United States government confirmed the successful execution of a precision military operation targeting key Iranian nuclear facilities. Preliminary reports indicate that advanced B-2 Spirit stealth bombers penetrated Iranian airspace undetected, carried out strategic strikes, and exited without confrontation. According to emerging satellite and intelligence data, the operation caused substantial damage to Iran’s primary nuclear sites at Natanz and Isfahan, with Fordow, a heavily fortified underground facility, also sustaining critical impact.

While the full extent of the damage to Fordow—a facility reportedly housing uranium enriched to over 60% purity—is yet to be conclusively assessed, early indications suggest that Iran’s nuclear program has been set back significantly. Given that uranium enrichment beyond 60% is not consistent with peaceful energy production and aligns more closely with weapons-grade material thresholds, the implications of Fordow’s operational capacity had long been a cause for alarm.

This military intervention represents a major escalation in U.S.-Iran relations but must be understood in the context of persistent diplomatic efforts. Prior to authorizing the strike, the U.S. administration under President Donald Trump had extended several overtures for peaceful negotiations. Concessions were offered in exchange for verifiable curtailment of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, which were ultimately rejected by the Iranian leadership.

The decision to resort to force was not taken lightly. Strategically, the U.S. has long viewed Iran’s potential acquisition of nuclear weapons as an existential threat not only to Israel—a key regional ally—but also to Sunni-majority states such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain. These nations, many of which host American military installations, have relied on the U.S. security umbrella to counterbalance Iran’s regional ambitions. While Iran argues that its nuclear program is intended for civilian purposes, uranium enrichment levels exceeding 60% undermine that narrative. No civilian nuclear program requires such enrichment.

From a geopolitical standpoint, the U.S. strike sends a clear signal: nuclear proliferation in the hands of ideologically motivated regimes with openly hostile rhetoric will not be tolerated. Iran’s leadership has, at various times, threatened to destroy Israel and undermine the stability of neighboring Sunni regimes. Given the ideological and strategic divide between Shia Iran and the predominantly Sunni Arab world, the U.S. operation is likely to receive tacit—if not overt—approval from many Gulf states.

The critical question now is how Iran will respond. Possible scenarios include:

* Direct retaliation through missile attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq, Syria, or the Gulf;

* Asymmetric warfare via proxy groups such as Hezbollah or Iranian-backed militias in Yemen and Iraq;

* Cyberattacks or covert operations through sleeper cells in Western countries;

* Or, alternatively, a return to diplomacy, perhaps mediated by neutral actors such as Oman, Switzerland, or even Saudi Arabia.

Crucially, the U.S. administration has not indicated any interest in pursuing regime change. Rather, the goal appears to be a calibrated rollback of Iran’s weapons program without triggering a full-scale regional war. This distinction is vital: while the strike was forceful, it was limited in scope and aligned with international non-proliferation norms.

At this juncture, it would be strategically wise for Iran’s clerical leadership to reassess its trajectory. There is little likelihood that other major powers—whether Sunni Arab states or non-Muslim countries like China or Russia—will risk open confrontation with the U.S. in defense of Tehran’s nuclear program, especially if that program is perceived as aggressive and destabilizing.

Conclusion

The U.S. military operation on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure marks a turning point in the ongoing confrontation between Washington and Tehran. It underscores the limitations of deterrence in the face of defiance and signals that diplomatic engagement remains open, but not unconditional. For Iran, the choice is stark: persist on a path of confrontation with potential economic and military consequences, or reengage diplomatically to address the legitimate security concerns of the international community. The window for negotiation is not closed—but it may be narrowing.