In a coordinated operation that represents a dramatic escalation in the Middle East conflict, the United States joined Israel in targeting key Iranian nuclear sites on June 22, 2025. U.S. B-2 stealth bombers struck facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, while Israeli jets hit additional sites. President Donald Trump proclaimed the strikes a success, warning Iran that “further peace is on our terms—or they will face more devastating consequences.” This unprecedented cooperation between Washington and Jerusalem raises profound questions about the future of international norms, the integrity of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, and the stability of the post-World War II global order.
Background: From Diplomacy to Bombing Raids
The Abraham Accords and Regional Thaw
In 2020, Israel normalized relations with Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco and Sudan, ushering in a period of cautious optimism. By 2023, diplomatic breakthroughs between Iran and Saudi Arabia further suggested that long-standing rivalries might soften. Yet these gains unraveled after the Hamas-led assault on Israel on October 7, 2024, and the ensuing Israeli offensive in Gaza.
U.S. Withdrawal from the JCPOA
In 2018, President Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), arguing that the deal failed to address Iran’s ballistic-missile program and regional activities. Subsequent snapback sanctions—and Iran’s partial resumption of uranium enrichment—deepened mistrust and brought tensions to a boil.
Israel’s Proxy Wars and the Shadow of Iran
Over the past year, Israel dismantled Hamas in Gaza, struck at Hezbollah’s Lebanon infrastructure, and pressured Houthi rebels in Yemen. Yet Israel’s leadership, notably Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, argued these campaigns failed to eliminate Iran’s “nuclear threat,” which the Israeli government has long portrayed as imminent despite repeated IAEA assurances that Iran remains non-weaponized.
The June 22 Strikes: Scope and Objectives
U.S. Air Campaign Targets Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan
Under full U.S.–Israeli coordination, long-range U.S. B-2 bombers delivered GBU-57 bunker-busting munitions on deeply buried uranium-enrichment facilities at Fordow (Qom province) and Natanz (Isfahan province), as well as a research center near Isfahan. The stated aim was to set back Iran’s “breakout” timeline by several years by physically collapsing centrifuge halls and command bunkers.
Israeli Strikes Hit Military and Intelligence Sites
Simultaneously, Israeli Air Force F-35s and F-15s attacked weapons depots, missile-assembly plants and Revolutionary Guard command nodes. Officials in Jerusalem emphasized the need not only to degrade Iran’s nuclear infrastructure but also to disrupt its regional proxy networks.
President Trump’s Public Rationale
On national television, President Trump framed the operation as a necessary response to an “existential threat” posed by Iran’s alleged nuclear armament. He argued that previous U.S. policies had failed to deter Tehran’s ambitions, and that only decisive military action would secure Israel’s safety and American interests in the region.
Implications for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime
Erosion of the NPT’s Authority
Iran remains a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which obliges non-nuclear states not to pursue weapons while allowing peaceful use of nuclear energy under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. Israel, by contrast, has never joined the NPT and maintains a policy of nuclear opacity. Washington’s decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites without U.N. Security Council authorization—or even separate parliamentary debate—signals a troubling willingness to bypass treaty frameworks.
Precedent for “Might Makes Right”
Analysts warn that the strikes establish a dangerous precedent: powerful states unilaterally deciding which NPT signatories may pursue enrichment and which may not. If “threshold” states like Japan, South Korea or Saudi Arabia perceive that Iran’s program can be destroyed by force, they may seek their own latent nuclear capabilities as ultimate deterrents—potentially unraveling the entire non-proliferation architecture.
Regional Fallout and Security Dilemmas
Risk of Wider Conflict
Tehran has vowed retaliation “against U.S. and Israeli interests everywhere.” Likely Iranian responses could include missile strikes on U.S. bases in the Gulf, renewed Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping lanes, and escalation of attacks on American vessels in the Persian Gulf. The U.S. Fifth Fleet stationed in Bahrain and bases in Qatar, Kuwait and Iraq may become targets.
Proxy Intensification and Civilian Toll
Already, Iran’s regional proxies in Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen have announced readiness to resume hostilities. The prospect of renewed urban warfare, civilian casualties and sectarian reprisals imperils fragile states across the Levant. Meanwhile, oil markets have reacted with price spikes and volatility, reflecting concerns about maritime chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz.
Domestic and International Backlash
U.S. Political Divisions
Within America, hawkish Republicans hail the strikes as “finally showing resolve,” while many Democrats and foreign-policy experts decry the lack of congressional authorization and coherent endgame. Anti-war demonstrations have sprouted in major cities, with critics warning of an open-ended military quagmire reminiscent of Iraq in 2003.
European and Global Responses
European allies, though privately supportive of degrading Iran’s enrichment, publicly lament the bypassing of U.N. processes. France, Germany and the U.K. called emergency talks at the U.N. Security Council but stopped short of outright condemnation—illustrating Europe’s own strategic ambivalence. Meanwhile, China and Russia condemned “unilateral aggression” and hinted at diplomatic and economic countermeasures.
The Shifting Contours of Global Order
End of the Liberal International Order?
Since 1945, the liberal international order has rested on inviolable sovereignty, collective security under the U.N., and norms against territorial conquest. By joining Israel’s operation without Security Council mandate, the U.S. has weakened those bedrock principles, accelerating a slide toward great-power competition where force and alignment count more than law and multilateralism.
Comparisons with Ukraine and Taiwan
Observers note parallels between U.S. acceptance of Israeli action against Iran and Western reluctance to confront Russia over Ukraine’s sovereignty. Would the same logic permit a future Chinese attack on Taiwan, justified by perceived security threats? The erosion of red lines in the Middle East may embolden revisionist powers elsewhere.
Prospects for a New World Disorder
The death knell for the post-1945 order sounds not because U.S. power is waning—far from it—but because the willingness to wield that power outside established rules is rising. In a fractious multipolar environment, smaller states will scramble to hedge, seeking security guarantees or weapons of last resort. International institutions may struggle for relevance amid rising unilateralism.
Conclusion: An Era of Impunity or a Call to Reform?
The U.S.–Israel strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities represents more than a tactical blow in a decades-long rivalry; it signals a fundamental reckoning with the norms that have underpinned international relations for generations. The impulse to act swiftly—and to invoke impunity for powerful states—risks unleashing cascading conflicts and fueling proliferation. Yet this moment could also serve as a catalyst for reinvigorating multilateral arms-control agreements, clarifying the limits of pre-emptive force, and reaffirming the centrality of diplomatic dispute resolution. Whether the world chooses impunity or reform will shape the coming era—and with it, the prospects for peace in an increasingly volatile global landscape.
READ MORE: International Politics of Nuclear Non-Proliferation: The Israelo-Iranian Dimensions
