At dawn on Sunday, June 22, 2025, the United States launched precise strikes against three key Iranian nuclear sites—Natanz, Fordow, and a covert facility near Isfahan. President Trump hailed the operation as a “tremendous military success,” emphasizing that Fordow, the most heavily fortified target, was “completely destroyed.” Yet while the physical damage is still unclear, the strategic fallout remains murky: does this mark the beginning of the end for the broader Israeli–Iranian conflict, or has Washington unwittingly opened a new phase of regional escalation?

Both outcomes are plausible. On one hand, Iran’s leadership has repeatedly warned that any assault on its nuclear infrastructure would provoke direct retaliation against U.S. bases and interests across the Middle East—through missiles, drones, or even the activation of its proxy forces in Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon. There is also the specter of renewed attacks on Israel itself, including the possibility of targeting the Dimona reactor in the Negev Desert.

On the other hand, a de-escalatory path may be more likely. President Trump has signaled that these strikes need not be the last, warning that “the next strikes will be bigger” if Iran fails to heed U.S. demands for peace. Tehran’s pragmatic calculus is clear: deeper U.S. involvement risks not only the destruction of its nuclear program but potentially the very survival of the regime. Moreover, Iran claims it had already dispersed critical uranium stockpiles and key components to undisclosed locations—diminishing the strikes’ long-term impact. Finally, Tehran’s reported use of over 40 missiles against Israel, including the first wartime deployment of the Khyber missile, suggests Iran is likely to confine its response to the familiar bounds of proxy and missile warfare.

Ultimately, rational self-interest on both sides may forestall full-scale escalation. If these limited strikes satisfy U.S. objectives and Iran refrains from a catastrophic counterstrike, the campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities could indeed prove “the beginning of the end” for this chapter of Middle East hostilities—much as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki precipitated the close of World War II.