U.S.–Israel Strike Iran Nuclear Sites, Strait of Hormuz Threatened

Sins, straits, and strategy.

The conflict between Iran and Israel, which ignited following an Israeli airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities on June 13, escalated rapidly through mid-June. In the days that followed, Israeli forces expanded their campaign, concentrating firepower on nuclear infrastructure and military command nodes.

Iranian officials reported that these strikes hit both strategic bases and densely populated areas suspected of housing senior figures in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The reported death toll climbed above 400 by June 18, with Iranian sources claiming a significant number of casualties were civilian.

As precision strikes struck deep into the country’s interior, urban centers like Tehran witnessed an accelerating exodus. Footage emerged of families abandoning apartment blocks for rural peripheries, fearing further bombardment.

For Israeli leadership, the operation was framed not as a war of choice but one of necessity. The nuclear program, long viewed as an existential threat, had in their view passed the threshold of tolerability. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated the campaign’s objective was to neutralize that threat, though in private briefings he hinted at broader ambitions.

While publicly rejecting regime change as a goal, his rhetoric suggested that degrading Iran’s governing capacity would not be an unwelcome outcome. The message was clear: so long as Tehran possessed both the capability and intent to challenge Israel’s strategic position, its nuclear infrastructure would remain a target.

Iran’s response in the early phase of the conflict was forceful but calibrated. It began launching ballistic missiles into Israeli territory, marking the first time Iranian strikes reached Israeli cities with this level of intensity.

Over the nine days leading up to June 22, these barrages killed at least 24 people, breaching a defensive architecture long viewed as one of the most sophisticated in the world. Air-raid sirens became a fixture of daily life across Israel. On June 18, alerts in Tel Aviv and other cities sent millions scrambling for shelter as Iranian missiles targeted key urban centers.

While most were intercepted, several penetrated Israel’s layered missile defense network, a sobering development for a country accustomed to air superiority and reliable protection from external threats. The psychological effect was stark on both sides.

For Israelis, the sight of residential buildings hit by Iranian missiles introduced a level of direct vulnerability absent in previous conflicts. In Iran, repeated airstrikes produced a climate of sustained anxiety and fear, as families braced for the next wave without knowing where it would fall.

In Tel Aviv, one resident emerged from the rubble of his apartment and, despite losing everything, expressed quiet resolve. His reaction captured the mood in Israel: determined, shaken, and increasingly hardened.

By June 17 and 18, the regional and international diplomatic climate had grown increasingly brittle. Tehran issued a series of warnings aimed at deterring Western powers from deeper involvement.

A senior Iranian lawmaker stated that if the United States were to enter the conflict in a direct and operational capacity on Israel’s behalf, Iran would reserve the right to close the Strait of Hormuz, the maritime chokepoint through which approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil supply flows.

This was not posturing. For decades, the threat of closing Hormuz has remained one of Iran’s most potent forms of asymmetric leverage—a tool capable of throwing global energy markets into disarray and testing the resolve of any external actor contemplating escalation.

The message behind the threat was unambiguous: U.S. military intervention would come at the price of global economic instability. Yet even as Iranian officials sharpened their rhetoric, they held back from enacting such measures immediately. The restraint suggested a desire to calibrate retaliation in proportion to Washington’s eventual posture, keeping the threat alive without triggering the full range of consequences it would entail.

Moscow and Beijing, both long-standing partners of Tehran, reacted to the widening conflict with a mix of strategic concern and cautious recalibration. On June 17, Russia’s Foreign Ministry publicly condemned Israel’s airstrikes on Iran, branding them a violation of international law and warning of their potential to destabilize the region.

Russian officials underscored Iran’s adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its stated openness to diplomatic engagement, framing Moscow as a responsible actor committed to legal norms and regional stability.

The message carried a subtle but deliberate rebuke of the United States. Russia noted that Israel’s campaign had drawn support only from its direct allies, whereas broader international sentiment leaned toward condemnation. In a gesture aimed at positioning itself as a mediator, Moscow revived an earlier proposal to take custody of Iran’s enriched uranium—a move intended to deescalate the crisis while reinforcing its own diplomatic relevance.

For the Kremlin, the approach reflected a familiar balancing act. Russia has built deep strategic ties with Tehran, particularly through cooperation in Syria and arms sales, but has little interest in a direct confrontation with Israel or the West.

By offering mediation and calling for a return to negotiations, Moscow signaled its support for Iran while deliberately avoiding military entanglement. The posture was calibrated to protect Russian equities in the region without overcommitting to a conflict it cannot control.

China’s response during this phase was marked by restraint, but its opposition to further escalation was unequivocal. From Beijing’s perspective, the confrontation between Israel and Iran risked destabilizing a region critical to China’s energy security and broader geopolitical interests.

As a major importer of Middle Eastern oil and a consistent advocate of multilateral conflict resolution, China viewed the widening war as both a strategic liability and a diplomatic opportunity.

Chinese officials called for an immediate ceasefire almost from the outset. On June 14, just a day after the first strikes, Foreign Minister Wang Yi personally contacted his Israeli counterpart to urge a halt to hostilities.

By the following week, China’s diplomatic machinery was fully engaged. Beijing issued a steady stream of public statements calling for de-escalation, reiterating its support for Iranian sovereignty, and warning against attacks on nuclear infrastructure.

Chinese representatives at international bodies echoed those concerns, with Beijing’s delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency denouncing military action against nuclear sites under IAEA safeguards—an implicit but pointed criticism of Israeli operations.

The overarching message was consistent: the conflict must be resolved through dialogue, not force. Alongside Moscow, Beijing positioned itself as a counterweight to what it characterized as Western unilateralism.

By pressing for negotiations and framing itself as a guardian of international law, China sought not only to insulate its interests from regional volatility but also to assert its role as a stabilizing power in a crisis increasingly defined by great power alignment.

U.S. Intervention and Coordinated Strikes (June 19–21, 2025)

Midway through the week, attention turned sharply to the United States as policymakers debated whether to escalate from indirect involvement to direct military action. Until then, Washington had confined itself to public calls for restraint and discreet logistical support for Israel.

President Donald Trump had oscillated between diplomatic overtures and open threats, at times positioning himself as a potential mediator and at others hinting at direct retaliation. The ambiguity kept allies and adversaries alike uncertain about where American policy would ultimately land.

By June 19, the balance in Washington appeared to shift. Israel’s struggle to neutralize Iran’s hardened nuclear infrastructure, coupled with Tehran’s mounting threats of regional retaliation, sharpened the administration’s sense of urgency.

Within days of floating both a diplomatic track and the idea of striking Iran’s supreme leader, Trump gave the order for direct intervention. Analysts quickly characterized the decision as the most consequential foreign policy gamble of his presidency.

The rationale, according to senior officials, was that without U.S. assistance, Israel’s ability to fully degrade Iran’s nuclear program would remain limited, and the window for action might soon close. What followed would redefine the trajectory of the conflict.

Between June 19 and 20, U.S. military planners moved to execute a high-risk operation aimed at dismantling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in a single, coordinated strike.

The plan, dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer, relied on precision, deception, and air superiority. As final orders were issued on June 21, the U.S. Air Force activated a fleet of B-2 Spirit stealth bombers from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri.

In a carefully orchestrated diversion, several of the bombers took off westward toward the Pacific, triggering speculation that the U.S. was shifting strategic assets toward Guam or the South China Sea. That flight path, however, was a deliberate feint.

At the same time, a separate flight group of seven B-2s departed eastward under radio silence, navigating a circuitous route toward the Middle East. These aircraft, built to evade radar and penetrate heavily defended airspace, refueled repeatedly mid-flight.

By the time they neared Iranian territory, their presence had gone undetected. The choreography was designed to achieve maximum surprise, and by all early accounts, it succeeded.

The United States had begun its largest direct strike on Iranian territory in decades—delivered not from the region, but from its strategic heartland, without warning and without a footprint.

In the early morning hours of June 22, local time in Tehran, the coordinated U.S. strike began. As the B-2 bombers closed in on their targets, a U.S. Navy submarine positioned in the Arabian Sea launched more than two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles.

These struck key radar installations and communications hubs, degrading Iran’s already strained ability to detect and respond. Simultaneously, American fighter jets crossed into Iranian airspace ahead of the bombers, deliberately drawing attention and probing for reactions from air defense operators.

The maneuver served its purpose. Iran’s surface-to-air defenses, degraded by prior Israeli strikes and caught off balance by the scale and timing of the U.S. operation, failed to mount any meaningful resistance. No interceptors were launched. No anti-aircraft batteries opened fire.

The B-2s encountered a corridor of silence as they descended toward their targets. The absence of response underscored the depth of the tactical surprise and the cumulative toll the past week’s attrition had taken on Iran’s air defense infrastructure.

For Washington, it was a rare demonstration of total penetration into one of the most heavily guarded regions in the Middle East.

The B-2 bombers executed their strike in swift succession, targeting three of Iran’s most critical nuclear sites. Fourteen GBU-57A/B bunker-buster bombs—each weighing 30,000 pounds—were deployed with calculated precision.

The main objective was the Fordow enrichment facility, buried deep beneath a mountain south of Tehran. Post-strike satellite imagery revealed clear impact: sections of the mountain had been torn open, and at least two tunnel entrances leading into the site were destroyed.

Two additional facilities were hit in the same operation. At Natanz, Iran’s primary uranium enrichment complex, and in Esfahan, where a major nuclear research center is located, the strikes inflicted visible structural damage. Buildings collapsed, infrastructure was shredded, and in both cases, the heart of Iran’s nuclear apparatus appeared severely compromised.

This was the largest one-day mission ever conducted by B-2 bombers. More than 125 U.S. aircraft were mobilized in supporting roles—refueling, escort, surveillance, and electronic warfare.

By the end of the operation, senior American officials expressed high confidence that Iran’s nuclear capabilities had been significantly degraded. Some went further. President Trump, speaking later that day, described the outcome in absolute terms, declaring that Iran’s nuclear infrastructure had been “completely and totally obliterated.”

Throughout the operation, Israel and the United States functioned as an integrated force, coordinating their actions with a level of precision that reflected months, if not years, of joint planning.

Israeli intelligence likely…