Seven B-52 stealth bombers pounded three nuclear plants in Iran on Saturday. There seem to be only two possible outcomes: An escalating war that will damage the world; a dangerously cocky US president who will put the world in danger over and over again.
Editor’s note: According to the latest Reuters global news survey, 50% of English-speaking Indians actively avoid the news. This weekend offered a very good reason why. This Big Story is for the rest of us—still here, bearing witness to the s***show that passes for global politics. But pardon us if we can’t muster the energy to be outraged. It’s been a long decade.
Wtf happened now?
Last week, Donald Trump said this of his plans to bomb Iran—and unleash geopolitical chaos: “I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do.” Well, he did it.
The ‘what, when, where’: On Sunday, between 1:30 am-2:10 am (Iran time), the US bombed three nuclear sites in Iran: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Seven B-2 bombers dropped a total of 14 bunker buster bombs—designed to take out Iran’s underground plants. In all, “75 precision-guided weapons" were used in the strikes.
About those bombs: The US used its legendary bunker buster missiles—GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs): “It weighs 13,000kg (30,000lb) and is able to drop through about 18m (60ft) of concrete or 61m (200ft) of earth before exploding.”
Only the US has these bombs and aircraft large enough to deliver them. These BEAUTIFUL BOMBS inspired many sexy infographics. This is from AFP:
The US victory dance: Trump then went on national TV to gloat: “Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.” He also told Tehran to “make peace immediately. Otherwise they’ll get hit again.”
Israel’s response: PM Benjamin Netanyahu for one was simply bowled over: “Congratulations, President Trump, your bold decision to target Iran’s nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history.” To quote the great Nelson Mandela himself, “It is wise to persuade people to do things and make them think it was their own idea.” That’s Bibi. Always inspired by the best among us.
Also impressed: UK PM Keir Starmer who was the first US ally to loudly declare his support. But then, London has not possessed anything resembling an independent foreign policy since… the 1960s? Also, this was Starmer last week:
Point to note: Not a fan of the bombing: Saudi Arabia and other Arab states—which have everything to lose if the Middle East goes up in flames—unlike the guy safely ensconced in Downing Street. OTOH, Trump’s Arab buddies have allowed him to do what he wants in the region so far—with few repercussions. So meh… for now.
As for Iran: It unsurprisingly took a different view of the matter—and said the country is “resolved to defend Iran’s territory, sovereignty, security and people by all force and means against the United States’ criminal aggression.” Soon after, Tehran launched a barrage of missiles at Israel—aimed at ten sites across central and north Israel.
Meanwhile, in Europe: Tens of thousands of people took to the streets in London, Bern, Berlin etc to protest Israel’s bombing of Gaza. This was right before the US bombed Iran—that outrage will no doubt be folded into the next set of protest banners. Do we sound tired? We are. But we all do what we can do—the turnout in London was particularly notable:
Next, the damage report
So did the US ‘obliterate’ Iran’s nuclear program—rendering it toothless for eternity? Okay, at least for a year or two? No one knows, including the Americans—who insist, however, all three sites suffered “severe damage.” The most important among these was Fordow—also considered the hardest to take out as it's buried in a mountainside. This is Fordow before:
This is Fordow after:
It has lots of deep craters—as do the other sites. But what do they tell us? Lots of different ‘sources’ have different answers, but the most reliable is that of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi:
As for the assessment of the degree of damage underground, on this we cannot pronounce ourselves. It could be important; it could be significant, but no one … neither us nor anybody else could be able to tell you how much it has been damaged.
Point to note: Tehran claims it evacuated the three nuclear sites a “while ago”—and “didn't suffer a major blow because the materials had already been taken out".
But, but, but: That is precisely going to be Bibi’s case for a second round of US strikes:
And I think we are going to start hearing from the Israelis in rather short order that this was not the type of successful strike Trump has claimed, but they are going to start making the case that there needs to be a more ongoing bombing campaign against Iran.
Where is the rest of the world?
The Europeans: France, Germany and the UK are urging Iran to come back to the table. Not one in Europe has condemned the strikes—but all of them scrambled to make it very clear that they had no part in the strikes—or in planning them. Bottomline: they are unlikely to do very much—even for the US. When asked, Starmer refused to say whether the UK would support its ‘special’ ally if it is attacked.
As for the Arabs: They are furious—this includes UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia—all of whom have billion-dollar deals with Trump’s companies. No one likes Tehran but the prospect of Israel running amok across the Middle East—with American support—is the greater nightmare.
The Russians: have condemned the strikes—and it is likely too focused on Ukraine to enter this fight. But the Iranian Foreign Minister will fly to Moscow—and may well change Putin’s mind. Deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council—-Dmitry Medvedev—claimed "a number of countries" are ready to supply Iran with their own nuclear weapons. True? Maybe not—but there is no safe bet anymore.
The Chinese: are content issuing disapproving statements for now.
What will Iran do next?
That’s the big question. It will determine whether this will turn out into a full-on war—which is exactly what Tel Aviv wants. Here are Tehran’s options:
One: Eat the humiliation pie—and even come meekly back to the negotiating table. Washington may even make some concessions and Israel will stick to killing Gazans. The downside: Doing nothing makes the Iranian regime look weak—and more importantly, destroys Iran’s standing in the Middle East.
In any case, Tehran is in no mood to roll over and play dead—at least for now:
Speaking in Istanbul, Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araqchi said his country would consider all possible responses. There would be no return to diplomacy until it had retaliated, he said. “The US showed they have no respect for international law. They only understand the language of threat and force,” he said.
Adding fuel to fire: Where is the incentive to negotiate when Trump is now talking about regime change:
It’s not politically correct to use the term, “Regime Change,” but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!
Two: Block the Strait of Hormuz—which the Iranians have already threatened to do. The narrow passage to the Persian Gulf is barely 55 km wide in some places. Over a fifth of the world’s oil supply—20 million barrels—passes through it each day.
You can see how easy it would be for the Iranians below:
The costs of US intervention: will be paid by the entire world. The price to charter a large crude oil carrier from the Gulf to China had already leapt from $19,998 to $47,609—before the strikes. Oil prices could shoot above $100 per barrel if the strait is closed for a prolonged period.
As for India: The list of consequences for the economy is long:
At stake for India is the potential fallout from surging oil prices, a widening current account deficit, higher energy and shipping costs fuelling domestic inflation, investor risk aversion, capital outflows, and broader risks to economic growth.
We rely on imports for nearly 85% of our crude oil needs.
What Iran says: The Iranian parliament has approved the move—but the final decision is taken by the National Security Council.
Point to note: For now, investors in the oil market are not panicking—because they expect the US Navy to sweep in and block Iran. Saner minds don’t think it will be all that easy. Also this: The Americans are banking on Beijing’s dependence on Iranian oil to rein in Tehran: “If Hormuz is choked, China bleeds first.”
Three: Iranian officials vowed to target US ships and military bases if it entered the war. But will it actually do so? Most Western analysts—even those unsympathetic to Trump—are sceptical. The Guardian’s Julian Borger suggests the Americans are already prepped for retaliation—and are ready to deliver “a devastating response” if either Iran or its proxies dare attack US assets.
OTOH, Middle Eastern experts like Georgetown University’s Mehran Kamrava think Tehran will take the shot—-if pushed too far:
So would the Iranians go after US bases in the Middle East? And if so, would they do so in a “measured” way, such as the retaliatory strikes in response to the 2020 killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, he asked. “I think that all remains to be seen, but nevertheless, Iranians will have to retaliate. Politically, they cannot simply sit quiet and take this the way Trump wants them to,” said Kamrava.
Btw, there are 40,000-50,000 US soldiers spread across at least 19 bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. They are all within easy distance of Iranian missiles as you can see below:
Point to note: If Iran hits US targets, a direct war with Iran is both inevitable—and very risky:
Tehran may not be able to sustain a long fight with the US, but it won’t be an easy war for Washington either, [executive vice president of the Quincy Institute in Washington, Trita Parsi] said. “Iran is a very large country, which means there would be a very large number of targets the United States would have to hit to take out Iran’s ability to strike back,” Parsi said, noting that this would be happening when there isn’t widespread support for a war with Iran in Trump’s own camp.
Four: Bide its time. No one knows if the US strikes did indeed take out Iran’s nuclear capability. Area experts like Parsi say Iran’s most valuable asset is not the plants—but the existing stockpile of enriched uranium: “As long as they continue to have that, they still actually have very much a nuclear programme that still could be weaponised.”
Point to note: Most experts think Iran does indeed have a stash of enriched uranium:
[T]here was growing evidence that the Iranians, attuned to Mr. Trump’s repeated threats to take military action, had removed 400 kilograms, or roughly 880 pounds, of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity. That is just below the 90% that is usually used in nuclear weapons.
Also: The US military has no clue where it is—even if it plans to bomb the stockpile.
The most likely outcome: Irrespective of what it does now—thanks to Donald Trump, Tehran is more likely than ever to build a nuclear bomb—soon or within years:
Parsi said if Iran’s nuclear program is destroyed, it could just be a matter of time to build a bomb should the government choose to do so. “The Iranians have the knowhow and capacity to rebuild everything,” Parsi said. “All it (an attack) does is that it sets it back while dramatically increasing Iran’s motivation to build a nuclear weapon.”
And there is precedent—it wouldn’t be the first time they’ve rebuilt from scratch:
More than 15 years ago, the joint U.S.- Israeli attack on Natanz, using a sophisticated cyber weapon, caused about a fifth of the country’s 5,000 or so centrifuges to blow up. But the Iranians not only rebuilt, they installed more sophisticated equipment. Before Israel’s attack this month, they had roughly 19,000 centrifuges in operation.
Iran the suicide bomber?
US Secretary of State declared it would be “economic suicide” for Iran to close Hormuz—because its own oil exports pass through the waterway. But as Carnegie analyst Karim Sadjadpour points out, most of Tehran’s options are kinda ‘suicidal’:
Many of Iran's retaliatory options are the strategic equivalent of a suicide bombing. They can strike US embassies and bases, attack oil facilities in the Persian Gulf, mine the Strait of Hormuz, or rain missiles on Israel—but the regime may not survive the blowback.
He may be right but the damage isn’t just to the ayatollahs—neither is the humiliation. Many Iranians see the attack as wish-fulfillment for Israel:
The Israelis have been advocating the Balkanisation of Iran, taking the oil-rich sections of Iran out, and sort of supporting a policy that would result in Iran being divided into three or four countries. The US generally opposed that idea for different reasons, but it seems the US policy towards the Middle East has been taken over by Israel, and Trump is just following Netanyahu’s lead, and he’s doing what Netanyahu is asking him to do, including this issue of the break-up of Iran
What happens when a nation as large and complex as Iran is thrown into civil war? Bibi’s dream come true is likely to turn into a nightmare that never ends—for Iran and the rest of the world.
The bottomline: We leave you with this assessment of a US win over Iran:
If the US president succeeds — and there will be many rival interpretations and metrics of success in the weeks ahead — it is possible he will have disempowered Iran, and diminished the global influence of a regime that has for 40 years sponsored threats against the west. In the process his personal authority will have been enhanced, and his next three years in office will be a triumph that may exacerbate some of his worst authoritarian and impulsive traits.
That may be far, far worse than a nuclear Iran.
Reading list
BBC News offers the most comprehensive overview of the strikes—while The Guardian assesses the damage. Al Jazeera has a very good explainer on Fordow. New York Times looks at why Iran’s allies have stayed on the sidelines. CNN warns that Trump has opened the proverbial Pandora’s box. If you’re looking for a diversity of US-centric views, Politico spoke to eight experts on what will happen if the US bombs Iran—though before it happened. Also in Politico: worry within the White House about blowback.
