US Launches Major Strikes on Iran Nuclear Facilities, Entering Conflict
In a dramatic escalation of Middle East tensions, the United States military conducted airstrikes on Saturday, June 21, 2025, targeting three key Iranian nuclear sites. This action marks the first direct military intervention by the U.S. in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran, thrusting the United States directly into a war President Trump had previously vowed to avoid.
President Donald Trump announced the strikes via social media, declaring the operation a “very successful attack” that “obliterated” key Iranian enrichment facilities. He stated that aircraft involved had safely exited Iranian airspace. The strikes targeted Iran’s most heavily fortified nuclear installation, Fordo, alongside major enrichment plants at Natanz and a third site near Isfahan believed to hold near-bomb-grade uranium.
The Targets and the ‘How’
The selection of targets underscores the U.S. objective: to severely damage or destroy Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels.
Fordo: Buried deep inside a mountain near Qom, this facility was designed to withstand aerial attack. Experts noted that only specialized U.S. “bunker buster” bombs, such as the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator carried by B-2 stealth bombers, were capable of effectively striking Fordo, estimated to be 80-90 meters underground. Initial reports suggest multiple 30,000-pound bombs were dropped on Fordo.
Natanz: A larger enrichment complex which had reportedly been hit by Israel days prior with smaller munitions.
Isfahan: A site where Iran is believed to maintain uranium enriched to levels near that needed for a nuclear weapon.
Iranian officials confirmed attacks on Natanz and Isfahan, with a local official in Qom also confirming parts of the Fordo facility area were hit. They reported that air defenses fired on “invaders” and claimed the targeted sites had been evacuated “a long time ago,” arguing the damages were “not irreversible” and you “cannot bomb knowledge.”
Trump’s Pivotal Decision and Mixed Signals
The decision to strike follows over a week of escalating exchanges between Israel and Iran, which began on June 13 with Israeli assaults targeting Iranian infrastructure. While Israel’s campaign aimed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, officials reportedly acknowledged needing U.S. capability, particularly for Fordo.
President Trump had previously expressed hesitation about direct U.S. involvement, even urging Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to delay military action and encouraging diplomatic solutions. His administration had initially sought to distance itself from Israel’s strikes. However, Trump’s rhetoric grew increasingly hawkish, culminating in this decisive military action. He had publicly disagreed with his own Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who assessed Iran was not actively developing a nuclear weapon, stating flatly, “She’s wrong.” Trump’s abrupt departure from the G7 summit earlier in the week had signaled a potential shift towards military action.
Following the strikes, Trump issued a stark warning and a demand: Iran “must now make peace.” He threatened that if peace does not come quickly, “future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier,” adding there were “many targets left.” This blended message of military action and a call for negotiation reflects the complexities of the situation.
Immediate Reactions: A Nation Divided, World on Edge
The U.S. strikes immediately drew polarized reactions at home and abroad.
In the U.S.: House Speaker Mike Johnson (R) praised the action as the “right call” and necessary due to imminent danger, stating the president acted given the urgency. Former Vice President Mike Pence lauded Trump’s “decisive leadership.” Conversely, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D) blasted Trump for misleading the country, failing to seek congressional authorization for military force, and risking a disastrous war, placing “complete and total responsibility” for consequences on the president. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D) called the decision “grounds for impeachment” and a “grave violation of the Constitution,” while Sens. Bernie Sanders (I) and Thomas Massie (R) deemed the strikes “grossly unconstitutional,” emphasizing that only Congress can authorize war. A demonstrator outside the White House lamented that the U.S. had been at war for most of her life, criticizing spending on wars abroad while cutting domestic programs.
International Response: The United Nations Secretary-General voiced “grave alarm,” calling the strikes a “dangerous escalation” and a “direct threat to international peace and security.” Russian President Vladimir Putin stated neither Russia nor the IAEA had evidence Iran was preparing nuclear weapons. Turkish President Erdoğan accused Israel of sabotaging nuclear talks. Saudi Arabia and Egypt, while having recently mended ties with Iran, reportedly condemned preceding “Israeli aggressions,” warned of destabilization, and called for a ceasefire. European diplomats urged Iran to return to nuclear talks.
Israel: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Trump for the “bold decision” that would “change history,” linking the action to “peace through strength.” Israel’s military increased its state of alert, imposing stricter wartime restrictions on civilians, signaling preparedness for potential Iranian retaliation.
Iran’s Vow of Retaliation and Rising Stakes
Iran condemned the attacks as a “blatant violation of international law” and vowed not to halt progress in its nuclear industry. State media broadcasts reportedly showed graphics of American bases in the Middle East, warning they were “Within the fire range of Iran,” with an anchor stating, “Mr. Trump, you started it, and we will end it.”
Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, who was in Turkey at the time of the strike, had warned previously that if the U.S. entered the war, the situation would become “very, very dangerous.” Following the strikes, he expressed skepticism about trusting the U.S. for negotiations, particularly after Israel’s attacks preceded scheduled talks, accusing the U.S. of being involved “from day one” and using negotiations as “cover.” Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian stated Iran rejects any suspension of its nuclear activities and warned of a stronger response to continued attacks. Potential retaliation could include strikes on U.S. military bases (where approximately 40,000 U.S. troops are stationed across the region) or Israeli assets, or actions by Iran’s regional allies like the Houthis in Yemen, who had threatened to target U.S. ships.
An Uncertain Path Forward
The U.S. military action initiates a potentially more dangerous phase in the conflict. While U.S. officials reportedly communicated post-strike that no follow-up attacks were planned and regime change was not the objective, Trump’s public warnings of further action leave the situation volatile.
Experts warn that if Iran perceives the attacks as widespread or disproportionate, they might feel pressure for full-fledged retaliation to restore deterrence, potentially leading to a rapid escalatory spiral. Concerns also remain about the risk of nuclear contamination, particularly from striking sites like Fordo with high-level enriched uranium. Critics argue the military action could push Iran to accelerate its nuclear program for deterrence rather than abandon it.
As President Trump prepares to address the nation from the White House, the Middle East is bracing for Iran’s response and the potential for the conflict to expand further, with the ultimate outcome – whether this is a decisive blow against Iran’s nuclear ambitions or the beginning of a wider, chaotic war – hanging precariously in the balance.
