President Donald Trump confirmed on Saturday evening that the US military had launched a direct air assault against Iran, targeting three of the Islamic Republic nuclear sites in Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan.
The announcement, made via its official round on social networks, marks a deep change in the role of Washington in the climbing of the conflict between Israel and Iran – and could plunge the region into a wider war.
“We have finished our very successful attack on the three nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan,” said Trump on Truth Social.
Register For TEKEDIA Mini-MBA Edition 17 (June 9 – September 6, 2025)) Today for early reductions. An annual for access to Blurara.com.
Tekedia Ai in Masterclass Business open registration.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-INivest in large world startups.
Register become a better CEO or director with CEO program and director of Tekedia.
“All planes are now outside Iranian airspace. A complete payload of bombs has been abandoned on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safe on the way back. Congratulations to our great American warriors. There is not another soldier in the world that could have done so. Now it’s time for peace! “
Trump added that he would speak to the nation at 10 p.m. on Saturday, suggesting that more details could follow what is now the most important direct military engagement between the United States and Iran for years.
Of “two weeks” to the total strike
Air strikes are used only two days after Trump publicly declared that he was retaining a military decision, citing “a substantial chance of negotiations” with Iran. In this statement, published Thursday by the White House, he said that he would wait “two weeks” before deciding if the military force was necessary.
Behind the scenes, senior administration officials worked to keep diplomatic canals with open Iran, even when Israel intensified pressure on the White House to reach its military efforts. Trump would have urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to delay a strike, in the hope that Washington can negotiate a new nuclear agreement.
This cautious approach seems to have been abandoned.
In recent weeks, Trump has become more aggressive in his public rhetoric. On Tuesday, he warned the supreme chief of Iran, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that he was “an easy target” and said that “patience of America is thin”. The threat was largely interpreted as a signal that Washington was getting closer to a strike.
Now this threat has been executed.
A historical change – and a new warfront
The attack brings the United States to a direct armed conflict with Iran for the first time in Trump’s second term – a spectacular escalation in a region that already convulses the conflict. He also re-engages American forces in large-scale combat operations in the Middle East, a prospect against which Trump had campaigned.
The targeted sites – Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan – are at the heart of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Natanz houses uranium enrichment installations, while Ford, buried deep in a mountain, has long been considered one of the most hardened and sensitive sites in Iran.
The details of the damage are still emerging, but Trump’s assertion according to which a “payload” of bombs was abandoned on Fordow suggests that the operation was designed to wear a blow paralyzing the nuclear capacity of Iran.
Iran has not yet issued an official response, but its management has repeatedly warned that any military foray by the United States would be greeted by force.
Ayatollah Khamenei promised last week that “any American military entrance would have undoubtedly encountered irreparable damage”. Iranian television has amplified this message, saying that any attack would trigger a “devastating response”.
What makes the attack even more striking is that it contradicts the testimonies given to the congress just a few months ago. In March, the director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told legislators that the American intelligence community thought that Iran did not actively build a nuclear weapon.
“We continue to assess that Iran does not build a nuclear weapon and that the supreme chief Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003,” Gabbard told a panel of the congress.
Trump rejected his assessment on Tuesday. “I don’t care what she said. I think they were very close to having one,” he told journalists on the Air Force One.
His reprimand highlights internal divisions within the administration and underlines at what speed the president is willing to bypass his intelligence managers when he acts on perceived threats.
High playing issues with potential benefits
The global response to the American strike should be rapid and divided. The European allies, many of whom remain signatories of the 2015 nuclear agreement that Trump drew in his first mandate, risks exhorting de -escalation and calling an emergency diplomatic solution.
China and Russia, both aligned with various degrees with Tehran, can issue strong convictions. NATO, on the other hand, should organize urgent consultations.
In Israel, the strike will be considered as a justification for its long -standing affirmations according to which Iran approached the capacity of nuclear weapons and that time would run out for preventive action. The Netanyahu government has repeatedly pushed the United States to take the lead to confront Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
But questions remain: has Iran retaliated militarily against American interests in the region? Its proxys – in particular Hezbollah in Lebanon or armed factions in Iraq and Syria – do they target American staff or installations? And what does this mean for oil markets, shipping routes and stability through the Middle East?
Trump’s statement that “is the moment of peace” echoes its previous affirmations that military action is often a prelude to negotiation. But his criticisms say that the launch of air strikes on nuclear sites in a sovereign nation may trigger a wider regional war with unpredictable consequences.
There is also the risk of further isolating the United States internationally, in particular if no evidence is presented to support the assertion that Iran was building a nuclear weapon.
