The unexpectedly decisive strikes on Iran’s nuclear program, carried out by Israel and the United States, abruptly shifted U.S. President Donald Trump’s mood from isolationist to triumphant warrior; this contributed to the success of the NATO summit... Events surrounding Ukraine began to unfold as if in a kaleidoscope.
A Blitzkrieg Against the Backdrop of Endless War
The new countdown for the current phase of events began on June 13, when—seemingly out of nowhere—the Israeli Air Force launched a powerful strike on Iran using ballistic missiles and drones, nearly obliterating its air defense systems, most of which consisted of the supposedly "impenetrable" Russian S-300 and S-400 systems. Israel justified the necessity of such a strike by citing intelligence that suggested Iran was only a few months—or possibly even weeks—away from developing its first nuclear bomb. Israel’s operation, however, strongly resembled Ukraine’s “Spiderweb” operation—in addition to precise airstrikes on pre-designated targets connected to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, explosions erupted directly in Iranian cities, reducing several residential buildings to rubble and killing 15 Iranian nuclear physicists along with their families. (Yes, this operation somewhat exceeds the bounds permitted by humanitarian law; however, Iran had been given so many chances to halt its nuclear ambitions peacefully—from the 2015 deal at the very least, to Trump’s attempts to persuade the country to abandon its nuclear pursuits in exchange for lifting sanctions and aiding Iran’s economic recovery—that it could have drawn conclusions by now about its maniacal “national” idea of destroying the Jewish state and maintaining terrorist groups across the Middle East to that end.)
Iran did not delay in responding, and the next day it reduced several residential buildings in the suburbs and center of Tel Aviv to rubble. The exchange of missile and drone strikes continued for several more days. As a result of targeted strikes, Israel achieved complete air superiority, totally destroying Iran’s air defense systems. The events threatened to escalate into yet another endless war for Israel—this time not with Iranian proxies, but with their metropolis itself, a country of 90 million.
However, Israel was unable to bomb the most important center of Iran’s nuclear program—the facility for enriched uranium storage and production located 90 meters underground in the city of Fordow—because it simply does not possess such capabilities. Only the United States has deep-penetration bombs capable of reaching bunkers at a depth of 60 meters; thus, destroying this facility would require several of these bombs.
Trump, through his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, attempted to negotiate a deal with Iran that was essentially similar to the 2015 agreement. That deal—between Iran on one side and five European countries and Russia on the other—allowed for the development of Iran’s nuclear program only for peaceful purposes, prohibited uranium enrichment beyond 3.5%, and placed the program under close oversight by the IAEA. The agreement, developed by the White House during Obama’s presidency, imposed certain limits on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but on the other hand, still allowed the ayatollahs’ regime room to manipulate, hide centrifuges from international inspectors, and secretly expand uranium enrichment and other capacities far beyond what would be needed for “peaceful atomic energy.”
(What amazes me most in this entire Iranian nuclear saga—whether of the "peaceful" atom or the "non-peaceful" one—is the complete absence of environmental activists, who are usually overly active in other countries when it comes to “fighting climate change.” Where are these passionate defenders of clean air when it comes to nuclear programs in one of the most seismically active regions of the world?! Have there not been enough earthquakes in the Iranian mountains already? And yet, the environmentalists seem to have vanished into thin air in this case.)
In any case, during his first term, Trump completely criticized the 2015 deal and unilaterally withdrew the United States from it, replacing it with nothing. Meanwhile, the state of the ayatollahs continued developing its nuclear program, wrapping it in the tightest secrecy—secrecy to which, as it turned out, the Israeli Mossad had direct access.
Under President Biden, the United States attempted to rejoin the deal, but Iran no longer agreed. Iran acted the same way with Steve Witkoff. At the negotiations, Iran behaved exactly like Putin: dragging out time while continuing its own agenda.
According to Israeli intelligence, by this point Iran had come so close to developing its first nuclear bomb that decisive action was required.
Israel struck first on June 13. Trump even expressed his dissatisfaction with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—an unheard-of move for Trump, since Bibi had been one of the U.S. president’s closest friends.
However, most likely, the operation was secretly coordinated with American counterparts, because why else would Trump have ordered the redirection of 20,000 Patriot missile system shells—originally allocated to Ukraine—to the Middle East? Now it became clear why and for what purpose.
Still, even after Israel achieved total dominance over Iranian airspace, Fordow remained—unreachable for Israel and accessible only to the United States.
Trump’s supporters became divided. Those who adhered to the “America First” ideology tried to dissuade the president from striking Iran; more traditional Republicans, the so-called “Reaganites”—followers of Reagan—insisted on intervention. It is highly likely that Trump’s final decision was influenced by the fervent pro-Israel voters among his base—not only Jews, but also evangelicals. Perhaps his own son-in-law, Jared Kushner, played a role; he had been instrumental in Trump’s Middle East policy during the first term (recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the U.S. embassy there; the Abraham Accords).
In any case, on June 21, the Commander-in-Chief gave the decisive order.
The operation stunned the world with its swiftness and surgical precision—especially given the reputation of Trump’s second term, with its selection of leadership often skewed toward personal loyalty over professionalism, and his policy of “militant isolationism.” On the night of June 22, the U.S. Air Force delivered powerful strikes on three nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Six deep-penetration bombs were dropped on Fordow.
Satellite images revealed six deep craters left at the site of the underground storage facility. “Iran’s nuclear program has been completely destroyed!” Trump proclaimed triumphantly.
Indeed, an operation of unprecedented complexity had been planned and executed. A total of 125 fighter jets appeared in the Iranian night sky. Most of the aircraft, consisting of outdated models, served as decoys for the real strike fighters carrying the ultra-heavy bombs. The operation had been prepared under the strictest secrecy, and not a single word leaked before it was carried out. No American pilot was harmed.
Although doubts immediately arose as to whether all the targets had been hit precisely enough for Iran’s nuclear program to be truly “completely destroyed” (Iran has more than 30 known nuclear-related sites, many of which remain undisclosed; there were reports that Iran may have managed to transport part of its enriched uranium elsewhere—satellite images showed a line of trucks near Fordow; and it was impossible to assess immediately whether the strike precisely hit all targets, including the plant in Isfahan), it became clear that Iran’s plans to produce nuclear weapons had been set back by at least several years. The overall military strength of Iran was significantly weakened, and, as a result, so was its ability to supply weapons to Russia. Notably, Russia refrained from assisting its so-called ally—following in the footsteps of Armenia and Assad’s Syria, Iran joined the growing list of Russia’s “allies” that have effectively been abandoned.
The following day, under Trump’s persistent “mediation,” Israel and Iran agreed to a ceasefire. They exchanged one final round of missile strikes and then stopped. How long will it hold? Will this be the end of the war, or will it reignite? Only time will tell.
However, in the context of Ukraine, an even more important—though seemingly indirect—result of the operation emerged: a complete shift in sentiment within the White House. The belief in the benefits of isolationism for the United States vanished without a trace! Trump was now triumphantly celebrating a major victory—alongside the planners of the operation, Israel (which had triumphantly carried out all the preparatory work by destroying Iran’s air defense systems), and that portion of his voter base still loyal to Reagan’s legacy.
15 Years – and 12 Days
On June 26, the Pentagon—responding to widespread doubts about the effectiveness of the U.S. operation—released a report on the planning and execution of this unprecedented mission. Preparations had spanned 15 years. Thus, it began during Barack Obama’s presidency, continued through Trump’s first term and into Biden’s—and finally, everything was ready for execution. A coincidence of timing?
ABC News correspondents Anne Flaherty and Luis Martinez recounted the “storyline” of the operation’s planning and execution, as told by General Dan Cane, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (during his statement regarding the report).
“In 2009, a U.S. officer working at the Defense Threat Reduction Agency was taken to a secure location and shown highly classified photographs of a construction site in the Iranian mountains,” Cane said. He explained that the officer and his colleague went on to study the site for 15 years. They analyzed the weather and geology of the mountain, as well as any materials discarded from the facility. They also examined ventilation shafts, electrical systems, and environmental control systems,” Flaherty and Martinez wrote.
The deep-penetration bombs were manufactured specifically to destroy this very facility.
On the day of the operation, twelve deep-penetration bombs were dropped into two ventilation shafts.
“Cane said the Iranians had covered the ventilation shafts with concrete caps, but the first bomb dislodged them. After that, the next four bombs were programmed to fall at speeds exceeding 1,000 feet per second and ‘detonate within the mission zone.’ The final bomb was labeled a ‘flexible weapon’ or backup. ‘All six weapons in each ventilation shaft at Fordow landed exactly where they were supposed to,’ Cane said, adding that the result was ‘a mixture of overpressure and blast that surged through the open tunnels and destroyed critical equipment,’” the authors noted.
They also quoted one of the fighter pilots who escorted the bombers: “It was the brightest explosion I’ve ever seen. It literally looked like daylight.”
Two days after the operation, the U.S. “learned,” according to the authors, of Iran’s intention to launch a retaliatory strike against an American military base in Qatar. The entire garrison was swiftly evacuated, leaving behind only two Patriot systems and 44 troops to defend the base; the oldest among them, a captain, was 28 years old.
Fortunately, no one was harmed. Qatar also provided support to the troops.
The NATO Summit Amid the Triumph of the United States
The annual NATO summit, held on June 24–25 in The Hague (Netherlands), confirmed a shift in sentiment in Washington. On the eve of the summit, Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and the results left a positive impression on both sides.
As a result of the NATO summit, Russia was designated as a “long-term threat.” Member states agreed to allocate 5% of their GDP to defense spending by 2035. And—most importantly for Ukraine!—military aid to Ukraine would be included in that 5%. In other words, Trump negotiated with NATO countries to purchase U.S. weapons for Ukraine using funds provided by NATO members—European countries, Turkey, and Canada.
Trump also agreed with the majority of NATO members that Russian ambitions could extend beyond Ukraine. Summit participants unanimously reaffirmed the inviolability of Article 5 of the NATO Charter.
Thus, Trump appeared in a completely different light than before: a supporter of NATO, including Article 5; a supporter of aid to Ukraine; and a member of the Alliance who understands that Russia poses a long-term threat.
It is quite possible that the brilliant success of the extremely complex military operation against Iran’s nuclear program began to convince Trump that his re-election slogan, “Peace through strength,” could be realized in precisely this way—by demonstrating military power.
The results of the operation against Iran, both in general and with respect to Ukraine, were analyzed by the head of the Institute for Totalitarian Ideologies at Stanford University, Yurii Yarym-Ahaiev (in a conversation with Rutgers University professor Serhiy Yerofeyev and host Yurii Zhykhalkin on the Russian service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty on June 27. As of the time of this article’s submission, only the audio version was available, so I can only summarize the key points rather than quote them directly).
The strike by Israel and the U.S. against Iran weakened not only its nuclear program but also the ayatollahs’ regime itself—even if no political changes in the country are yet visible. Since Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China form a totalitarian bloc waging a unified war against the West, delivering a defeat to one of these countries weakens the bloc as a whole.
The strike demonstrated the overwhelming superiority of Israeli and American weaponry not only over Iran’s but also over Russia’s. Yarym-Ahaiev compared the situation to the 1991 Gulf War, which showcased “such overwhelming superiority of Western weaponry over Soviet arms that the very arms race of the Cold War lost its meaning,” contributing to the collapse of the global communist system and the USSR.
Finally, Yarym-Ahaiev emphasized that what prompted Trump to take decisive action, in his view, were “Israel’s victories.” Similarly, he said, “Ukraine’s victories” had spurred decisive actions—“first by Biden, and now by Trump.” The more victories and successes Ukraine achieves in its defense, the more decisively the “Reaganite” wing of Trump’s supporters will act—encouraging the unpredictable president to live up to his slogan of “peace through strength.”
How long this shift in sentiment at the White House will last, no one dares predict—after all, we are dealing with Trump. Much will depend on future assessments of how effectively Israel and the U.S. achieved their objectives regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Intelligence is still scarce, and further verification will take time. Satellite imagery must be cross-referenced with intelligence reports, but such information has not yet been received from the site.
The White House’s attitude toward Ukraine will also depend on the broader political situation in the United States—specifically, on how the balance shifts between isolationist and Reaganite Republicans. And, of course, much will depend on the successes of Ukrainian diplomacy.
About Author:
