In a bold move that has shocked global observers, the United States launched airstrikes on three of Iran's nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan, last Saturday. According to a White House post on X, "A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home."
Many see echoes of the 2003 Iraq war in this decision. Back then, U.S. leaders warned of weapons of mass destruction, only to face years of instability and regional fallout.
Today's administration insists these strikes are vital to prevent Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons and to defend allies. President Donald Trump, cited in White House remarks, argued that stopping Iran's nuclear program "is essential to safeguarding U.S. interests."
Yet critics warn that demanding "unconditional surrender" and sending more military assets could ignite a broader conflict. The Middle East is a complex mosaic of alliances, rivalries, and proxy battles. Any attack on Iran risks retaliation from its regional partners and non-state actors.
"Let the Americans know that the Iranian nation is not one to surrender," Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared in a national address. He added that any intervention "will result in serious, irreparable consequences."
On the other side, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Fox News that regime change "could certainly be the result" of military action, calling Iran's regime "very weak."
Analysts warn this cycle of strikes and counterstrikes could spiral into a full-blown regional war. "History shows that military solutions often sow the seeds of future conflicts," says Middle East expert Dr. Lena Hoffmann. "The risk of escalation is real."
As digital natives around the world track unfolding events, one question looms large: Is the U.S. on a path to repeat the mistakes of Iraq, or is there a new strategy at play?
Reference(s):
cgtn.com
