By: TPS Staff

During President Trump’s tenure, he vowed to be the “Peacemaker and Unifier” as stated in his January inaugural address, calling it his proudest legacy, per THE WHITE HOUSE. He also maintained a firm stance that Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon. Since Israel’s first attack in Iran on June 13th, the world had witnessed the president and his administration struggle to articulate a clear position on the situation. This ambiguity now appears to be part of the administration’s broader strategy.

While the administration has continued to make genuine efforts toward a diplomatic solution, there were clear signs that talks were stalling and patience was wearing thin. Just two days after Trump issued a “two-week” ultimatum demanding Iran’s complete surrender, reports emerged Sunday, June 22nd, that U.S. forces launched strikes on three key nuclear sites in Iran between 6:40 p.m. and 7:05 p.m. ET, in an operation called “Midnight Hammer.”

A key aspect of Trump’s foreign policy was the rejection of unnecessary U.S. involvement in the Middle East and around the world. This stance resonated strongly with many of his supporters. Prominent figures such as Charlie Kirk and Stephen K. Bannon engaged in discussions with Trump, expressing their opposition to entering another Middle Eastern conflict, according to the Washington Post. Many opposed joining the war due to skepticism about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and concerns about the potential consequences—echoing the lingering distrust stemming from the Iraq War during the Bush administration.

This skepticism has been widespread across the country, frequently appearing on social media platforms. From the highly viewed Tucker Carlson podcast featuring Senator Ted Cruz, to The Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testifying that U.S. intelligence assessments did not indicate Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons. This statement was later publicly contradicted by Trump.

Between approximately 6:40 p.m. and 7:05 p.m. Eastern Time on Saturday (2:10 a.m. in Iran), U.S. forces launched coordinated strikes against three key nuclear sites: Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordo, according to The U.S. Department of Defense. The operation involved B-2 stealth bombers, Navy submarines, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs, according to General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The chairman also referenced a “decoy package moving to the west into the Pacific,” highlighting the element of misdirection—an aspect of the planning that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth emphasized during a press conference as posted on The U.S. Department of Defense. Hegseth added that the operation was deliberately limited in scope and designed to leave “a clear psychological impact.”

This statement underscores what was intended as a warning: the U.S. has the capability—and the will—to escalate past this initial attack if Iran refuses to pursue a path toward peace. While all three nuclear targets sustained significant damage and the president’s address to the nation was regarded as a, “spectacular military success,” the exact outcomes of the strikes remain unclear.

In the days leading up to the operation, abnormal activity was reported near one of the entrance tunnels, including the presence of bulldozers and cargo trucks. The Wall Street Journal reported that Vice President J.D. Vance stated that the goal of the mission was to end Iran’s capacity to achieve weapons-grade uranium, which was completed. However, a substantial amount of Iran’s enriched uranium has been relocated and remains intact and is a major topic of conversation going forward.

The strikes demonstrate how the military was able to keep the operation surgical to avoid broader involvement in a war. The strikes only targeted the nuclear facilities, not any Iranian troops or its people, a significant factor in the attacks assumed to keep it from escalating—though the situation remains fluid, and the next steps are uncertain. 

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and other conservative leaders have voiced skepticism over Iran’s intent to develop a nuclear weapon, a central claim behind former President Trump’s justification for the recent military strike. Critics point to intelligence assessments and recent testimony suggesting that Iran’s nuclear program may not be as advanced or imminent.

The U.S. has warned Iran that diplomacy remains the only path to avoid further escalation. “They must choose peace or face consequences far swifter and more devastating than anything they've seen before,” Trump said in a televised national address at 10 p.m. Saturday posted by THE WHITE HOUSE. He declared the operation a success and reaffirmed his administration’s stance: “Iran will not possess a nuclear weapon on my watch.”

Hegseth described the strike as a “necessary warning shot,” while Vance emphasized, “We are not at war with Iran but with Iran’s nuclear program.” Trump concluded his address with a stark warning: “There will be either peace or a tragedy for Iran, far greater than what we have witnessed over the past eight days.”  

The potential for escalation remains high, as Iran has signaled possible retaliation. On Sunday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that Iran would respond in “self-defense,” potentially through the use of regional proxies such as the Houthis in Yemen to attack U.S. military bases in the region, U.S. naval assets, and other American interests.

Iran’s initial retaliation included missile attacks on Israel hours after the U.S. operation took place. Heavy damage was sustained to multiple cities, citing wounded citizens. The next attack occurred on June 23rd, sparking global debate, as Iran launched a brief strike on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar—the largest U.S. military installation in the Middle East. Located just across the Persian Gulf, the base houses approximately 11,000 U.S. troops and played a significant role during the War on Terror.

The assault involved short and medium range missiles, which were intercepted by air defense systems. No casualties have been reported, as intelligence had warning of the impending attack. Troops were ordered to take shelter, and the airspace had been closed shortly beforehand. Though intended as a message to the White House, Iran has made no further moves since.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not yet made a public statement towards the U.S., but various members of Iran’s parliament have voiced concerns and floated other possible responses, including the country’s withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and the activation of “sleeper cells” within the U.S.

Given ongoing concerns about the security of the southern border combined with the presence of individuals with overseas ties, officials are closely monitoring potential threats. Iranian actors have previously attempted operations on U.S. soil, including targeting Iranian dissidents and media figures, as well as being linked to high-profile plots. These incidents, proven through arrests and prosecutions, have highlighted the persistent risks and raised questions about what could potentially unfold within the United States.

Additionally, there are growing concerns about economic disruption particularly in the Strait of Hormuz. Oil markets have already reacted, as The Wall Street Journal reports that U.S. crude oil prices have fluctuated over the past couple of days. The Strait of Hormuz, which stretches along Iran’s southern border, serves as a critical transit route for roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply. The region has become a flashpoint for geopolitical tensions, especially after the recent collision of two oil tankers in the area.

The possibility that the Strait could come under attack or be shut down entirely has sparked alarm, as such a scenario could lead to a surge in global oil prices and severely impact major oil-importing countries, including China and India.

With uncertainty looming, analysts are closely monitoring Iran’s next move. Comparisons are already being drawn to former President Trump’s 2020 assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, an event that pushed the region to the brink of conflict. The current dynamics are reviving old fears, as the risk that further escalation will continue to grow.

Since the start of the war against Iran, many countries in the Gulf region have condemned Israel’s attacks. However, following the recent U.S. strikes, several nations including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar expressed concern but stopped short of openly criticizing the United States. The region is caught in a difficult situation. Over the past decade, these countries have been working to diversify and grow their economies, cities, and infrastructure, moving away from reliance on fossil fuels. This new chapter also highlights the need for de-escalation and an avoidance of conflict. Despite maintaining ties and relationships with the U.S., they have consistently refrained from allowing their airspace or military bases to be used for offensive operations against Iran.

Many Arab countries were happy to see Trump pull out of the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran but have shifted towards lowering regional tensions. The region has been expressing concerns about the wars wreaking havoc and doesn’t want to be involved. The escalation has been viewed as a disaster and a step backward, as the region views diplomacy as the only option to solve the crisis. 

International reactions to the U.S. attacks on Iran were sharply divided but were consistent in finding a diplomatic solution and an end to the conflict. Ongoing escalation and conflict in the Middle East jeopardize the diplomatic relationships and geopolitical interests of many countries. While not going into every government’s political statements, some of the world's leading international organizations including The United Nations, The European Union, G20, and NATO, all agreed that diplomacy was the only solution to resolve the growing conflict in an already unstable Middle East. 

What’s to come next? It’s not just the question the world is asking; it’s the question that will define the future based on how it’s answered. Will Iran choose to retaliate, risking a broader regional war, or will it bend to pressure, including President Trump's demands for unconditional surrender? With the hopes of peace prevailing, perhaps mediation from allies like Russia will help diplomacy. Another possibility, could involve Iran moving towards regime change, as Trump expressed over social media. Particularly with the recent development of the apparent “Cease-Fire” between Iran and Israel that seems to have gone sideways, furthering any diplomacy and relations amongst Israel, Iran, and the U.S.

First Time GBU-57 Bunker-Buster bombs have been used in combat.

History of Fordow Nuclear Enrichment Site.

Iran's involvement in the Russian Ukraine war.

Iran's past involvements with militias and terrorism.

All U.S. aircraft and personnel returned safely, with no damage sustained and no indication they were targeted or fired upon.