In a dramatic escalation this morning, the United States formally entered the war against Iran. While President Donald Trump had been publicly mulling his decision with vague references to a “two-week window,” American B-2 bombers were already airborne—on a mission that would mark a seismic shift in the current US foreign policy.
And with this strike, Trump continues the unbroken legacy of American presidents authorising military action in the Middle East.
At the heart of this tectonic move was the deployment of the most penetrative weapon in the US arsenal—the GBU-57—used to target Iran’s most fortified nuclear sites: the deeply hidden Fordow, along with Natanz and Isfahan.
This marks a stunning departure for Trump, who won re-election on a promise that emphasised avoiding foreign military entanglements. Though initially hinting at restraint, he has now thrust the US directly into a volatile regional war.
His abrupt mid-speech exit from the G7 summit in Canada suggested that something was brewing. That speculation was tempered by his two-week “thinking period”—but all such ambiguity vanished with this morning’s airstrikes, surprising Republicans, Democrats, and even Trump’s own Make America Great Again (MAGA) base.
Strategic deception
The operation bore signs of strategic deception. Around 11 pm US time, six B-2 bombers were spotted heading west over the Pacific, refuelling midair near Hawaii, which now appear to have been decoys. In reality, another formation flew east from Missouri. These three B-2s undertook a 37-hour round-trip mission, refuelling midair before releasing a full payload of GBU-57s on Fordow.
Each B-2 can carry two GBU-57s, suggesting that at least six of these “Massive Ordnance Penetrators” (MOPs) were used. Fordow, located beneath a mountain and engineered to withstand conventional attacks, had been enriching uranium to 60 per cent—just short of weapons-grade—according to the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report.
This is the first time the GBU-57 has been used in combat. Weighing 30,000 pounds and capable of drilling through 200 feet of reinforced concrete, it’s the “grandfather of all bunker busters.” Until now, only its smaller cousin (GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast) had seen combat use, notably in Afghanistan. In his address to the nation, Trump praised the military’s precision and confirmed all aircraft had returned safely, with no American casualties.
But has Fordow’s enrichment capacity truly been neutralised?
While initial Battle Damage Assessments (BDAs) are emerging from satellite providers like Maxar, they cannot fully reveal what occurred 200-300 feet underground. Preliminary reports and Iranian statements suggest that the enriched uranium (Iran has over 400 kilograms spread across different sites) was moved to safer locations in advance, perhaps in anticipation of an imminent strike.
It’s worth recalling that during Israel’s own operation—codenamed Rising Lion on 13 June—the focus was on bombing and disrupting the power supply to centrifuges at Natanz. However, neutralising Fordow was always beyond Israel’s capability, underscoring the indispensable role of American airpower and assets.
Also read: B-2 stealth bombers, 6 ‘bunker busters’—how US strikes on Iran unfolded
What comes next?
Iran is unlikely to accept this blow passively. Its initial response—launching a limited missile barrage on Israel—was muted, but Tehran has since declared that “all options are open.” So what might those options be?
The Iranian regime faces four broad paths: retaliate, collapse, accelerate its nuclear ambitions, or accept an “off-ramp” by freezing enrichment for three years, as some backchannel discussions suggest. Yet, autocratic regimes are seldom inclined toward humility. Some form of face-saving retaliation seems inevitable before diplomacy can resume.
Let’s consider Iran’s six primary retaliatory options, from most likely to most dangerous:
Continue strikes on Israel: Iran still possesses around 1,200 missiles, both ballistic and hypersonic, and a substantial drone arsenal. It could continue targeting Israeli cities. This would serve domestic propaganda only, but would fall short of responding to a direct US attack.
Activate Proxy Groups: Iran could mobilise Shia militant groups in Iraq, Syria, and Bahrain. However, with Hezbollah and Hamas significantly weakened, their capacity for meaningful retaliation may be limited too. That said, they are easy to launch and perhaps a safer option for wrecking instability while not playing with fire.
Close the Strait of Hormuz: Iran’s parliament has reportedly already approved the closure of this crucial oil corridor. But it amounts to mere signalling right now, as the final decision on the matter will be taken by the Supreme National Security Council. This critical waterway, however, has been seeing reduced shipping activity since tensions began to rise. A full closure would disrupt global oil supply and raise prices sharply.
However, Oman shares maritime responsibility for the strait with respect to its management, and other regional players—concerned about oil stability—may oppose this move. Remember that oil prices are spiking already, and the region’s sensitivity to that fluctuation remains imminent.
Target US bases in Iraq: This remains the least dangerous way for Iran to hit back at the US. Iraq’s weak defence posture and complex political landscape make it a vulnerable target, especially for indirect, deniable attacks, at best carried out by proxies. Iran had, in fact, targeted the Al Asad airbase in 2020, after the US killed Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani.
Strike the U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain: Such an act would be seen as a declaration of war. The risks of escalation would increase dramatically, and it would compel a decisive U.S. second response.
Attack Centcom Headquarters in Qatar: Perhaps the most extreme scenario. A strike at the United States Central Command – popularly abbreviated as Centcom – here would turn a contained conflict into a full-scale war and draw in global actors. Iran is certainly not prepared to handle this escalation.
Based on the current scenario, Iran is unlikely to risk options five or six. Tehran understands that provoking the world’s most powerful military could lead to its own destruction, when an off-ramp now exists.
Also read: Iran’s brutal regime is facing a reckoning. Consequences of US attack will go beyond Tehran
Trump’s gamble
President Trump appears to be betting that one powerful blow, paired with stern rhetoric and overwhelming military might, will push Iran toward the negotiating table. It’s a plausible theory—but not a guaranteed outcome. What if Tehran refuses? What if, out of desperation or pride, the Iranian regime takes an unthinkable step?
The Trump administration may believe it’s holding all the cards. But history shows that military superiority doesn’t always translate to strategic success—especially in a region as combustible as the one in question.
Iran today finds itself in an unprecedented moment of strategic loneliness. Russia, once a close ally and a steady buyer of Iranian drones for use in Ukraine, has stayed noticeably quiet, preoccupied with its own unending war in Europe.
China, too, has offered no more than muted diplomatic platitudes and some technical help, which is not enough to help Iran alter the situation. Even Iran’s religious and ideological partners in the broader Muslim world – the Ummah brotherhood – have resorted to lip service.
In this strategic vacuum, Iran has fewer options and more risks than ever before. Its choices will now shape not just its own future, but the stability of the entire region.
The Indo-Pacific costs
Perhaps the most underdiscussed consequence of this strike so far is the reorientation of American focus back to the Middle East, at the expense of its Indo-Pacific commitments. For India, this is concerning.
Relations between Washington and New Delhi have already strained in recent months, through issues ranging from trade demands to perceived US interference in India-Pakistan matters. Washington’s post-Operation Sindoor closeness with Pakistan further complicates the equation.
India, which had hoped for a deepened US presence in Asia to counterbalance China, may now find itself watching from the sidelines for the time being, wondering whether America can multitask or reorient in time, or whether its Middle East preoccupation will yet again overshadow its Indo-Pacific convergence.
Where things go from here is still uncertain. Trump campaigned against endless wars, and yet, we are back in a familiar place: American bombers over the Middle East, oil prices rising, and an adversary vowing revenge.
This could be a one-time strike meant to cripple Iran’s capabilities and offer an offramp for all. Or it could be the beginning of a much longer, bloodier cycle of retaliation.
For now, the GBU-57 has officially entered the theatre of war, and the world just got a lot more dangerous.
Swasti Rao is Consulting Editor (International and Strategic Affairs) at ThePrint. She tweets @swasrao. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)