In the dead of night, American stealth bombers dropped bunker-busting bombs on Iran’s heavily fortified nuclear sites, marking a stunning escalation in the region’s already volatile landscape. President Trump, declaring “spectacular military success,” insisted this strike cripples Iran’s nuclear programme and deters future ambitions. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu hailed it as “historic.” But beneath this triumphalism lies a far graver reality: this brazen strike risks unleashing consequences that could ripple through the Middle East for years, making nuclear proliferation more likely, not less.
Washington and Tel Aviv may claim victory today, but the costs could be catastrophic tomorrow. Iran’s leadership has long used the spectre of a foreign threat to justify its nuclear ambitions. By bombing Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan, the US has handed Tehran fresh political capital to rally domestic support for an accelerated nuclear push, this time more covert, dispersed, and potentially more dangerous.
Regional stability, already fragile, hangs by a thread. The conflict in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and simmering tension in the Red Sea have left the region teetering. By entering the fray directly, the US has created conditions for a far larger conflict. It could trigger renewed Houthi attacks on global shipping to possible retaliation on American assets in the Gulf. Meanwhile, the UN has rightly expressed alarm over a “dangerous escalation,” which should not be brushed aside.
The irony is bitter: this strike comes seven years after Trump abandoned the Iran nuclear deal, which, despite its flaws, verifiably curbed Tehran’s enrichment. Now, instead of a negotiated freeze, we have a bombed-out program that will likely regroup underground, shielded from inspectors and more determined than ever.
A lasting solution was never going to come from 30,000-pound bombs. It required tough, patient diplomacy, the very path abandoned for a quick solution. As the region braces for retaliation and a possible spiral into wider war, Washington should remember: destroying a nuclear site is easy, but its long term consequences could be potentially dangerous for both the Middle East and the world.
What the Middle East needs is de-escalation and real dialogue, not bunker busters. Anything less risks ensuring exactly what this strike claimed to prevent: a nuclear-armed Iran. Now, not just Iran, other countries opposed to the west will conclude that only a bomb can guarantee their sovereignty. And this is a dangerous message to go out to the world.
