By Gustavo de Arístegui.
June 23, 2025.

The U.S.-led Operation Midnight Hammer, launched on June 21, 2025, targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow, in close coordination with Israel, marks a pivotal moment in the struggle against a regime that, for 46 years, has been the chief architect, financier, instigator, and direct perpetrator of global terrorism. Confirmed by President Donald Trump, this preemptive offensive responds to an imminent nuclear threat, substantiated by experts like David Albright and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Drawing on my interview with Negocios TV on June 22, 2025, this article examines the unprecedented dimensions of this conflict, the tangible nuclear risks, the surgical precision of the strikes, Iran’s strategic weakening following the collapse of its allies, and the prospects for a diplomatic resolution to neutralize the nuclear ambitions of an oppressive and belligerent regime.

The Nature of the Iranian Regime: The Epicenter of Global Terrorism

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has established itself as the foremost orchestrator of international terrorism. Its tentacles have orchestrated attacks in Beirut, Buenos Aires, Paris, Ethiopia, Turkey, Spain, and beyond, targeting embassies, civilians, and dissidents with alarming impunity.

A stark example is the 2018 arrest of an Iranian diplomat in Germany, caught with a bomb weighing several dozen kilograms intended to slaughter opposition members at a rally near Paris—an operation planned by Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and executed under diplomatic cover. As counterterrorism expert Bruce Riedel noted, “Iran’s use of diplomatic channels to facilitate terrorist operations is a well-documented pattern.” This is but one of hundreds of attacks and thousands of assassinations attributed to the regime, which has armed and funded groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraqi Shiite militias, destabilizing the region and threatening global security.

Domestically, the regime suffocates a population of 90 million, including an educated middle class that overwhelmingly rejects it. This is evidenced by memes and social media comments celebrating the elimination of Revolutionary Guard leaders and nuclear scientists. Iranians are the primary victims of a theocratic system that siphons off their wealth and vitality, maintaining sprawling “research” centers with thousands of square meters staffed by mere handfuls of scholars, as I observed during my visit to Tehran before the 2005 elections. This record of oppression and violence underscores the urgency of neutralizing Iran’s nuclear threat.

David Albright’s Assessment: A Critical Warning

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, is among the most authoritative voices on Iran’s nuclear program. In an interview published in The Wall Street Journal on June 20, 2025, he warned that, prior to Israel’s strikes on June 13, Iran could produce weapons-grade uranium for 11 nuclear weapons in one month and 22 in five months, with 900.8 pounds of uranium enriched to 60%.

The attacks have significantly weakened Natanz and Isfahan, but Fordow, fortified beneath a mountain, remains a threat. Albright estimates that, if Iran retains its 60% enriched uranium, Fordow could still produce material for nine weapons in a month. As former IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano stated, “Enrichment to 60% is a mere step away from weapons-grade, necessitating unwavering international vigilance.”

Albright lambasts the historical failures of Western intelligence, which, since 2007, erroneously claimed Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003. This complacency, exacerbated by the flawed 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), allowed Iran to advance toward a nuclear threshold while negotiating with the West. Championed by the Obama administration and the European Union, the JCPOA offered sanctions relief without addressing minor violations, galvanizing Israel, which, unable to discern whether Iran was preparing or building weapons, resorted to military action. The elimination of nine key scientists, including Fereydoon Abbasi-Davani, has disrupted the program, but Iran’s resilience demands sustained efforts.

Preemptive, Not Preventive: Moral and Legal Legitimacy

Operation Midnight Hammer is a preemptive, not preventive, strike, as articulated by President Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and General Caine from the White House. The attacks on Natanz (30 Tomahawk missiles and two GBU-57 bombs), Isfahan (10 Tomahawk missiles), and Fordow (12 GBU-57 bombs delivered by seven B-2 Spirit bombers) involved 125 aircraft, 75 precision missiles and bombs, fourth- and fifth-generation fighters, and submarines shielded by naval fleets.

Hegseth emphasized that the operation reinstates deterrence as a cornerstone of U.S. defense strategy, sending a clear message to adversaries: Washington seeks peace but will defend its people, forces, interests, and allies with unyielding resolve.

A preemptive strike, sanctioned by Article 51 of the UN Charter, addresses an imminent and verifiable threat. The IAEA’s May 31, 2025, report and experts like Albright confirm Iran could produce weapons-grade uranium (90%) in days, sufficient for 9 to 12 bombs per month, as noted by an analyst on BBC’s News Hour (June 22, 2025). This capability, coupled with Tehran’s belligerent rhetoric, legally justifies the action as self-defense. Morally, neutralizing a regime that threatens Israel’s annihilation and perpetrates terrorism is an ethical imperative, as international law scholar Yoram Dinstein has argued: “Preemptive self-defense is legitimate when facing an imminent and undeniable threat.” In contrast, a preventive strike, targeting hypothetical long-term risks, is illegal.

The surgical precision of GBU-57 bombs, equipped with triple guidance (GPS, inertial, and laser), and Tomahawk missiles minimized collateral damage, sparing civilians and avoiding Iranian troops, as Hegseth noted. Capable of penetrating 80 meters of rock, the GBU-57s likely devastated Fordow, despite Iran’s claims of minimal damage. This precision bolsters moral legitimacy, aligning with the Iranian populace’s widespread rejection of their regime.

Geopolitical Context: Assad’s Collapse and the Weakening of Proxies

The operation was enabled by the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, Iran’s primary conduit for harassing Israel through Hezbollah and Hamas. Without Assad’s Syria, a personalist regime responsible for atrocities, Iran’s terrorist network has lost a critical pillar.

* Hamas, reduced to 20,000 fighters in Gaza, struggles to survive Israeli strikes.

* Hezbollah, decapitated after the elimination of its leaders and with its rocket launchers in southern Lebanon destroyed, faces growing hostility from Lebanon’s population.

* The Houthis, weakened by U.S., Saudi, and Emirati attacks, retain capacity to disrupt maritime traffic but spare Chinese and Russian vessels, revealing reliance on external patrons.

Iraq emerges as Iran’s “soft underbelly,” with dozens of pro-Iranian militias posing an asymmetric threat. U.S. bases, such as the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain (preemptively evacuated) and the airbase in Doha, Qatar, constrain these militias’ ability to act without triggering a devastating response. Assad’s fall has disrupted Iran’s coordination, but the risk of retaliation persists.

The Terrorist Risk: A Cornered Regime’s Response

Iran’s conventional military weakness, with a navy incapable of challenging the USS Ronald Reagan, Carl Vinson, and Nimitz, will drive it to escalate terrorism. History shows that, when cornered, Iran resorts to cyberattacks, propaganda, and attacks.

The most vulnerable targets will be less-protected countries, particularly in Europe, where embassies and expatriate communities are likely targets. Lebanon, with Hezbollah still active despite its decapitation, and Iraq, with pro-Iranian militias, are immediate flashpoints. In the Gulf, Shiite minorities, notably in Bahrain (70% of the population), pose a risk, though not all are radicalized. The 2011 suppression of a Shiite uprising in Bahrain, with intervention from the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, underscores this sensitivity.

Iran will not hesitate to strike “soft” targets. Precedents, including attacks on embassies in Buenos Aires, assassinations of dissidents in Europe, and Hezbollah’s targeting of Lebanese figures like Rafic Hariri, reveal its lack of scruples. Fears of “dirty bombs” targeting the U.S., Israel, or Western allies are real, as security expert Bruce Hoffman has warned: “Iran has demonstrated its ability to orchestrate sophisticated asymmetric attacks.” The international community must bolster security in Lebanon, Iraq, and Europe.

The Strait of Hormuz Threat: A Doomed Blackmail

Iran has announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of global oil (20 million barrels daily, 84% to Asia) transits. This classic blackmail faces insurmountable obstacles. China, sourcing 45% of its oil from the Gulf, will pressure Tehran to avoid disruptions. U.S., Emirati, and Saudi demining capabilities, combined with two carrier strike groups in the Gulf and a third in the Mediterranean, neutralize this threat. Modern mines, triggered by vibrations or sound, pose no challenge to allied technology. Iran’s navy, adept at asymmetric tactics, is negligible against U.S. naval superiority. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, and China will respond forcefully, rendering any blockade untenable.

The Importance of Surgical Precision

The surgical precision of Midnight Hammer is critical to avoiding civilian casualties and nuclear leaks. GBU-57 bombs and Tomahawk missiles minimized collateral damage, sparing Iran’s population, which rejects the regime. The IAEA confirmed no radiological leaks, and Iran’s prior uranium evacuation reduced risks. This precision prevents the regime from exploiting civilian suffering to rally domestic support and reinforces the narrative of a strike against the ruling elite, not the people. Meticulous planning, with targets likely “painted” by Israel, reflects a commitment to moral and strategic legitimacy, as military analyst Michael O’Hanlon has observed: “Modern precision strikes limit humanitarian consequences while maximizing strategic impact.”

Europe’s Tepid Response: An Alarming Disconnect

The European response, led by Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa, was alarmingly slow, with “concern” statements issued eight hours after the strikes at 11:20 a.m. on a Sunday. This passivity reflects a leadership deficit and a disconnect from the gravity of Iran’s threat. Europe, proximate to the Middle East’s powder keg, cannot afford to be a bystander. Iranian agents’ infiltration of European institutions, as seen in the Vienna diplomat case, and the “suspicious proximity” of some officials to Tehran highlight the continent’s vulnerability. The EU foreign ministers’ meeting on June 23 comes too late, and generic condemnations of “force” ignore the preemptive legitimacy. Europe must support pressure on Iran and strengthen internal security.

Pressure for Negotiation: Toward a New Nuclear Deal

Midnight Hammer aims to compel Iran to negotiate a nuclear deal eliminating its uranium enrichment capacity and restricting its program to civilian use under IAEA oversight. Unlike the JCPOA, which allowed Iran to retain centrifuges and conceal facilities like Fordow, the new deal must be uncompromising: imported fuel enriched to 2-6%, with no domestic enrichment facilities. The obvious question—if the program is civilian, why hide it?—reveals military intent. Trump has offered a 15-day negotiation window but warned that any retaliation will trigger a devastating response.

Iran’s weakness, after Hezbollah’s decapitation, Assad’s fall, and blows to the Houthis, forces it to consider talks. An agreement would require Iran to abandon 60% enrichment, permit exhaustive inspections, and cease supporting terrorist proxies, in exchange for gradual, verifiable sanctions relief.

Future Scenarios: Diplomacy or Escalation

If Iran refuses to yield, the U.S. and Israel will escalate strikes. The U.S. could deploy additional B-2s with GBU-57s against Fordow, while Israel might employ cyberattacks or commando raids. Iran’s weak air defenses facilitate these operations, but the risk of terrorist reprisals is high. Iran could intensify cyberattacks and attacks in Lebanon, Iraq, or Europe, or resort to “dirty bombs.” Pro-Iranian militias in Iraq, with a history of targeting Western interests, pose an immediate threat.

Long-term, the regime’s collapse is possible, though not a stated goal. Most Iranians, stifled by the ayatollahs, tacitly support external pressure. A collapse could spark civil war or the rise of more radical factions. The international community must support Iran’s democratic forces to prevent a failed state.

Conclusion

Operation Midnight Hammer is a legitimate and necessary response to a regime blending nuclear ambition with 46 years of terrorism. Its surgical precision, strategic coordination, and pressure on Tehran open a diplomatic window, but demand a resolute Western stance. Europe must shed its timidity, voicing publicly what it whispers privately, and the international community must back a nuclear deal dismantling Iran’s military ambitions. As long as the ayatollahs hold power, the threat of brutal attacks persists. History will not forgive complacency or inaction against tyrants. The time for decisive action is now—to secure global stability and free the Iranian people from their oppressors.