After days of mixed signaling, in a dramatic escalation, the U.S. military has hit three key nuclear facilities of Iran at Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan on June 22 under President Trump’s orders, as the Israel-Iran conflict continues to rage on. The hawkish Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has, thus, dragged Washington into his war with Tehran, with their common stated “goal” being to prevent Iran from weaponizing its nuclear program.
Prior to this significant development, as the Israel-Iran saber-rattling and missile exchanges continued, President Trump made maximalist demands on social media, calling for Iran’s “unconditional surrender.” This reckless exercise of executive powers risks a needless American entanglement in West Asia’s geopolitics, yet again. Trump’s invoking of the threat of military action reflects a fallacious presumption that Iran could be brought to the negotiating table with force.
Iran, on the other hand, was anticipating these attacks for several nights, particularly on its heavily fortified underground nuclear facility at Fordow, as Israel waited for U.S. military assistance with advanced bombers to penetrate the site hidden beneath the mountains. The damage to Iran’s material infrastructure may not be irreversible, as the technical know-how could endure and the extent of damage remains speculative.
Trump’s volte-face
It is interesting that Donald Trump built his political career and branding on denouncing America’s “forever wars” overseas. The attack on Iran marks a major volte-face from his previous stances and suggests that he is playing into the hands of Prime Minister Netanyahu, whose political survival hinges on pushing Israel from one conflict to another.
Recalling President Trump’s first term in office, when he ordered the assassination of General Qassim Suleimani, the powerful commander of Iran’s overseas Quds Force, now in his second term, this serious escalation could open a more dangerous phase in the ongoing conflict. Contrary to the American-Israeli expectations, such preemptive strikes may not destroy Iran’s nuclear program; rather, they could compel Tehran to intensify it, considering that Iran’s theocratic leadership has remained resilient even in the face of multiple domestic uprisings and Western sanctions.
Even as the U.S. continued to negotiate with Iran, led by special envoy Steve Witkoff, in a surprising turnaround, President Trump refused to take his intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard’s assessment at face value that Iran is not that close to building a nuclear bomb, even as she clarified that Supreme Leader Khamenei had not authorized a nuclear weapons program that was suspended in 2003 and that U.S. intelligence continues to assess Iran’s nuclear pursuits. Now, with this direct attack on Iran, the Trump Administration is inevitably bracing for an Iranian retaliation.
Likely scenarios of escalation
Prior to this escalation, Washington and Tehran were engaged in discussions on the latter’s uranium enrichment limits in exchange for a compromise on sanctions. Although not having reached its finality, negotiations were progressing positively, and its sixth round was scheduled to take place in Muscat on June 15. Unfortunately, the Israeli attack on Iran two days before derailed the entire process and has now pushed the U.S. into the abyss. This is a decisive moment in 46 years of theocratic Iran’s rivalry with the U.S. and Israel.
However, Iran has signaled its willingness for talks even after Israel’s June 13 attack, but the direct entry of the U.S. has jeopardized the tireless diplomatic efforts that were built over several months. For Iran, this attack has become a question of reclaiming its national honor and re-establishing deterrence following this multiple breach of its sovereignty, first by Israel and now by the U.S. Tehran is pushed to double down on its nuclear program to meet this very objective.
With the killings of its top nuclear scientists, Iran may lack the capacity to build a nuclear weapon sooner, but it will continue to move ahead in that direction as the American attack has given it a fresh impetus to do so. Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi had warned that if the U.S. chose to strike Iran directly, the country reserved the right to retaliate, just as it has done against Israel.
Though Iran has responded to the Israeli attacks militarily, it had refrained from attacking American troops or bases in West Asia until now. It has neither struck Arab states that host U.S. bases nor has it disrupted the crude oil traffic in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, nor has it nudged the Houthis in Yemen to attack American ships passing through the Red Sea. This policy of restraint might see changes now.
The U.S. has a military presence in nineteen sites across the region, where more than 40,000 active troops and civilian personnel are stationed, including at the Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which hosts the largest U.S. contingent in the region, and the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet in Bahrain. Moreover, Iran’s allied militia groups in the region could open up more fronts, though many of them have been incapacitated or seriously weakened over the last two years in Israel’s relentless assaults.
Meanwhile, the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran has condemned the attack as against the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that aims to prevent the horizontal spread of nuclear weapons globally. Tehran is party to the NPT since its ratification in 1970. However, owing to the current escalatory scenario, the Iranian Parliament is considering a Bill to leave the treaty and has reportedly voted to close the Strait of Hormuz, which, if materialised with the Supreme Leader’s final approval, would be even more disastrous. What lies ahead remains uncertain, as events unfold quickly in a highly unpredictable geopolitical landscape.
