Operation Midnight Hammer is likely to have a “freezing effect” on global efforts to non-proliferation of atomic weapons, as countries with these weapons will gotta decide whether transparency can now be associated with risks.
Dr. Robert Kościelny
13 June 2025 Israel launched a large military operation against Iran, including air strikes and preceding secret peculiar services operations in Iran. "Israel, which has maintained a atomic arsenal for decades but has not officially confirmed it, has already taken forward action against atomic programs in the region — destroying the Iraqi facility in 1981 and Syria in 2007", recalls the Congressional investigation Service (CRS) study of 26 June 2025, "Israeli-Iran conflict, US attacks and ceasefire" for members of the US Congress. CRS is an institution conducting investigation and analysis for the home of Representatives and Senate.
Expert Atlantic Council Once Zimmt from Tel Aviv University to ask how effective the Israeli attack in dismantling Iran’s atomic possible was, he replied: “Israel has comparatively limited possible to destruct atomic possible without the active participation of the United States. However, Israel can importantly hold the Iranian atomic program (at least 1 year), mainly by hitting atomic objects. However, without hitting the uranium enrichment plant in Fordow, which would most likely require U.S. participation, Iran's atomic program cannot be destroyed but only greatly delayed."
There is no clear and precise timetable for how close Iran was to creating atomic weapons. In March, manager of American Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard stated that "the country's intelligence community [US] continues to measure that Iran is not building atomic weapons", adding "the highest leader Chamenei did not approve the atomic weapons programme which it suspended in 2003.’ However, on June 18, before the United States bombed Iran's atomic facilities, the president Donald Trump He said Mrs. Gabbard and the American intelligence services were wrong.
On June 22, the United States launched attacks on 3 key Iranian facilities, including a deep underground uranium enrichment plant in Fordow. In his notification to Congress, president Trump stated that the attack "was carried out to safeguard the vital national interests of the United States and in the collective defence of our ally, Israel, by eliminating the Iranian atomic program." Here we reused the June 26 CRS Report.
President of the United States Donald Trump He said that the 3 most crucial atomic objects bombed by the US—Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan—were "destroyed". However, many people in the U.S. administration and intelligence services believe that they are just “glories”.
Commentators and experts agree that Israeli-American bombings have caused crucial harm to atomic installations. A typical of the Iranian authorities besides admitted this: the structure of our atomic installations has been seriously affected.
However, there are no known details of the impact of Israeli-American attacks on the Fordow and the another 2 atomic objects. The uranium retention site in Iran seems uncertain. "There is no clear answer to the question whether Iran relocated its enriched uranium before the US attack on 3 atomic objects," says the CRS Report.
It is unclear whether the attacks could have altered Iran's political decision-making with respect to his atomic program and his aspirations to arm himself with atomic weapons. The only match among experts is that the harm rate is inactive unknown.
In the title of public speculation, could we ask if the attack on Iran could become a cover for the U.S. withdrawal process from Ukraine? Bussines Insider wrote on 2 July that the White home confirmed reports of halting the transfer of parts of missiles to Ukraine's air defence systems. As the spokesperson said, specified a decision was taken to "put America's interests first".
Anna Borszewska Harold Grinspoon's student at The Washington Institute, covering Russia's policy towards the mediate East, noted that Russia's president Vladimir Putin considers the current Iranian-Israeli conflict to be fluid and willing to keep good relations with all parties for the time being. Importantly, Russia's strategical partnership with Iran does not require Moscow to come to the government with assistance during the war [podk. R.-K.]’.
Mrs Borszewska besides believes that Putin is of the opinion that the affirmative and negative aspects of the United States' accession to the conflict would dispel each other. On the 1 hand, the direct engagement of the US would distract the West from the war in Ukraine, where Putin risked his reputation and believes he could win. The conflict with Iran could besides origin a crucial increase in oil prices, which would dare it to spend more resources in Ukraine. In this situation, this weakening of America's aid to our south-east neighbour could have more implications for the geopolitical situation in our region than it would seem at first glance.
Experts point out another aspect of the attacks by both countries, especially the US on Iran's atomic facilities. Erin D. Dumbacher, A atomic safety expert in the prominent Council on abroad Relations states that Operation Midnight Hammer (a cryptonym for the American attack on Iran) will most likely have a “freezing effect” on global atomic non-proliferation efforts, as countries with these weapons will gotta decide whether transparency can now be associated with risks. In addition, forty-seven countries have a crucial amount of atomic material. And they are checked for their usage – whether they are enriched adequate to be utilized to build an atomic bomb.
"After lengthy diplomatic efforts and hard negotiations, Iran has temporarily accepted global inspectors. But if a country that has given its chance of diplomacy and has not raced to get a bomb can be attacked, why should countries around the planet anticipate military responses to their atomic progress?"
W Iran continues to be inspectors of the global Atomic Energy Agency who are able to carry out on-site inspections and who would aid verify the location of Iran's fissile material and the state of Iran's atomic programme. Unfortunately, Iran's parliament has taken preliminary steps to suspend cooperation with the IAEA 2 days after the US attacks.
Erin D. Dumbacher considers that the leaders of non-nuclear weapons states could conclude that if the global transparency of their atomic programmes is not applicable to a permanent associate of the UN safety Council, specified as the United States, compliance with the basics of the global work to non-proliferation of atomic weapons carries a hazard that they are unwilling to take.
Vali Nasr, a mediate east investigator at Johns Hopkins University, notes that US and Israeli military activities in Iran indicate the willingness of these countries to circumvent diplomatic standards, which could change the perception of safety issues among countries in the region. Nasr says that “the government inactive exists” and stresses that “the problem is that the United States and Israel are willing and able to solve all military problems and that global law, principles, diplomacy, etc. will not stand in their way.” This could focus the nation around the Ayatollah government in Iran, strengthen its ties with allies – on the 1 hand, and weaken the trust of US allies in the region – on the other.
