The world is now watching to see the aftermath of the U.S. and its allies striking Iran’s nuclear facilities. President Trump’s televised address confirmed the attack on Fordow, a deeply buried site near Qom. He called the strike a ‘spectacular military success’ and warned that Iran must ‘make peace or face tragedy.’
Analysts are quick to challenge the claim of a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program. While the strike may have damaged the infrastructure, the ability to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions remains uncertain. The administration’s justification for the strike—based on the claim that Iran was ‘weeks away’ from building a nuclear bomb—lacks public evidence. Critics say the decision was based on assumptions rather than solid intelligence.
Iran’s leadership has a history of resistance to foreign pressure. The Islamic Republic has faced wars, sanctions, and sabotage without yielding. The country’s revolutionary ideology interprets resistance as a divine duty. This strike, while damaging, is unlikely to break the regime’s resolve. Instead, it may strengthen the regime’s narrative of defiance against the ‘Great Satan’ and unify its leadership.
Experts warn of the risks of a miscalculated strike. Unlike the Iraq invasion, which was based on flawed intelligence, the current situation may not be as clear-cut. Iran’s nuclear program is real, but it is not easily neutralized. The strike could backfire politically, unifying the regime rather than destabilizing it. The U.S. and its allies need a strategy that includes containment, deterrence, and resilience, with vigilance toward Iran’s capabilities.
The aftermath will be critical. The battle ahead is unpredictable, with Iran’s proxies, cyber weapons, and missile networks posing a global threat. The U.S. must be prepared for a long-term shadow war, not an immediate resolution. The question that remains is whether the strike was worth the cost, as the world watches for the next step in this escalating conflict.