Will Iran give US a 'political grenade'?
THE United States' strikes on Iranian nuclear sites on Sunday raised two major questions: how effective were they and what will Iran do next?
US President Donald Trump said the air raids "totally obliterated" the main nuclear sites, calling them a "spectacular military success".
So far, Teheran has given little away about its response, although Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the US had "crossed a very big red line".
The US targeted Iran's three main nuclear sites, including Fordow, a uranium enrichment facility buried 90m underground.
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said the strikes "devastated the Iranian nuclear programme".
The extent of the damage has not been confirmed, but there is speculation nuclear material had already been moved away.
Heloise Fayet, a nuclear expert at the Institut Francais des Relations Internationales, said satellite images showing activity around Fordow "suggests enriched uranium stock may therefore have been transferred to sites not monitored by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)".
"We previously had knowledge, albeit imperfect, of the programme thanks to the agency's inspections; now no inspections are possible," she said.
"As for Iran's technical expertise, it cannot be destroyed, knowing that thousands of people have participated in Iran's nuclear programme."
Andreas Krieg, a senior lecturer at King's College London, called the US action a "high-risk operation that delivers unpredictable outcomes", given the facility was deep underground.
"Trump has been using OSINT (open-source intelligence) accounts to say Fordow is gone while the Iranians claim there is only surface-level destruction."
Ali Vaez, Iran project director for the International Crisis Group, said destroying Fordow "won't necessarily end Iran's nuclear programme".
"Teheran has produced hundreds of advanced centrifuges in the past few years that are stored in unknown locations," he said.
According to Krieg, Iran will seek a "calibrated response — loud enough to resonate, but measured enough to contain".
Michael A. Horowitz, a geopolitics and security analyst, said its options included attacking US assets, closing the Strait of Hormuz — a vital conduit for the world oil trade — or even attacking energy facilities in the Gulf, which hosts several US military bases.
"None of those are good options that achieve anything — this is mostly about saving face," he posted on X.
"The risks, on the other hand, are great."
However, Horowitz said there were other ways to respond, including a limited retaliation against the US before returning to strikes against Israel and finally negotiating a settlement.
The Iranian government now realised its very existence was at stake, said Renad Mansour, senior research fellow at the Chatham House think tank, casting it back to the days of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.
"It's survival mode," he said, predicting "more violence" in the short term with the prospect of a "managed de-escalation" and eventual negotiations.
Hamidreza Azizi, visiting fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, said Iran might allow Trump a "symbolic win" and retaliate against Israeli targets instead.
"This keeps Washington out of the war while intensifying pressure on Tel Aviv. The risk of drawing the US further in would now rest on Trump's next move," he posted on X.
"If Trump continues to strike Iran without new provocation, it looks more like going to war on Israel's behalf. That's politically costly, given domestic opposition to war with Iran."
Meanwhile, Iran could deny knowledge of what happened to its enriched uranium, avoiding IAEA inspections, and later leave the Nuclear Non-Profiferation Treaty.
"Trump may have scored a tactical win but if Iran plays this smart, they hand him a political grenade, all while shifting the nuclear game into murkier, more dangerous territory," wrote Hamidreza.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Analysis: NATO summit highlights internal tensions amid Trump's defense spending push, says experts
By Zhao Xiaona, Larry Neild LONDON, June 23 (Xinhua) -- As NATO leaders gather this week in The Hague for the alliance's first-ever summit hosted by the Netherlands, attention is shifting toward the alliance's cohesion and internal dynamics, rather than facing external policy challenges. According to the agenda, although the summit officially runs for two days, from June 24 to 25, the key discussions are expected to take place over the course of a single day. The agenda is narrowly focused on U.S. President Donald Trump's proposal to raise defense spending targets to 5 percent of GDP - a plan that has received a mixed response from European capitals, highlighting deeper concerns about NATO's unity, military capabilities, and long-term strategic direction. "This summit is highly Trump-centric," said Stefan Wolff, professor of international security at the University of Birmingham. "It's been compressed to a single day, with a single agenda item, designed to limit unpredictability. That reflects NATO's institutional anxiety - a defensive effort to retain the U.S. as a participant, even at the cost of long-term planning." Wolff added that the summit's tightly controlled structure underscores fears that Trump might exit prematurely or withdraw support if discussions stray beyond his specified terms. "The structure of this meeting is intentionally risk-averse," he said. "It's not about building consensus - it's about avoiding disruption." Although Trump's demand for higher defense spending dominates the agenda, recent unilateral U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities have further diverted NATO's focus from its foundational mission - strengthening Europe's defense architecture. "The U.S. acted alone, and Europe simply wasn't part of that conversation," Wolff said. "Europe still lacks strategic enablers - intelligence, long-range transport, rapid deployment, and command systems. These aren't just budget issues - they are structural gaps." Wolff warned that even if NATO members meet the proposed 5 percent target, without prioritization and coordinated defense-industrial development, such spending risks becoming "financial inflation without strategic output." Internal divisions further complicate the alliance's ability to act cohesively. While some member states push for a more proactive collective defense role, others remain reluctant to commit to common strategies or timelines. "If NATO cannot agree on its main purpose, then even well-funded forces will lack shared direction," Wolff said. "Without unity, the 5 percent target becomes just another political gesture to buy time." John Bryson, chair of Enterprise and Economic Geography at Birmingham Business School, the University of Birmingham, described the summit as a crucial test for Europe's defense ambitions. "This is a test of whether Europe can grow beyond its dependency on the United States and shape a credible defense model of its own," he said. Bryson noted that raising defense spending is not a panacea for NATO. "This is the paradox of deterrence - you spend vast sums on weapons that may never be used, and that doesn't automatically translate into security. " He emphasized that NATO should be a stabilizing force. "It is not a war-fighting alliance, but a war-prevention structure. The moment it loses its cohesion, it loses its meaning." Both Bryson and Wolff agreed that the alliance faces fragile internal conditions. Trump's influence, they said, has driven NATO toward short-term reassurance at the expense of long-term strategic development. Bryson also noted that Washington's growing involvement in Middle East conflicts risks further distracting NATO from its core European focus. "Venturing beyond its geographic scope could dilute NATO's identity as a defensive pact - and that, above all, must be safeguarded," Bryson said.
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Iranian parliament committee approves general plan to suspend cooperation with IAEA, news agency reports
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) logo and Iranian flag is seen in this illustration taken June 16, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration CAIRO (Reuters) -The national security committee of Iran's parliament approved the general outline of a bill meant to fully suspend Tehran's cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, semi-official Tasnim news agency reported on, citing committee spokesperson Ebrahim Rezaei. Rezaei said that according to the bill, installing surveillance cameras, allowing inspections, and submitting reports to the IAEA would be suspended as long as the security of nuclear facilities is not guaranteed. Parliament still has to approve the bill in a plenary. (Reporting by Jaidaa Taha; Editing by Leslie Adler)
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
Exclusive-Americans worry conflict with Iran could escalate, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
Iran's and U.S.' flags are seen printed on paper in this illustration taken January 27, 2022. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Americans are anxious over a brewing conflict between the U.S. and Iran and worry the violence could escalate after President Donald Trump ordered the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Monday. Some 79% of Americans surveyed said they worried "that Iran may target U.S. civilians in response to the U.S. airstrikes." The three-day poll, which began after the U.S. airstrikes and ended early Monday before Iran said it attacked a U.S. air base in Qatar, showed Americans were similarly concerned about their country's military personnel stationed in the Middle East. Some 84% said they worried in general about the growing conflict. The poll, which surveyed 1,139 U.S. adults nationwide, underscored deep divisions in America over what Washington should do next and highlighted the political risks faced by Trump, whose presidential approval rating fell to 41%, the lowest level of his current term in office that began in January. The poll had a 3 percentage point margin of error. The U.S. bombing took place just two days ago and the public's view of the conflict could evolve in the days and weeks ahead. Only 32% of respondents said they supported continued U.S. airstrikes, compared to 49% who said they were opposed. However, within Trump's Republican Party, 62% backed further strikes and 22% were opposed. Republicans were more deeply divided when asked if they supported an immediate end to U.S. involvement in the conflict with Iran, with 42% saying Washington should end its involvement now and 40% opposed to the idea. Significant majorities of Democrats were opposed to bombing Iran further and in favor of ending the conflict immediately. Trump ordered the U.S. military to bomb Iran's nuclear sites on Saturday, a dramatic and risky shift in foreign policy following repeated pledges by Trump to avoid military interventions in major foreign wars. The president's overall approval rating, down 1 percentage point from 42% earlier in the month, has largely held steady in recent months, but is below the 47% reading in a Reuters/Ipsos poll just after he returned to the White House. (Reporting by Jason Lange; Editing by Scott Malone and Alistair Bell)
