Found an error?
Report nowAfter days of indecisive communication from Trump, the US military is now targeting Iranian nuclear facilities after all - risking an escalation in the Middle East.
The USA attacked nuclear facilities in Iran during the night: the underground uranium enrichment plant in Fordo and facilities in Natan and Isfahan. US President Donald Trump is talking about the complete destruction of the facilities and is threatening even bigger attacks if the Iranian side does not take the path of peace. Meanwhile, Iran's nuclear organization has declared that Iran's nuclear programme will not be halted despite the "malicious plots of its enemies".
So much is still unclear - but some questions can already be answered. Here are the most important ones at this point in time:
Like Israel, the USA argues that military intervention is necessary to prevent the threat of Iran's nuclear armament. Before the attacks last night, Trump had repeatedly emphasized that Tehran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear bomb. The attacks by Israel, which preceded the American attacks, could have offered the US government the opportunity to decisively weaken the Iranian nuclear program with a strike of its own.
However, there is also a camp in Trump's Republican Party that has long sought a political overthrow in Tehran.
The attacked nuclear facility in Fordo is considered by Israel to be the most important target in its war against Iran. Satellite image from June 14, 2025)
Image: Keystone/EPA/Maxar Technologies
According to experts, the Iranian Fordo nuclear facility near the city of Ghom in particular is located so deep underground that it can only be effectively attacked with a bunker-busting bomb weighing several tons. Only the US military has this heavy bomb. US aircraft, such as B-2 stealth bombers, are also needed to transport the heavy munitions, and it is precisely these that have now been deployed, reported the usually very well-informed Israeli journalist Barak Ravid on Platform X, citing a senior Israeli official.
Experts argued that Israel could hardly achieve its declared war aim without direct military support from Washington.
In the weeks leading up to the escalation, Trump was still backing a negotiated solution and initiated several rounds of nuclear talks with Tehran. According to the New York Times, he was therefore initially skeptical of Israel going it alone. Accordingly, he urged Israel's head of government Benjamin Netanyahu to hold off on a military strike. But from Trump's point of view, the dialog with Tehran was becoming increasingly protracted. He became impatient.
When Israel then pressed ahead with the attack against Iran without open backing from Washington, Trump changed course - much to the displeasure of the isolationist wing of his party, which clearly rejects US military intervention in Iran.
The political leadership in Tehran asserts that its nuclear program is exclusively for civilian purposes. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and many countries are concerned that Tehran is getting closer to building a nuclear bomb. Iran is the only nuclear-free state to produce uranium with a purity level almost suitable for weapons. The IAEA has no evidence of a systematic attempt by Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. However, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi did not rule out the possibility of covert activities on the US broadcaster CNN.
There has long been controversy about how far such activities may have progressed. Against this backdrop, the military action taken by the USA and Israel against Iran is controversial under international law. In order to justify self-defense, an attack by the other side must be imminent or already underway. A possible threat in the future is not actually sufficient, even if some states have already adopted a broader interpretation.
The Middle East is of considerable geopolitical importance to the USA. Israel is seen as a stable partner in an unstable region. US presidents of both parties have repeatedly emphasized that Israel's security is part of America's self-image - even using military means if necessary. This is particularly true for Trump. The Republican already pursued a demonstratively pro-Israeli course during his first term in office.
Israel regards Iran as its arch-enemy and saw its existence threatened by the suspected development of Iranian nuclear bombs. Relations between Washington and Tehran have also been extremely tense for decades. The two countries do not maintain diplomatic relations with each other. For Iran's Shiite leadership, the slogan "Death to America" is part of the standard repertoire.
The US also accuses Iran of destabilizing the Middle East by supporting various militias that it classifies as terrorist groups - including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthi in Yemen and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. A weakening of Tehran is therefore likely to be seen in Washington as an opportunity to limit the influence of these groups.
Economic interests also play a role in this context. Since the beginning of the Gaza war, the security situation on important sea routes in the region has worsened. The Houthis have increasingly attacked merchant ships in the Red Sea. The USA is therefore also concerned about the stability of global supply chains and energy prices.
The US military has many bases around the Persian Gulf, for example in Bahrain and Qatar. They are not very far from Iran as the crow flies and could become targets. There are currently around 40,000 US soldiers stationed in the entire region. The question is whether such an escalation would be in Tehran's interests, as the US would be likely to respond with full force.
Another lever would be a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. The approximately 55-kilometre-wide strait between Iran and Oman is considered one of the most important shipping routes for global oil exports, for example for exports from Saudi Arabia - and there are already fears of distortions on the oil market due to the US attacks.
Russia repeatedly warns of the danger of a third world war - albeit with a view to its own invasion of Ukraine if the West deploys its own troops there and the situation escalates further. With regard to the Middle East, Moscow's Foreign Ministry warns that there is a real nuclear threat from Israel's attacks on nuclear energy facilities and that the world is heading towards "a nuclear catastrophe". However, it is unlikely that Russia will support Iran with troops.
It is true that Moscow and Tehran officially concluded a widely respected strategic partnership this year. However, this does not include a clause on military assistance - unlike the agreement concluded between Russia and North Korea.
On the one hand, Russia has tied up resources with its war against Ukraine. On the other hand, Russia may have no appetite for further involvement in the Middle East, even after years of involvement in the Syrian civil war. In Syria, Russia ultimately failed with its ambitions to support the then ruler Bashar Al-Assad, who was also supported by Iran. The Russian leadership recently tried to dissuade the USA from attacking Iran.
22.06.2025, 04:53
22.06.2025, 12:09
