In a dramatic escalation of tensions in the Middle East, the United States launched a coordinated military strike against Iran’s nuclear program, targeting three major sites: Natanz, Isfahan and Fordo. The operation involved seven B-2 stealth bombers dropping bunker-busting munitions called Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOP) and a U.S. submarine, which fired Tomahawk cruise missiles. It marked one of the largest direct assaults on Iranian military infrastructure in recent history. The success of the operation isn’t entirely clear, though. Neither is what happens next.
President Donald Trump and other U.S. officials claim the sites were “completely obliterated,” though intelligence experts caution more information is needed before declaring a strategic victory.
Army National Guard intelligence officer Jon Molik said, “This is an opportunity that I don’t think the U.S. military could or was willing to waste.”
A divided intelligence community
While the Trump administration is touting the early success of the strike, not everyone is convinced the operation served a clear long-term goal.
“I’m still struggling to see what exactly the end goal or the benefit that the United States has exactly by getting involved,” Matthew Shoemaker, a former U.S. intelligence officer with experience on the Russia desk, told SAN.
Both Molik and Shoemaker agree that conclusive assessments will depend on additional intelligence, such as intercepted communications, on-the-ground reports and the presence or absence of radioactive contamination.
“One thing I’m going to be looking out for, though, is if there is any contamination of the surrounding areas. Did this turn the area, in a certain sense, into a bit of a dirty bomb?” Shoemaker said. “Or were we able to destroy [the nuclear material] and bury [it] at the same time?”
The Fordo facility was targeted again Monday morning, June 23, by Israeli fighter jets. Access routes to the Fordo facility were the targets in this latest volley, according to reporting by the BBC.
Iranian air defenses were already compromised
Analysts believe the success of the U.S. operation was largely due to Israel’s recent softening of Iranian air defenses. In the weeks leading up to the strike, Israeli forces reportedly degraded Iran’s air defense systems, clearing a path for U.S. bombers and missiles.
Molik notes this kind of coordinated action reflects a longstanding, bipartisan U.S. policy aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
“We really do need to go back to 1979 to understand fully how much of a problem the United States government has had with the regime in Tehran,” he said.
Tehran’s retaliation looms
Iran vowed retaliation. While the Trump administration insists the strike was a one-off intended to force a return to peace talks, many experts are skeptical.
“I’m very skeptical that that’s going to be the case, based on how the Iranian regime has historically responded,” Shoemaker said.
Molik predicted Iran would seek a “proportional” military response rather than a civilian-targeted one. That prediction proved correct when Iran launched a missile attack at U.S. military bases in Iraq and Qatar. As of publication time, no injuries were reported.
Iran may also choose to retaliate in other ways, including through cyber warfare.
“I think one thing that isn’t really talked about in the news cycle right now is Iran’s capability to conduct cyber attacks,” Shoemaker said. “They tend to be fairly good at that. The Iranians could certainly create a lot of problems with regards to the way that our banking system works, which would cause a lot of problems for a lot of people. They could potentially shut down things like airports and start to stymie travel within and between the United States and other countries. So that could certainly be a problem, something that we should certainly be looking out for and keeping at the back of our minds.”
Strait of Hormuz in the crosshairs
The most obvious potential flashpoint now is the Strait of Hormuz — a narrow waterway through which up to 30% of the world’s oil supply passes. Iran’s parliament has already voted to close the strait, though the final decision rests with the country’s military.
According to Molik, “This is something Iran has been planning for decades.” But he also notes that the U.S. and its allies have developed numerous contingency plans to keep the waterway open.
The U.S. is now reportedly asking China to pressure Iran into keeping the strait open, hoping to avert a global energy crisis.
Russia seizes the opportunity
As tensions flare, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev suggested that some nations may now be prepared to give nuclear weapons to Iran for self-defense. While many see that as bluster, experts warn Russia is likely to exploit the U.S. strike to justify its own military actions — especially in Ukraine.
“The U.S. getting involved in yet another preemptive strike and preemptive attack on another country, in a certain sense, is justifying Russia’s own actions in Ukraine,” Shoemaker said. “The Russians are certainly going to use that as cover for their own activities.”
Conflicting messages from Washington
The messaging from U.S. leadership has been anything but consistent. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. is not seeking regime change in Iran. Hours later, President Trump posted on Truth Social suggesting the Iranian people may want to consider finding a new regime that could “Make Iran Great Again.”
Whether Iran still has the capability to build a nuclear weapon — and how it will respond to the strike — remains unclear. But U.S. officials said they’re bracing for a potential counterattack in the coming days. One U.S. official, speaking anonymously to Reuters, warned that Iran could launch retaliatory strikes “within the next day or two.”
