Answer

The United States strike on Iran on 22 June 2025, code-named Operation Midnight Hammer, saw precision airstrikes by B-2 bombers and Tomahawk missiles on Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. This marks a significant departure from traditional deterrence, signalling a shift towards preemptive military action.

The Strike Marks a Shift from Deterrence to Preemption

• Striking potential threats before activation: The attack occurred despite the absence of confirmed Iranian nuclear weapons, illustrating a shift toward targeting capabilities rather than intent.
  Eg. The U.S. struck Iran’s nuclear facilities on intelligence of future enrichment potential rather than current violations.
• Bypassing diplomatic warning mechanisms: No formal diplomatic warning or congressional authorization preceded the operation, highlighting unilateral action.
  Eg. The strike was announced by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth only after completion, bypassing standard consultative processes.
• First combat use of GBU-57 bunker buster bombs: The use of the 30,000-pound bunker busters on hardened sites marked a significant escalation.
• Coordination with Israeli military forces: The operation was executed alongside Israeli airstrikes, reflecting an allied shift toward joint preemptive doctrine.
  Eg. Simultaneous strikes on Fordow were reportedly coordinated with Israel’s Mossad and IDF.
• Emphasis on military unpredictability: The U.S. strategy reflects an emerging doctrine of strategic surprise and swift action.
  Eg. President Trump called the strike “a lesson in decisive clarity,” promoting unpredictability as deterrence.

Implications of This Strategic Shift

• Increased risk of nuclear proliferation: Iran may now accelerate its covert nuclear efforts to avoid future vulnerabilities.
  Eg. Analysts warned of resumed 20% uranium enrichment in underground facilities post-strike.
• Breakdown of diplomatic frameworks: The attack undermined the already fragile Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
• Potential for regional escalation: Iran responded with retaliatory missile launches, raising fears of broader conflict.
  Eg. Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar was reportedly targeted by Iranian ballistic missiles in retaliation.
• Volatility in global energy markets: Oil prices surged due to fears of disruption in the Strait of Hormuz.
  Eg. Brent crude oil prices rose above $100 per barrel, affecting global inflation and supply chains.
• Erosion of international legal norms: Conducting military strikes without UN Security Council approval undermines global law.
  Eg. China, Russia, and Pakistan condemned the attack as a breach of the UN Charter.

Measures to Safeguard International Stability

• Reinvigorate multilateral diplomacy: Renewing nuclear negotiations with Iran could defuse tensions.
  Eg. A revised JCPOA 2.0, supported by EU, Russia, and India, may restore strategic balance.
• Mandate UN-based conflict resolution: Future military interventions should require UNSC sanction to preserve legitimacy.
• Establish regional de-escalation mechanisms: Crisis hotlines and military coordination between U.S., Iran, and Gulf states can reduce risk.
• Restrict aggressive military posturing: Avoiding provocative troop or weapons deployments near sensitive zones will reduce misjudgment.
  Eg. U.S. withdrawal of aircraft carriers from the Persian Gulf may cool tensions.
• Strengthen internal legal oversight: Ensuring Congressional and judicial review for military actions can limit overreach.
  Eg. Reinstating War Powers Resolution procedures would balance executive power in foreign policy.

The U.S. airstrike on Iran reflects a decisive departure from traditional deterrence toward preemptive force, risking wider military escalation, nuclear proliferation, and economic instability. Preserving global order now demands urgent diplomacy, UN-backed legal checks, and regional cooperation for enduring peace.

DOWNLOAD PDF