Update: after the fog of war settled a bit (see below “Update”), my current impressions
The Trump administration's overnight nuclear strikes against Iran mark a catastrophic escalation that reveals the profound strategic myopia plaguing American foreign policy. What the president announced as a decisive blow to "obliterate" Iran's nuclear capabilities represents instead a dangerous miscalculation that will likely trigger the very spiral of violence and economic chaos the operation purportedly aimed to prevent.
Saturday's coordinated assault on three Iranian nuclear facilities—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—employed unprecedented firepower including B-2 stealth bombers dropping 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs and 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles from naval submarines. While Pentagon officials tout the operation's tactical success, claiming Iran's nuclear program has been set back "a very, very long time," the strategic implications paint a far more ominous picture.
The immediate aftermath already validates fears of escalation. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei dismissed American surrender demands as "threatening and ridiculous," while Tehran's atomic energy organization vowed to "never" abandon its nuclear program despite what they termed this "savage assault." More critically, Iranian forces have begun positioning assets near the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most vital energy chokepoint through which 21 million barrels of oil transit daily—representing ~20% of global consumption.
(The only open) market seems to shrug off the strikes with dangerous complacency: Bitcoin dropped a mere 2.4% from $103,500 to $101,000 and went right back up—a trivial movement that suggests traders haven't grasped the magnitude of what's unfolding. This muted reaction mirrors the fatal optimism preceding past Middle Eastern conflagrations, when initial "surgical strikes" were dismissed as containable before spiraling into regional warfare.
Iran's fortress advantage renders occupation impossible
America's fundamental miscalculation lies in treating Iran as another Iraq or Afghanistan—countries that, despite fierce resistance, lacked Iran's unique geographic and strategic advantages. Iran's 1.6 million square kilometers of mountainous terrain, protected by the massive Zagros and Alborz mountain ranges, creates what military analysts describe as a "natural fortress" that has repelled foreign conquest for millennia.
Only the Mongols and Alexander's forces ever successfully invaded Iran, and neither maintained long-term control. The Romans, British, and Ottomans never attempted full-scale invasion precisely because Iran's geography makes conventional military occupation prohibitively costly. The country's ~90 million people are distributed across defensible mountainous regions rather than vulnerable plains, while two major deserts in central Iran—where temperatures reach 70°C—create additional barriers that would challenge any occupying force.
This geographic reality transforms any ground invasion into a logistical nightmare. Limited road networks through mountain passes create natural chokepoints, while rugged terrain exponentially increases operational costs. During the Iran-Iraq War, these same geographic factors contributed to the conflict's protracted eight-year duration despite Iraq's initial advantages and Western backing.
The Hormuz weapon: Iran's economic nuclear option
Iran's true deterrent power lies not in its nuclear facilities but in its ability to choke global energy supplies through the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran controls the northern shore of this 33-kilometer-wide chokepoint, deploying surveillance systems across strategic islands including Abu Musa, Greater and Lesser Tunbs, and Qeshm Island. The strait's vulnerability is absolute: disrupting even a portion of its traffic would send oil prices soaring past $150 per barrel.
Iran's closure capabilities are multifaceted and formidable. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy operates 3,000-5,000 fast attack craft designed for swarm tactics, complemented by an estimated 5,000 naval mines and anti-ship missiles with ranges exceeding 700 kilometers. Recent additions include Persian Gulf anti-ship ballistic missiles specifically designed for maritime targets and new cruise missile installations on the Tunbs islands.
The economic mathematics are stark: Iran needs only to demonstrate credible threat to Hormuz shipping to trigger global recession. With 82% of Hormuz oil flows destined for Asian markets and no viable alternative routes capable of handling current volumes, even partial disruption would devastate global energy security. Qatar's LNG exports, critical for European energy supplies, depend entirely on Strait passage.
Axis of resistance provides strategic depth
Iran's regional proxy network transforms any military confrontation from bilateral conflict into multi-front warfare. The "Axis of Resistance" spans from Hezbollah's 100,000+ rockets in Lebanon to Houthi maritime capabilities in the Red Sea, Iraqi Shi'ite militias, and strengthened Syrian government forces. This network receives over $700 million annually in Iranian support and operates under a coordinated "unity of fronts" strategy designed to open multiple theaters simultaneously.
Recent demonstrations of this coordination include sophisticated Houthi attacks on commercial shipping that forced major carriers to reroute around Africa, adding weeks to delivery times and billions in additional costs. The proxy structure allows Iran to impose costs on American interests across the region while maintaining plausible deniability and avoiding direct confrontation.
Iran's asymmetric warfare doctrine, emphasizing "passive defense" through camouflage, concealment, and underground facilities, leverages these geographic and network advantages to impose disproportionate costs on technologically superior adversaries. The strategy proved effective during decades of sanctions, enabling Iran to maintain state integrity while developing indigenous defense capabilities.
Great power backing reshapes the equation
Russian and Chinese support fundamentally alters the strategic calculus surrounding Iranian conflict. Russia's January 2025 20-year strategic partnership with Iran includes unprecedented military-industrial cooperation, with Iran supplying over 4,000 Shahed drones for Russia's Ukraine operations while receiving promises of Su-35 fighter jets and advanced air defense systems.
China's role as Iran's economic lifeline proves equally critical. Beijing purchases 1.6 million barrels of Iranian oil daily—90% of Iran's exports—generating approximately $25 billion annually and dramatically reducing sanctions pressure. This "shadow fleet" operation, using disabled GPS tankers and Chinese yuan transactions through small banks, demonstrates sophisticated sanctions evasion that has proven largely impervious to American pressure.
The implications for military escalation are sobering. While neither Russia nor China offers security guarantees, their economic and technological support provides Iran with alternatives to Western systems and markets. Russian S-300 air defense systems already protect Iranian airspace, while Chinese dual-use technology enhances Iran's indigenous defense industry. More importantly, both powers benefit from higher oil prices and reduced American influence in the Middle East, creating incentives for prolonged conflict.
The escalation trap tightens
Saturday's strikes represent precisely the kind of "political military theater" that transforms manageable tensions into uncontrollable escalation. By targeting nuclear facilities—universally recognized as crossing a red line in international relations—the operation virtually guarantees Iranian retaliation and regional involvement.
Iran's response options are numerous and asymmetric. Closure or partial disruption of Hormuz shipping would trigger global recession. Proxy attacks against American bases across the Middle East would force defensive responses that further entrench military commitment. Most critically, Iran can restart and expand its nuclear program at additional, harder-to-target facilities while withdrawing entirely from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The broader strategic picture reveals American isolation. European allies have called for "maximum restraint," while UN Secretary-General António Guterres termed the strikes a "dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge." Congressional Democrats label the operation a "clear violation of the Constitution," with some calling for impeachment proceedings.
Iran's geographic fortress, asymmetric capabilities, proxy network, and great power backing create a strategic environment where American military superiority translates poorly into political outcomes. The overnight strikes may have damaged nuclear facilities, but they have also eliminated diplomatic alternatives while strengthening Iranian resolve and regional solidarity.
Conclusion: The road to wider war
The fundamental flaw in American strategy lies in treating military action as a solution to political problems that require diplomatic resolution. Iran's unique combination of geographic advantages, asymmetric capabilities, and international backing makes it uniquely resistant to the kind of shock-and-awe tactics that characterized recent American interventions.
Saturday's nuclear strikes have likely achieved their immediate tactical objectives while creating the conditions for strategic catastrophe. Iran now has every incentive to weaponize its greatest asset—control over global energy supplies—while accelerating nuclear development at dispersed, hardened facilities. The proxy network provides multiple avenues for retaliation, while Russian and Chinese backing ensures sustained resistance.
Rather than demonstrating American strength, the overnight operation reveals the poverty of military solutions to complex geopolitical challenges. The strikes have transformed manageable nuclear negotiations into existential conflict, replaced diplomatic leverage with military commitment, and substituted tactical success for strategic wisdom.
The path forward leads inexorably toward wider war, economic disruption, and precisely the Iranian nuclear weapons program the strikes purportedly aimed to prevent. In targeting Iran's nuclear fortress, America has stumbled into its own strategic trap.
Update
A clearer picture is emerging regarding the recent U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. While official Department of Defense sources claim a major operation involving 30 submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles (TLAMs) and six GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs) dropped by B-2 bombers, credible skepticism is growing about this version of events. I believe that these strikes may have been significantly more limited than advertised—more symbolic than destructive.
Despite the claims of deep-penetration bombing runs and massive payloads dropped, I hardly find any evidence. Videos show minor explosions with no fires or secondary blasts, and footage suggesting large-scale destruction appears to be clickbait or deliberate disinformation.
Critically, the claim that B-2 stealth bombers dropped MOPs deep inside Iranian territory is almost certainly false. Penetrating contested airspace to strike a heavily defended site like Fordow would require extraordinary risk, exact timing, and real-time coordination—especially with no known strike escorts or electronic warfare support. The B-2s would have had to fly hundreds of miles through one of the most surveilled radar corridors on Earth, drop 30,000 lb bombs with precision, and egress through alerted airspace without detection or loss. Yet no satellite imagery, no crater patterns, no electromagnetic anomalies, and no battle damage assessments (BDA) have emerged to support this. If even one MOP had reached the target with full effect, it would have generated unmistakable seismic and thermal signatures. The simplest explanation: no B-2s were involved, and the "bomber angle" was inserted for dramatic and political effect.
A more plausible scenario -for now- is that these strikes consisted entirely of low-risk submarine-launched TLAMs targeting peripheral facilities. These missiles are capable of damaging surface-level infrastructure and bunker entrances but are not designed to destroy hardened nuclear cores. The absence of seismic signatures, electromagnetic disruption, or other forensic indicators supports this theory that no significant damage was inflicted on Iran’s nuclear capabilities. I’m also starting to suspect that the inclusion of B-2s in the narrative may be pure Pentagon theatrics, aimed at shaping public and international perception.
Political motivations seem likely. There are reports that claim that Trump’s team gave Iran (and Russia) a heads-up and framed the strike as a “one-off,” reminiscent of the 2017 Shayrat airbase strike and the 2020 Soleimani incident—both designed more for optics than escalation. The message may have been more about restoring Trump's image and bailing out Israel’s faltering strategy than seriously degrading Iran's nuclear program. As of now, Iran’s response has been restrained, with no evidence of retaliatory strikes or significant damage. Whether this remains a symbolic gesture or sparks a wider confrontation hinges on what Tehran decides in the coming hours or days.
References
https://apnews.com/article/israel-iran-war-nuclear-talks-geneva-news-06-21-2025-a7b0cdaba28b5817467ccf712d214579 - US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61002 - Strait of Hormuz oil flow statistics
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/what-makes-iran-powerful-think-it-fortress-82291 - Iran's geographic fortress advantages
https://www.mei.edu/publications/irgc-and-persian-gulf-region-period-contested-deterrence - IRGC capabilities in Persian Gulf
https://www.stimson.org/2024/iran-and-russia-enter-a-new-level-of-military-cooperation/ - Russia-Iran military cooperation
https://newlinesinstitute.org/strategic-competition/irans-conventional-military-capabilities/ - Iran's asymmetric warfare doctrine
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/26/1208456496/iran-hamas-axis-of-resistance-hezbollah-israel - Axis of Resistance proxy network
https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/confrontation-between-united-states-and-iran - US-Iran conflict analysis
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/experts-react-israel-just-attacked-irans-military-and-nuclear-sites-whats-next/ - Expert analysis on escalation risks
https://sonar21.com/will-trumps-political-military-theater-widen-the-war/ - Critical perspective on military theater