&w=3840&q=100)
US strikes on Iran's nuclear sites: The beginning of the West Asian endgame?
The strikes through the B-2 Bombers delivering the GBU-57 Deep Penetration bombs may have upstaged everything that has happened so far. One thing is clear: all shackles are off, and the world stands on the brink of war read more
A US Air Force B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber (C) is flanked by 4 US Marine Corps F-35 fighters during a flyover of military aircraft down the Hudson River and New York Harbor past York City, and New Jersey, US, July 4, 2020. REUTERS/Mike Segar/File Photo
The US B-2 Bombers bombed Iran's most secure nuclear enrichment site at Fordow in the early hours of 22 June, bringing an end to a week of speculation about whether the US will relent to Israel's request. With 30 Tomahawk missiles striking the other two prominent nuclear sites at Isfahan and Natanz simultaneously, it appears that the US has severely damaged, if not destroyed, Iran's nuclear programme for a long time, if not forever.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
However, what it has perhaps unleashed is an all-out conflict in West Asia, which may not be restricted to only Iran and Israel now. Initial reactions from Iran suggest that the Strait of Hormuz will be closed, and many Western and American assets in West Asia could now be targeted by Iran and its proxies in the region. How Russia, China and other Arab nations will react is yet to unfold, but one thing is clear: all shackles are off now, and the world stands on the brink of war!
Global events now seem to be moving in a direction quite at odds with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's thoughtful assertion that 'this is not an era of war'. India was itself forced into a sharp but brief conflict with Pakistan following a dastardly terror attack in Kashmir on April 22, killing 26 innocent civilians. 'Operation Sindoor', launched by India, struck deep into Pakistan, causing unprecedented damage to the terror infrastructure as well as Pakistan's air and air defence capabilities. Although the conflict was called off after 96 hours, after Pakistan pleaded for an immediate ceasefire, tensions continue to simmer.
Elsewhere in the globe, the situation is no better. The Russia-Ukraine war has completed three years since Russia launched 'Special Military Operations' in February 2022. Despite tall claims by US President Trump that he would end the war soon after taking over the presidency, the conflict has become more bitter in the past few weeks.
The 'Operation Spider Web', launched by Ukraine on June 1, through smuggled drones into Russia, reportedly destroyed more than 40 combat aircraft of Russia, including strategic bombers and surveillance planes. Russia, in turn, has intensified ground as well as air operations in Ukraine, targeting key assets including the capital city of Kyiv. In addition, Russia has warned European countries that any direct military aid to Ukraine may draw them into the conflict as well, forcing the EU as well as other major countries in Europe to take urgent measures to upgrade their defence preparedness as well as increase their defence budgets exponentially.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
In West Asia, the most conflict-ridden region since the end of World War II, the war in Gaza continues unabated. Every day brings in reports of Israeli strikes resulting in more deaths and destruction in Gaza. Latest official figures indicate that the death toll in Gaza has crossed 57,000, of which 70 per cent are women and children.
Although there is no active conflict presently in neighbouring Lebanon and Syria, the undercurrent of unease and tensions continues. While the Lebanese army has assured Israel that it will keep Hezbollah on a leash, the possibility of Hezbollah's resurgence, primarily to support Iran in the future, cannot be ruled out. In Syria, although a swift military operation ousted the Assad regime in December 2024, the new government under Al Sharaa is still finding its feet, and reports of skirmishes continue.
However, the most worrisome conflict is the Israel-Iran conflict. Initiated by Israel on 13th June, when Israeli strikes targeted and damaged Iran's nuclear enrichment sites in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. In addition, Israel has eliminated almost 20 of Iran's top military leadership and nuclear scientists. Iran's retaliation through missile strikes too made a significant impact in Israel by causing substantial damage in the cities of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, Israel's military headquarters, Haifa port city, and the Soroka hospital in Southern Israel. But the strikes through the B-2 Bombers delivering the GBU-57 Deep Penetration bombs may have upstaged everything that has happened so far.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Despite threats from the US of direct military intervention into Iran and demands that Iran surrender, Iran has refused to bow down to the threats. In turn, Iran has threatened to strike US military assets spread across more than 19 locations across West Asia. Also, the threat of closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the thin lifeline of crude oil and gas flow to the world, has caused panic and alarm across the globe, as any such disruption could cause a spike in crude oil prices, adding to the inflationary trends across the world. In addition, any strikes on US assets in the region would draw in the regional Arab neighbours directly or indirectly into the conflict, something that countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE have successfully avoided since October 7, 2023.
Towards the Indo-Pacific, China is quietly upping the ante. Over the past year, tensions between China and Japan soared after the near-continuous deployment of Chinese advanced surveillance naval vessels in Japan's contiguous zone. Recently, Japan reported a near collision when a Chinese fighter jet from the aircraft carrier Shandong made 'abnormal approaches' to a Japanese patrol aircraft over the Pacific Ocean. Also, conflicting claims and disputes over islands and maritime assets around the South China Sea, as well as China's claims over Taiwan, are a recipe for a conflict, even through an unintended trigger.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Other regions like the Pakistan-Afghanistan border continue to remain conflict-prone, with frequent reports of cross-border skirmishes. Africa has its own share of conflicts and destruction through terror. In one recent incident, more than 150 people were killed in Nigeria's Yelewata community on June 13, when unknown assailants opened fire on villagers who were asleep.
Conclusion
The increasing range of conflicts in the world reflects the breakdown of the global order established after World War II. The emerging global powers like China and resurgent powers like Russia are challenging the space being ceded by the declining supremacy of the superpowers of the Cold War era. For India, this is not the time to be embroiled in any conflict. The priority is rapid and uninterrupted economic growth towards realising its vision of Viksit Bharat @ 2047. The swift end to Operation Sindoor may have drawn criticism from many quarters, but every day of continued conflict would have imposed costs that would have had a direct bearing on the goal of a developed and self-reliant India.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Col Rajeev Agarwal is a West Asia expert and a Senior Research Consultant at Chintan Research Foundation, New Delhi. His X Handle is @rajeev1421. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Hindustan Times
32 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Iran hints at Strait of Hormuz closure. How will it impact Indian crude imports?
Amid its ongoing conflict with Israel and the US, Iran has hinted it may close the Strait of Hormuz, which lies between Iran and its Gulf Arab neighbours. The passage facilitates the daily supply of about a fifth of the world's oil, Bloomberg reported. (File photo) Oil tankers pass through the Strait of Hormuz,(REUTERS) Not just global, the closure of this strait may impact India's energy security as well, some experts have said. Tehran indicated the strait's closure for shipping after the US military struck three of Iran's key nuclear facilities. When asked about the closure, Iranian foreign minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said, "A variety of options are available to Iran." Will closure hurt India? About 40 per cent of India's supplies are sourced from Middle East nations such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait. These countries export crude oil to India through the Strait of Hormuz. About 2 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, a significant portion of India's total imports, is sent through the passage. While there is a significant portion that India sources from the Middle Eastern countries, there is still less likelihood of a big impact on its oil supply if the strait is shut, news agency PTI reported. This is because India mostly imports Russian oil which uses the Suez Canal, Cape of Good Hope, or the Pacific Ocean for its passage, and not the Strait of Hormuz. Qatar, India's principal gas supplier, also does not use the Strait of Hormuz for supplies. Similarly, India's other sources for LNG supply in Australia, Russia and the US would also not be impacted by the strait's closure. Impact on imports from Saudi, Iraq India's crude oil imports from Iraq, and to an extent from Saudi Arabia, will be impacted if the Strait of Hormuz is closed, said Dr Laxman Kumar Behera, Associate Professor at Special Centre for National Security Studies at JNU. Besides, if the Strait of Hormuz is closed even briefly, it will impact oil markets significantly, a recent analysis by the International Energy Agency showed. "With geopolitical and economic uncertainties affecting oil producers and consumers alike, oil supply security remains high on the international energy policy agenda," it said. Nearly 30 per cent of global oil and one-third of the world's LNG (liquefied natural gas) use the Strait of Hormuz for their passage. Its closure could have significant global repercussions, including costlier rerouting of oil shipments and an impact on the currencies of the countries in the region. Will Iran shut Strait of Hormuz? Ever since the Israel-Iran conflict began on June 13, Iran has hinted at closing the Strait of Hormuz. Apart from the Iranian Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Hosseini, the deputy chief of mission at the Iranian embassy, had also said closing the Strait of Hormuz is an option. Despite this, a prolonged Strait of Hormuz disruption is very unlikely. The Strait of Hormuz not only deals with exports of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait and Qatar, but also of Iran itself. China is the number one importer of Iranian oil at 47 per cent of its seaborne crude, reportedly accounting for over three-quarters of its oil exports. Hence, while the Strait of Hormuz closure stands to impact global oil markets, it also would prove counterproductive for Iran. Iran, which is already in a geopolitical conflict with Israel and the US, is likely to risk international military escalation with this key passage closure.


Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump promised to end wars — Now he's starting one
Donald Trump campaigned as the president who would end 'forever wars'. He withdrew troops from Afghanistan, pulled the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal, and insisted he would resolve global conflicts through strength, not entanglement. But with a single decision, ordering strikes on Iran's core nuclear facilities on June 22, Trump has pushed the US into its most direct confrontation with Tehran in decades. By aligning with Israel's escalating shadow war, he has risked a broader regional conflict and undercut the central tenet of his foreign policy: keeping America out of new wars. 'Remember, there are many targets left… But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill,' Trump said in a televised address after the attack. The strikes on Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, all key to Iran's uranium enrichment efforts, marked the most aggressive US action since the 2020 killing of General Qassem Soleimani. They have cast a long shadow over Trump's 'America First' approach. Is this Trump's Iraq moment? With the strike, Trump may have crossed a line he long promised to avoid: drawing America into another Middle Eastern conflict. Live Events Despite repeated pledges to end endless wars and prioritise domestic concerns, his decision to target Iran's nuclear sites has revived memories of 2003, when the US invaded Iraq over suspected weapons of mass destruction. Then it was Saddam Hussein. Now, it is Iran's estimated 7–10 day 'breakout time' to a nuclear bomb. In both cases, the consequences are unpredictable. Trump once styled himself as the anti-war president. He criticised the Iraq invasion, pulled troops from Afghanistan, and insisted on avoiding military entanglements. 'Great nations do not fight endless wars,' he told Congress in 2019, often claiming he was the only modern president who had not started a war. That narrative may no longer hold. At odds with his own Throughout his political career, Trump questioned US military interventions. His 2016 and 2024 campaigns both promised to scale back global commitments and bring troops home. Under the 2020 Doha Agreement, his administration committed to a full withdrawal from Afghanistan, completed in 2021 under President Biden. Trump frequently cited this as proof of his restraint. Yet the recent decision to authorise strikes in Iran has undermined that claim. According to reports in the Financial Times, Trump's rhetoric turned confrontational during a Gulf visit last month. 'We want them to be a wonderful, safe, great country, but they cannot have a nuclear weapon,' he said. 'This is an offer that will not last forever.' Days before the strike, he left the G7 summit in Canada to consider military options. A two-week deadline given to Tehran was unexpectedly cut short, triggering the Saturday night offensive. Inside the strike The operation was led by US Air Force B-2 stealth bombers, which deployed six 30,000-pound GBU-57A/B 'bunker busters' on Fordow. These weapons are designed to target deeply fortified facilities. Natanz, a central hub for enrichment, houses thousands of IR-1 and IR-6 centrifuges. Isfahan contains uranium conversion units vital for fuel fabrication. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), these facilities are crucial to Iran's nuclear ambitions. As of May 2025, the IAEA confirmed that Iran had enriched uranium to 60%, , dangerously close to the 90% threshold needed for weapons-grade material. approaching weapons-grade levels. US intelligence estimated Iran could accumulate enough fissile material for one nuclear device in under ten days. This rapidly narrowing 'breakout time' was cited by Washington and Tel Aviv as justification for the preventive strike. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed Trump's move as 'bold and historic'. Risks and strategic blowback Trump's advisers reportedly believed Iran would avoid full-scale retaliation due to economic struggles and domestic unrest. According to Financial Times, the president's inner circle described the strike as a 'limited but decisive' step to neutralise a threat without prolonged involvement. 'It all depends on how the Iranian regime reacts,' said Brian Katulis of the Middle East Institute. 'Iran's regional network remains lethal and capable of spreading more instability.' Dana Stroul, a former Pentagon official, said the attack undermined Trump's diplomatic claims. 'Trump repeatedly emphasised deal-making and avoiding conflict. Yet here we are, five months into his second term, and the US is in direct conflict with Iran.'In Washington, the response was swift and polarised. While some Republicans defended the action, critics raised alarm over the lack of congressional approval. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for Trump's impeachment, while Republican Thomas Massie labelled the strike unconstitutional. Senator Chris Van Hollen said, 'The war in Iraq was also started under false pretences. The US should not have joined Netanyahu in launching a war of choice.' Others in the GOP stood by Trump. House Speaker Mike Johnson described it as 'America First policy in action'. The electoral gamble At the time of the strike, Trump's approval rating stood at 46.9%, with 51% disapproval, according to RealClearPolitics. 'He still has political room, especially if Iran retaliates,' said Aaron David Miller of the Carnegie Endowment, reported FT. 'But if Americans are killed or oil prices soar, that could change quickly.' Troops on the line The US maintains around 40,000 troops across 19 bases in the region, according to the New Indian Express , citing the Council on Foreign Relations. These locations are now potential targets. Mehran Kamrava, a professor at Georgetown University in Qatar, highlighted the risks. 'That means there are 40,000 targets we can hit,' an Iranian commander reportedly said. Energy markets on edge Oil markets reacted swiftly. Brent crude rose 28% in just two weeks, from $61 in mid-May to $78 after the attack, according to J.P. Morgan Asset Management. Iran accounts for only 1.6% of global oil exports, but its geographic position gives it leverage. The Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20% of the world's oil supply flows, could become a chokepoint in any conflict. The Economics Observatory estimates that a $10 rise in oil prices adds 0.7 percentage points to inflation and cuts GDP by 0.2% in advanced economies. The last time a similar shock occurred, during the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the Iran-Iraq war, it triggered stagflation in the US, UK and parts of Europe. A history of intervention This is not the first time the US has intervened in Iran with lasting consequences: In 1953, the CIA helped orchestrate a coup that ousted Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. In 1988, Operation Praying Mantis saw US naval forces sink Iranian ships. In 2020, Trump ordered the killing of General Soleimani, bringing both nations to the brink of war. Each move was described as decisive, but each deepened hostilities. When is war worth it? For Trump, the answer may be: When it prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state. That has been his red line. But the strike has raised a much broader and more urgent question, for lawmakers, voters, and US allies alike: What are the limits of presidential war-making power in the 21st century? Senator Jack Reed, ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, put it plainly: 'This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,' as reported by FT.


Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
Tulsi Gabbard snubbed by Trump? DNI missing from White House Situation Room photos during Iran strike
File photo of Tulsi Gabbard and US President Donald Trump The White House released official photographs of President Donald Trump in the Situation Room as US forces carried out precision airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, but one conspicuous absence has fuelled speculation, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was nowhere to be seen. The images show Trump, wearing his signature red 'Make America Great Again' hat, surrounded by top members of his national security team: Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth, Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Caine, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. But Gabbard, a central figure in America's intelligence hierarchy, was not in any of the official photos released. Her absence follows a very public disagreement with Trump over Iran's nuclear intentions. In March, Gabbard had testified to Congress that Iran was not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. But last week, Trump directly rebuked her assessment. 'She is wrong,' he told reporters. 'I don't care what she said.' The timing of the omission has raised eyebrows. Just days before the strike, Gabbard issued a post on X revising her earlier stance, writing, 'America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalise the assembly.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo She also accused the media of misrepresenting her testimony and added, 'President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree. ' Still, the public nature of their disagreement and her absence during a moment of such significance appears to suggest more than a scheduling conflict. Historically, the Director of National Intelligence has been present in high-stakes moments like the 2011 Osama bin Laden raid, the 2020 strike on Qasem Soleimani, and multiple post-9/11 national security sessions. Tulsi herself had appeared in earlier White House briefings on Iran in June. Trump's decision to greenlight the strikes came just two days after the White House had publicly said he would take two weeks to decide. Instead, by Saturday evening, US aircraft had destroyed three key nuclear sites using bunker-busting bombs and Tomahawk missiles. Trump declared the mission a success, saying it 'obliterated' Iran's enrichment facilities and warning Tehran, 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran. ' The strike has divided lawmakers. Rep. Thomas Massie called it unconstitutional, while Rep. Ro Khanna said it lacked congressional authorisation. The administration, meanwhile, insists the action was necessary to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions.