Middle East: Israel launched a series of high-intensity airstrikes against Iranian military and nuclear infrastructure this week. The strikes, targeting what Israeli officials called “critical assets linked to nuclear escalation,” are the most aggressive action taken by Tel Aviv against its long-time rival in recent years. At the same time, former U.S. President Donald Trump—widely expected to return to the White House in the upcoming election—has issued Tehran a stark two-week ultimatum, hinting at possible American military involvement if Iran fails to curb its nuclear ambitions.
These parallel developments come against the backdrop of an increasingly opaque Iranian nuclear program, marked by a dramatic increase in uranium enrichment and centrifuge deployment. As tensions escalate and diplomatic efforts stall, the world watches anxiously, caught between the specter of war and the elusive promise of peace.
Iran’s nuclear journey began in 1957 when the United States, under President Dwight Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” initiative, signed an agreement with Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s government to help establish the Tehran Nuclear Research Center. This partnership led to the delivery of a 5-megawatt nuclear reactor and highly enriched uranium fuel, laying the foundations for Iran’s nuclear expertise.
While the initial purpose was civilian energy and scientific research, the dual-use nature of nuclear technology has long blurred the line between peaceful intentions and military capability. The reactor’s capacity to produce plutonium—a key material for nuclear weapons—along with access to weapons-grade uranium, meant that even early support could inadvertently assist in future weapons development.
The 1979 Islamic Revolution brought an end to U.S.-Iranian cooperation, but the knowledge and infrastructure remained. By the 1990s, Iran’s secret procurement from Pakistan’s notorious A.Q. Khan network further accelerated its ambitions, including the construction of secret enrichment facilities such as Natanz and Fordow.
The mounting international concern over Iran’s nuclear capabilities culminated in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), agreed upon by Iran and the P5+1 powers (U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China, and Germany). Under this landmark deal, Iran agreed to limit its uranium enrichment to 3.67% and reduce its stockpile to 202.8 kilograms. In return, economic sanctions crippling Iran’s economy were eased.
But the Trump administration’s decision to unilaterally withdraw from the JCPOA in May 2018 upended years of delicate diplomacy. Trump argued that the deal failed to address Iran’s ballistic missile program and regional proxy warfare. Iran responded by gradually ramping up its nuclear activities, viewing the withdrawal as a breach of trust.
Since 2019, Iran has significantly exceeded JCPOA limits. Enrichment levels rose from 5% to 20%, and by 2021 had reached an alarming 60%—just short of the 90% threshold considered weapons-grade. According to the IAEA’s May 2025 report, Iran now holds over 9,000 kilograms of enriched uranium, more than 45 times the limit established by the nuclear agreement.
Iran has also deployed thousands of advanced IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges, capable of enriching uranium at far faster rates. These technical advances drastically shorten Iran’s “breakout time”—the period needed to produce enough fissile material for a bomb—to mere weeks.
Despite these developments, Iran maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei continues to cite a religious fatwa against nuclear weapons. Tehran insists that the buildup is a response to Western aggression and sanctions.
Last week’s Israeli airstrikes were surgical, swift, and devastating. Intelligence sources confirmed strikes on Natanz, Fordow, and other military installations across central and western Iran. Satellite imagery revealed extensive damage to surface facilities, while Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps acknowledged “multiple casualties and infrastructure setbacks.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the strikes were “a defensive necessity” to prevent Iran from reaching the nuclear threshold. “We will not allow a regime that vows to annihilate us to come close to possessing nuclear arms,” he declared in a nationally televised address.
Though Iran claimed to have intercepted several Israeli drones and missiles, the effectiveness of its air defense remains unclear. Tehran vowed revenge, calling the attacks “an act of war.” Yet its response thus far has been restrained, likely reflecting internal calculations about avoiding full-scale conflict while still under severe economic duress.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump, speaking from a campaign rally in Florida, announced that Iran has “a maximum of two weeks” to cease all uranium enrichment above 20% or face potential U.S. airstrikes. “We’re not going to wait for another 9/11 in nuclear form,” he said. “This is the final warning.”
Although Trump is not currently in office, his influence over the Republican establishment and national security policy is substantial. Reports from the Pentagon indicate that strategic bombers, including B-2 Spirits equipped with 30,000-pound GBU-57 “bunker buster” bombs, are now stationed at Diego Garcia and other forward-operating bases in the Gulf.
This military posturing, combined with the Israeli air raids, sends a clear signal to Tehran: stop now or face the consequences.
Despite the provocations, the IAEA maintains that it has “no indication” of an active weapons program in Iran. Director General Rafael Grossi emphasized that while Iran is enriching uranium to levels unprecedented for a non-nuclear weapon state, there is still no evidence of actual bomb assembly or warhead integration.
However, Grossi added that Iran’s continued obstruction of inspections, particularly at undeclared facilities, raises troubling questions. The agency’s May report noted a “concerning reduction in transparency” and described Iran’s explanations for nuclear traces found at several sites as “not technically credible.”
Iran’s economy remains in freefall. Sanctions on oil exports, banking, and trade have led to soaring inflation, widespread unemployment, and a collapsing currency. According to the IMF, Iran’s GDP shrank by nearly 5% in 2024 alone.
Yet Tehran continues to expand its regional influence via proxy forces in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq. This strategy, sometimes called “forward defense,” is intended to deter attacks on Iranian soil by maintaining pressure on U.S. and Israeli allies across the Middle East.
However, it also raises the stakes. Any retaliation by Iran—whether direct or via proxies—could spark a region-wide conflagration.
Efforts to revive the JCPOA or forge a new agreement have failed. European-led talks have been frozen since mid-2022. Although Oman recently brokered quiet talks between Washington and Tehran, the Israeli strikes appear to have derailed any momentum.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian accused Israel of sabotaging diplomacy and warned that “any further aggression will be met with unprecedented retaliation.”
The Biden administration, for its part, remains tight-lipped, calling for “restraint on all sides” while stressing the U.S. commitment to Israel’s security. Analysts say Washington is walking a tightrope—balancing deterrence against Iran with avoiding a full-scale war in an already unstable region.
Experts believe that if Iran chose to go all the way, it could produce weapons-grade uranium in two to three weeks and assemble a rudimentary nuclear bomb in under a year. However, delivery systems and warhead miniaturization remain significant technical hurdles.
Dr. Laura Rosen, a nuclear physicist at the Brookings Institution, notes: “We’re not at the point of an imminent nuclear weapon, but the trajectory is unmistakably dangerous. Iran is building capability, and each step increases the risk of miscalculation.”
The world now faces a binary choice: diplomacy or confrontation. Iran is under immense pressure but also has more leverage than ever. Its nuclear advancements cannot be easily reversed, and the political cost of capitulation would be high for the regime.
At the same time, Israel has shown it will act unilaterally. The U.S., especially under a possible Trump administration, could follow suit. With B-2 bombers armed and deadlines looming, the Middle East stands on a knife’s edge.
The countdown has begun—two weeks, according to Trump. For now, Iran must decide whether to deescalate and return to the negotiating table or continue its course toward nuclear capability, risking a devastating war that could engulf the region.
International actors must move swiftly to resurrect diplomacy, enforce transparent inspections, and provide off-ramps for both Iran and its adversaries. The alternative could be catastrophic: a military conflict involving nuclear thresholds, with unforeseeable global consequences.
