Washington/Tehran – In a dramatic escalation of the ongoing Middle East crisis, the United States has carried out targeted airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. President Donald Trump confirmed that U.S. military aircraft struck three major nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—calling the mission “very successful” and affirming that all aircraft safely withdrew from Iranian airspace following the operation.
The U.S. strikes are part of a broader, coordinated military campaign with Israel, which had already initiated a series of extensive air raids against Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure. Israeli authorities claim their early offensive set back Iran’s nuclear program by two to three years and inflicted major damage on key military installations. The U.S. has now intensified these efforts, employing B-2 stealth bombers and Tomahawk cruise missiles to target Iran’s heavily fortified nuclear sites, including the deep-underground Fordow facility.
President Trump has extended a two-week window for Iran to return to negotiations, but Tehran has categorically rejected any dialogue while under attack, vowing strong retaliation. Iranian state media report more than 430 fatalities from the strikes and thousands more injured. Israel, meanwhile, has reportedly suffered at least 24 deaths due to Iranian retaliatory missile and drone attacks.
Although both Iran and Israel assert that they are striking military targets, multiple reports indicate that civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, has been impacted during the exchanges. Israel maintains its operations are limited to strategic objectives, but humanitarian concerns are growing as the destruction mounts. International organizations such as the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency have expressed grave concern over the escalating violence and its potential to destabilize the region further.
The United States’ entry into the conflict has sparked significant political debate at home. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and several Republican lawmakers support the strikes, some factions within Trump’s own political base have voiced concern, warning that direct involvement could provoke a wider war and expose American military assets to Iranian retaliation. The governments of Russia, China, and Turkey have all called for restraint, warning that continued escalation could ignite a full-scale regional conflict.
The attack on Fordow was particularly devastating, involving the use of six 30,000-pound bunker-busting bombs delivered by stealth bombers, along with approximately 30 Tomahawk missiles launched from U.S. submarines. Military analysts note that while the physical damage is extensive, the long-term effect on Iran’s nuclear capabilities may be limited, given the program’s resilience and capacity for rapid recovery.
Simultaneously, diplomatic efforts led by European powers in Geneva have stalled. Iran remains adamant about its right to uranium enrichment and has threatened to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if attacks continue. With U.S. forces repositioning in the region and Iran warning of possible strikes on Western military sites in neighboring countries, the prospect of a wider conflict looms large.
Back in Washington, President Trump faces rising pressure from both ends of the political spectrum. Supporters of the military operation view it as a necessary move to cripple Iran’s nuclear ambitions, while critics warn of the risks of dragging the U.S. into another prolonged conflict in the Middle East. Although the president has reaffirmed his commitment to Israel, he has not signalled any intention to escalate U.S. involvement beyond the current level.
As the dust settles from the most recent wave of bombings, Iranian scientists are reportedly racing to assess the extent of the damage to nuclear facilities. Israel remains on high alert for further drone and missile strikes. Meanwhile, Europe and the United Nations are calling urgently for an immediate halt to hostilities. The coming days will likely prove decisive in determining whether diplomacy can reassert itself—or whether the conflict is poised to spiral into a deeper and more destructive war.