On Sunday, June 22, just after midnight local time, the United States, in Operation Midnight Hammer, hit three nuclear sites in Iran after days of sabre-rattling. Using so-called ‘bunker-buster’ bombs – GBU-57 MOPs – the attack targeted three enrichment facilities deep underground.
On Monday, June 23, midday, Iran responded with Operation Glad Tidings, striking Al Udeid Air Base in Doha, a critical fulcrum for U.S. Central Command. It gave advance warnings, although there was still slight panic in neighboring Gulf countries, where air sirens were blaring.
Later in the afternoon, President Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social account:
“I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost and nobody to be injured. Perhaps Iran can now proceed to Peace and Harmony in the Region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
He added:
“CONGRATULATIONS WORLD, IT’S TIME FOR PEACE!”
What comes next? Here are five dimensions to guide the thinking moving forward.
1. It appears the U.S. has achieved its objectives
When President Trump entered into negotiations with Iran early on in his administration, it came with significant risks. Iran’s incentives to make a deal were low. It had stabilized following the Israeli onslaught in the summer of 2024 that targeted its proxy forces, particularly in Lebanon.
By mid-April, negotiations formally began, with U.S. envoy Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi leading the way (who remain in direct contact, although they have not met since the beginning of hostilities). After 60 days, there was little movement from Iran on agreeing to near-zero enrichment.
At that point, the U.S. administration gave a green light to Israel to escalate. Its subsequent operation was based on years of preparation and months of planning. The tit-for-tat attacks between Israel and Iran have been devastating for the Islamic Republic, which has limited air defences left. They have been somewhat reeling for Israel as well, which has faced direct hits on strategic installations.
In joining the assault, President Trump needed to re-establish credibility and the ‘stick’ not just in the Iranian context but also concerning China and Russia. If he could not demonstrate that he was willing to pursue an escalatory tactic, then how could he bring Putin or Xi to the table? Arguably, this is a very volatile way to conduct foreign policy, but the personalization of geopolitics is today’s game. The attacks were as much about enrichment as they were about projecting power.
2. Round one has passed, and the dust is settling
With the back-and-forth between the United States and Iran now over, at least in terms of round one, there is a collective sigh of relief. The damage for both Iran and the United States was limited and telegraphed. The US spent days evacuating its facilities and bases of both personnel and key assets. Iran, meanwhile, likely moved nuclear material and other sensitive aspects out of the three sites ahead of the attacks over the weekend. The limited nature of the fighting means that both sides can claim victory, having caused some damage, and return to the negotiating table.
Geopolitically, there has been limited contagion outside of Israel and Iran. Gulf countries have taken the escalation in stride, although they may still respond to the strikes in Doha. Similarly, the spread to proxy battlegrounds such as Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq has been negligible. Each day that passes, this could change.
Economically, oil prices are back below where they were at the beginning of the flare-up between Israel and Iran. Equities, such as those listed in the S&P 500, have remained essentially unchanged. While some transportation routes have been intermittently disrupted, there is no systemic halt to global supply routes.
There are two wildcards. The first is that as the Israel-Iran conflict continues, there could be a renewed divergence of Israeli and American objectives. Second, and partly related, is the splintering of the MAGA base, around pro- and anti-war camps. If this attack is contained and President Trump immediately returns to the negotiating table, it could lead to partial reconciliation within his base.
3. An offramp to de-escalation and an onramp to regime change sit side-by-side
The two options are diametrically opposed and equally possible. There are now entrenched interests pursuing both, particularly domestically in the United States. On the one hand, there is an on-ramp to regime change, and on the other, an off-ramp to de-escalation and a nuclear deal.
The neoconservative faction in Washington, D.C., was reignited by the Iranian strikes, which were thought to be out of the question for decades. President Trump crossed a line and the Rubicon, opening the door to regime change. Some media figures and politicians are rallying around exiled monarch-in-waiting Reza Pahlavi, for example. Even Trump himself hinted at regime change, with the slogan Make Iran Great Again (or MIGA).
The later posts on Monday from the president’s Truth Social account indicate an open offramp. With the Iranian Foreign Minister doing the diplomatic rounds in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere before returning to Iran, it appears that groundwork is underway. Ultimately, however, the Supreme Leader could still veto a deal. There will also be an effort to bifurcate negotiations with the United States and Israel, keeping a hot conflict going with the latter.
The following 72 hours will be critical in determining the direction things take. An errant missile or a deliberate escalation by any of the three parties could once again put the conflict on a path of no return.
4. There is no World War III in the offing
What is apparent is that there is no World War III – or 2.5 – underway as a result of the American action. Both China and Russia have had muted responses. There is no vociferous BRICS position. Europe itself has not objected but cheered the effort. Even Turkey has been somewhat neutral in its statements.
During the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the outrage was far greater. Iran has limited popular support, and its geopolitical allies do not see its decapitation as existential, even if it would be problematic. The priority for China and Russia is de-escalation, and they would prefer to focus on their own neighborhoods while reaching a détente with the United States.
That being said, if the American attacks were sustained and began to re-escalate, many political currents would seek to incentivize a quagmire to deplete the United States of military and financial resources.
5. We have entered the great unknown – act accordingly
In 2025, what would once take seven years can now occur within seven days. The timeline of possibility is radically shifting geopolitically. While this crisis may subside (although that is still uncertain by any means), countries with a keen eye will make significant adjustments to their approaches. In particular, defense deterrence and defense sovereignty cannot be put off even one day longer.
China and Russia believe a new red line was crossed and will never deal with the United States in the same way again. The attack on Iran indicates that their regimes could be next on the list. The nature of such an effort would be less overt, but it could occur regardless. They will, in the short term, avoid direct confrontation with the United States, but also double down on building political and economic autonomy.
System resilience applies to individuals and institutions, not just countries. That is also in the near term, especially in the Middle East. The current conflict is ongoing and has multiple facets and potential for escalation. It raises questions for companies considering investment in Syria or setting up operations in Saudi Arabia, for example.
The off-ramp for America and Iran is clear, and all parties should redouble their efforts to focus on what comes next—the great unknown lies on the other side.