The U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, dubbed "Operation Midnight Hammer," have sent shockwaves through global nuclear policies. President Donald Trump claimed these strikes "completely destroyed" Iran’s nuclear program, but U.S. intelligence reports and global analyses suggest that the attack may not only push Iran toward covertly acquiring nuclear weapons but also fuel a global race for nuclear armaments. The operation has sparked fears among existing nuclear powers that the U.S. and Israel could arbitrarily target their facilities as well. Has Trump thrust the world into a perilous era where nuclear weapons are seen as the only guarantee of security?
On June 22, 2025, the U.S. deployed B-2 stealth bombers and Massive Ordnance Penetrators (bunker-buster bombs) to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Trump compared the strikes to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, calling them "decisive." However, leaked Pentagon reports, as cited by CNN, The New York Times, and Reuters, indicate the strikes only set Iran’s nuclear program back by 6-12 months. Underground enrichment systems, centrifuges, and some enriched uranium remained intact, as Iran had preemptively relocated certain materials to covert sites. Iran acknowledged that its nuclear facilities were "severely damaged" but showed no signs of abandoning its nuclear ambitions. Israeli intelligence suggests Iran was already working on weapon designs, with speculation about a "hidden nuclear fortress" deeper than Fordow.
Global Nuclear Proliferation and Concerns of Other Nuclear Powers
Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association warned that these strikes could signal to non-nuclear states that nuclear weapons are the only defense against such attacks. A New York Times article noted that, unlike Iran, nuclear-armed states like North Korea face no such strikes, potentially encouraging others to pursue nuclear weapons.
Moreover, existing nuclear powers—Russia, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, France, and countries pursueing nuclear ambitions —are increasingly alarmed that U.S. amilitary and intelligence capabilities could target their nuclear facilities.
Russia: With the world’s largest nuclear arsenal (approximately 5,977 warheads, per the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute 2024), Russia strongly condemned the strikes. Former Russian official Dmitry Medvedev claimed in an X post that the U.S. action might prompt other nations to supply Iran with nuclear weapons, though this remains unverified. Russian analysts fear U.S. bunker-buster technology could threaten their deep underground facilities, prompting the Kremlin to signal plans to bolster its nuclear defenses, possibly by investing in advanced hypersonic delivery systems.
China: Possessing about 410 nuclear warheads and planning to expand to 1,500 by 2035 (SIPRI 2024), China labeled the strikes an "attack on nuclear sovereignty." The state-run Global Times warned that the action undermines global nuclear stability. Beijing fears that U.S. and Israeli intelligence could target its underground facilities, such as those in Yunnan province, leading to plans to deepen its nuclear sites and enhance cybersecurity.
North Korea: With an estimated 50 nuclear warheads, North Korea used the strikes to justify its nuclear program. Kim Jong-un declared that "nuclear strength is the only guarantee against imperialist attacks." Pyongyang fears U.S. bunker-busters could target its deep tunnels, potentially prompting more aggressive nuclear tests.
India and Pakistan: South Asia’s nuclear powers, India (approximately 164 warheads) and Pakistan (approximately 170 warheads, SIPRI 2024), view the strikes as a threat to regional balance. Pakistan, already under global scrutiny for its nuclear program, fears U.S. and Israeli targeting of facilities like the Khushab reactor, spurring efforts to conceal sites and focus on mobile launchers. India, a U.S. strategic partner, remains wary of regional instability and tensions with China. Indian analysts warn that the strikes could escalate the regional nuclear arms race.
United Kingdom and France: NATO’s nuclear powers (UK: 225 warheads, France: 290 warheads) officially supported the strikes but privately expressed concerns that they could weaken the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). French President Emmanuel Macron advocated for diplomacy, warning that unilateral strikes jeopardize global stability.
Israel: Though not officially a nuclear power, Israel is estimated to possess 90 warheads. Its intelligence and strategic support were critical to the strikes, but the action may alert other nuclear powers to scrutinize Israel’s covert nuclear capabilities in the future.
Iran’s Move Towards Covert Nuclear Weapons
The claim that Trump’s strikes have "ensured" Iran will covertly acquire nuclear weapons hinges on several factors:
Pre-existing Covert Efforts: Israeli intelligence revealed Iran’s covert weapon designs in 2018, and these strikes may strengthen such intentions.
Surviving Resources: Intelligence reports confirm that Iran’s underground centrifuges and some enriched uranium remain intact. Rumors persist of a "hidden nuclear fortress" deeper than Fordow.
External Support: Medvedev’s claim that other nations might supply Iran with nuclear weapons is unverified, but technical assistance from countries like Russia or North Korea cannot be entirely ruled out.
Motivation: The U.S. and Israeli strikes, which killed 610 civilians, have bolstered Iran’s hardliners. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s vow of "retribution" increases the likelihood of a covert weapons program. However, claims of external nuclear weapon supplies are not straightforward, as sanctions and global monitoring make such transfers challenging for countries like Russia, China, or North Korea.
Trump’s Role and Endangering the World : Trump’s decision was based on Israeli intelligence about Iran’s weapon designs and delivery systems. His erratic rhetoric—dismissing intelligence reports as "fake news," calling the strikes historic, and later praising Iran’s military prowess—underscores his theatrical approach. Leaked Pentagon reports revealing the strikes’ limited impact suggest they may have emboldened Iran’s covert efforts. Trump’s aversion to prolonged conflict and pre-strike diplomatic overtures to Iran reflect a mixed strategy.
The strikes have sent a global message that conventional weapons may no longer guarantee national security. A Global Security Review analysis warned that this action could usher in "a new tension in the nuclear age," as smaller nations may view nuclear weapons as the only means to protect sovereignty. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, already harboring nuclear ambitions, may accelerate their programs post-strike.
Counterpoints :
Deterrence vs. Provocation: Some experts argue the strikes could deter other nations from pursuing nuclear weapons by showcasing U.S. and Israeli military power. However, their limited impact and the ceasefire weaken this message.
Iran’s Limitations: Weakened by the strikes, Iran’s immediate capacity may be constrained, especially under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) scrutiny, though the IAEA has noted Iran’s reduced cooperation with inspections.
Unverified Claims: Claims of external nuclear weapon supplies to Iran are speculative, as sanctions and global monitoring complicate such transfers.
Trump’s strikes may have incentivized Iran to pursue nuclear weapons covertly, but claiming they have "ensured" this outcome remains speculative, pending Iran’s resources, external support, and ceasefire outcomes. The strikes have heightened fears among nuclear powers like Russia, China, and others that their facilities could be targeted, potentially intensifying the global nuclear arms race. Non-nuclear states like Saudi Arabia and Turkey may also pursue nuclear ambitions. The action sends a clear message: conventional weapons no longer guarantee national security. Without sustained diplomacy or pressure, the world may indeed be entering a dangerous nuclear era.
