Early Sunday morning, the United States bombed three nuclear sites in Iran: Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow. The attack marked a point of no return. Donald Trump, who hours earlier had stated that he would decide"in two weeks" whether to enter the war, has crossed the line. And he has done so with an operation that could extend the regional conflict and reshape the global nuclear landscape.
Fordow, Iran's most heavily fortified facility, is buried deep beneath a mountain south of Tehran, designed precisely to withstand attacks like the one it is now facing. According to official statements, the US used high-penetration bunker-buster bombs. However, there is no independent visual confirmation, either by satellite or by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), of the level of damage at Fordow. What is worrying is the risk of radioactive contamination if the attack compromised enriched uranium stockpiles or containment structures.
Hours before the attack, Emmanuel Macron revealed on X that he had spoken directly with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. France, along with Germany and the United Kingdom, attempted to discreetly revive nuclear talks with Tehran. However, the US offensive appears to have left that diplomatic channel in ruins. Although the European Union has yet to issue an official response, it is expected to publicly express its concern about the escalation and the possible ultimate collapse of the nuclear deal (JCPOA). An open conflict could bring with it new waves of migration, energy volatility, and further militarization of the Strait of Hormuz.
What consequences could this intervention have?
Direct US entry into the conflict inaugurates a much more dangerous phase. In the short term, Iranian attacks on US bases in Iraq or Syria, Hezbollah involvement in Lebanon, or attacks and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz are likely to expand.
Destroying Fordow may have momentarily disrupted Iran's operational capability, but it will hardly halt its nuclear program. Physical sites can be destroyed, but not the knowledge that made them possible. The Iranian program has been designed for geographic dispersion and redundancy, with scientists trained in different locations, material stockpiles, designs, etc. But above all, in the medium term, the US strike could strengthen the Iranian regime's narrative among its population. Netanyahu's call for the Iranian people to"rise up" against their government seems naive in the face of the nationalism that external aggression often arouses.
In the long term, there is a risk that Iran will decide to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. By attacking nuclear facilities, Washington has destroyed incentives for restraint. Iran could thereby expel inspectors and reactivate its program with greater legitimacy among its population. As happened with Iraq in the 1980s and Syria after the Israeli bombing of 2007, preemptive strikes don't dismantle programs: they delay them, transform them... and often accelerate them.
Trump sought to avoid war, but with this operation, he has ignited a conflict with far-reaching consequences. What's at stake is no longer just regional stability, but the global nonproliferation architecture.
