The Middle East teeters dangerously after the United States executed a sweeping military operation—dubbed “Midnight Hammer”—against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. The strikes, which reportedly caused “extremely severe damage” to three of Iran’s most fortified nuclear sites, have triggered fury in Tehran and sparked renewed fears of full-scale regional war.
With tensions escalating rapidly, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned during a press conference in Istanbul that Tehran is evaluating “all options” for retaliation—explicitly including the closure of the “very strategic” Strait of Hormuz, a global oil chokepoint through which more than 20% of the world’s petroleum flows.
“All options are on the table,” Araghchi declared, his words broadcast live by Turkey’s TRT World. “This is all that I will say.”
Though delivered in diplomatic tones, the foreign minister’s statement was anything but vague. It signaled that Iran is willing to test the limits of military, economic, and geopolitical confrontation—at the risk of triggering a global energy crisis or an outright war with the United States.
According to top U.S. military officials, the strikes were executed with unmatched precision, surprise, and scale. General Dan Caine, head of U.S. Central Command operations, disclosed that over 125 U.S. aircraft, including seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, participated in the coordinated assault. Supported by aerial refueling tankers, ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) platforms, and a guided missile submarine, the multi-branch operation hit three key nuclear installations—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.
“This mission demonstrates the unmatched reach, coordination, and capability of the United States military,” said Caine. “No other military in the world could have done this.”
The mission’s spearhead involved the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a 30,000-pound bunker-busting bomb capable of penetrating 200 feet of reinforced concrete and earth before detonation. This marked the weapon’s first combat use, targeting facilities that had been intentionally buried to evade conventional attack.
Isfahan, a vital uranium conversion and enrichment facility, was additionally hit by more than two dozen submarine-launched cruise missiles, fired from a U.S. vessel operating stealthily in the Persian Gulf. According to Pentagon sources, these missiles flew at low altitude to evade radar and struck with pinpoint accuracy.
The success of the mission, according to U.S. assessments, came down to one factor: surprise.
“Iran’s fighters did not fly, and it appears that Iran’s surface-to-air missile systems did not see us,” Caine said. “Throughout the mission, we retained the element of surprise.”
The strikes follow months of failed diplomacy under President Donald Trump’s second term. Having exited the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) during his first term, Trump’s administration had pursued an alternative agreement but was stonewalled by hardliners in Tehran. Iranian uranium enrichment had reached levels beyond 80%, while intelligence reportedly confirmed the development of advanced centrifuges capable of achieving weapons-grade enrichment in a matter of weeks.
Trump authorized the strikes amid mounting pressure from regional allies—particularly Israel—and after a week-long Israeli campaign had already softened Iran’s air defenses and command networks.
While the Trump administration claims it acted defensively, critics both at home and abroad argue the decision risks sparking a regional conflagration with far-reaching consequences.
Iran’s possible response—closing the Strait of Hormuz—would mark a dangerous escalation.
The narrow waterway is not just a local artery; it is a critical global energy lifeline. Nearly one-fifth of global oil passes through its waters daily. If blocked, the immediate consequence would be a dramatic spike in oil prices, disruption of global energy markets, and potential collapse of fragile post-pandemic economic recoveries in Asia and Europe.
U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance dismissed Iran’s threat in an NBC interview.
“Shutting down the Strait would be suicidal for the Iranian economy,” he said. “Their entire economy runs through Hormuz.”
“But why would they do that? It doesn’t make sense for them or anybody else.”
Yet Iran has threatened to do so before. In 2019, Tehran conducted mine-laying exercises and seized oil tankers in response to U.S. sanctions. What was once saber-rattling may now be dangerously close to becoming strategic doctrine.
President Trump, who campaigned on ending “forever wars,” now faces scrutiny over a military escalation that runs counter to his long-standing position. However, administration insiders argue that this was a “targeted, defensive action” and not a declaration of war.
“This mission was not, has not been, about regime change,” said U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. “It’s about neutralizing the threats posed by Iran’s nuclear program and ensuring the collective self-defense of our troops and allies.”
Trump himself has attempted to thread the needle between military strength and diplomacy, issuing a statement urging Iran to return to negotiations.
“Now is the time for peace,” he said in a televised address. “The path to prosperity for Iran does not run through war. It runs through cooperation.”
But many question whether the Iranian leadership, now under the hardline stewardship of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guard, will interpret Trump’s message as an olive branch or a dare.
Iran’s leadership now faces a pivotal choice: retaliate militarily—and potentially face devastating U.S. counterstrikes—or bide time, regroup, and explore hybrid responses such as cyberattacks, proxies, or disruption of maritime trade.
Experts believe Iran’s toolkit includes both state and non-state assets. Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and militias in Iraq could be activated to harass U.S. forces or regional allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia.
“Iran’s response may not be symmetrical,” said Dr. Shahram Bamdadi, a regional security analyst based in Doha. “They could wait days, weeks, or even months to retaliate in a way that offers deniability but inflicts cost.”
Tehran’s calculus is complicated by domestic politics. The destruction of nuclear sites is not just a loss of strategic infrastructure—it is a humiliation. Nationalist voices, even moderate ones, are demanding retaliation to restore deterrence.
Reactions from world capitals have been mixed. European leaders—who long supported a return to the JCPOA—are calling for restraint. France and Germany issued a joint statement urging both Washington and Tehran to “step back from the brink.”
China and Russia, both economic and security partners of Iran, condemned the U.S. strikes, labeling them “illegal acts of aggression”. At the UN Security Council, Moscow demanded an emergency session, though no binding resolution is expected.
Oil prices soared 12% overnight. Brent crude crossed $105 a barrel, marking its highest spike since the 2022 Ukraine war. Shipping companies are already rerouting tankers away from the Gulf.
The risk to commercial maritime traffic is immediate. Lloyd’s of London has raised insurance premiums for Gulf-bound vessels, and multiple airlines have altered flight paths to avoid Iranian airspace.
In the broader historical context, Operation Midnight Hammer may prove to be a watershed moment in Middle East affairs. Much like Israel’s 1981 Osirak raid on Iraq or the 2007 Operation Orchard strike in Syria, the U.S. has gambled that preemptive action will set Iran’s nuclear ambitions back by years—at the cost of geopolitical risk.
But unlike past precedents, Iran is not isolated, and its capabilities extend far beyond a single site or delivery mechanism.
“This isn’t 1981,” said General Michael Hayden (Ret.), former CIA director. “Iran has depth, reach, and ideology. You can hit them hard—but you can’t finish the story in one night.”
Indeed, some within the Pentagon have already warned that the strikes may have bought time—but not eliminated the threat. Underground facilities, mobile enrichment units, and undisclosed operations could emerge anew in the months ahead.
As the region holds its breath, much hinges on Iran’s response, U.S. diplomatic posture, and international mediation. Talks are reportedly underway through backchannels in Oman and Switzerland, though neither side has publicly confirmed a willingness to engage.
The specter of regional escalation, energy instability, and potential conflict between nuclear-armed powers has prompted urgent calls for restraint from the UN, EU, and Arab League.
