US Strikes on Iran’s Nuclear Sites: Is This the Beginning of a Bigger War?

 On Sunday morning, the United States confirmed it had launched airstrikes on three of Iran’s nuclear facilities—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The announcement was made by U.S. President Donald Trump.

Soon after, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the move. His tone was that of a victor. For nearly 15 years, Netanyahu had tried to convince the U.S. and its allies that only military action—specifically American firepower—could eliminate Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Calling Trump's decision “historic and bold,” Netanyahu offered his congratulations. But in doing so, he could’ve congratulated himself too. It was Netanyahu who played a key role in changing Trump’s mind—despite Trump’s earlier promises of avoiding military interventions abroad, and the fact that many of his supporters strongly opposed any involvement in an Israeli-Iran conflict.

It’s also worth noting that U.S. intelligence agencies had not fully agreed with Israel’s assessment that Iran was close to building nuclear weapons. There was no clear indication that Iran had even decided to pursue them.

Throughout this 10-day conflict, Israel claimed it had the capacity to confront Iran on its own. But it was no secret that only the United States had the advanced weaponry needed to break through Iran’s heavily fortified nuclear defenses—especially Fordow, located deep within a mountain.

With the involvement of American B2 bombers, the direction of the conflict has undoubtedly shifted. But whether this develops into a larger war will depend on how Iran and its allies respond.

Just last week, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed to retaliate if the U.S. intervened. He warned that any American military interference would cause irreparable damage.

On Saturday, Yemen’s Houthi rebels—close allies of Iran—also threatened that if the U.S. entered the war, they would target American ships in the Red Sea. This raises new dangers for American troops, business facilities, and even civilians across the region.

Iran has multiple options for retaliation. It could target U.S. warships or bases in the Gulf, or disrupt oil shipments—a move that could cause global fuel prices to skyrocket.

So far, the U.S. has signaled that its military operation is complete and that it has no interest in regime change in Iran. This statement may serve as a message to Iran to keep its response limited.

Iran, in turn, may carry out symbolic attacks that avoid mass casualties, or it might use its regional allies to deliver its response. This strategy mirrors what happened in 2020 when Trump ordered the killing of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani—Iran's retaliation was measured and indirect.

Now, with these latest strikes, the entire Middle East is holding its breath. Are we witnessing the end of this conflict—or the beginning of a far more dangerous phase?

Other's Article Reed Now -

🌐Why Iran’s Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan Nuclear Sites Matter 

🌐US Strikes on Iran’s Nuclear Sites: How Islamic Countries Reacted 

🌐 Iran vs Israel Conflict: Full Details on Iran’s Powerful Sajil Missile Used in the Attack