On June 22, 2025, the U.S. launched a sudden airstrike on Iran's Fordow nuclear enrichment facility. President Trump called it "a magnificent military victory," but behind this operation lies a complex geopolitical chess game.
1. Military Action: Is the "glorious victory" still in question?
After the attack, Trump claimed that U.S. stealth bombers precisely destroyed Iran's underground nuclear facility at Fordow and safely returned, marking a "technically perfect" military victory. However, analysis from Andrew Dowdle, the Middle East bureau chief of the Wall Street Journal, reminds us that it is still too early to judge whether this action was truly "successful."
First, the Fordow nuclear facility itself is a highly protected target buried deep in the mountains. The U.S. used a 30,000-pound "Massive Ordnance Penetrator," a weapon specifically developed for attacking targets like Fordow, marking its first real combat use. Although there are no signs of radioactive leakage on-site, which may be viewed as "good news" from a certain perspective, whether the facility has truly been destroyed still needs to rely on satellite imagery and further on-site assessments.
Moreover, Iran's nuclear program is highly decentralized, and whether damaging a single key node is sufficient to destroy its nuclear capabilities remains questionable. Therefore, the symbolic significance of this attack may outweigh its substantive impact.
2. Diplomacy and Strategy: Is Iran being pushed to the "negotiation table"?
President Trump made it clear in his speech that the U.S. is willing to "end actions" once Iran returns to the negotiation table, otherwise it will continue to launch larger-scale attacks. This statement serves as both a threat and an invitation, shifting the initiative to Tehran. However, from Iran's response, the possibility of both sides resuming diplomatic contact in the short term seems minimal.
The Iranian Foreign Minister stated, "All options are on the table regarding self-defense," and has retaliated against Israel's missile launches. Although these responses have not yet constituted a prelude to full-scale war, they have shown a strong confrontational stance. Especially in the context of Israel's declining air defense capabilities and Iran's lack of effective domestic air defense mechanisms, Iran appears exceptionally vulnerable facing the joint assaults of the U.S. and Israel.
The deeper issue is that the political landscape within Iran is equally complex. On one hand, there are moderates hoping to ease Western sanctions and improve the economy, while on the other hand, there are hawks supporting "anti-American resistance." Currently, with the internet shut down in Iran and information blocked, it is difficult for outsiders to gain insights into its policy direction. However, it is certain that under the intertwining of international pressure and internal divisions, Iran faces significant choices.
3. Internal Divisions in the U.S.: The Clash of Isolationism and Interventionism
This military action, while receiving some support from certain Republicans on Capitol Hill, has also sparked intense controversy within U.S. domestic policy. Some neoconservatives and traditional hawkish lawmakers support Trump's strikes, arguing it is a legitimate response to the "Iranian threat." Meanwhile, isolationists, represented by Marjorie Taylor Greene, warn, "This is not our war," fearing that the U.S. may fall into another endless overseas conflict.
Currently, the White House has not sought congressional authorization, triggering calls for a "war powers vote." This division reflects the uncertainty in the current direction of U.S. national security strategy. On one hand, the U.S. seeks to showcase its "overwhelming military power," while on the other hand, it cautiously avoids deploying ground troops and getting involved in long-term conflicts, appearing caught in a dilemma.
4. Regional Reactions: Are Gulf countries the biggest losers?
Besides the U.S. and Iran, the countries most worried about the escalation of the situation may be those Gulf nations caught in the middle. These countries are striving for economic diversification and regional stability; for instance, Saudi Arabia's "Vision 2030" heavily relies on regional peace. However, now, countries like the UAE, Qatar, and Kuwait, located less than a hundred miles from Iran, must once again confront the shadow of potential regional war.
Once Iran decides to retaliate, its proxy militia organizations in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria may launch attacks on U.S. military bases, while Iran may also blockade the Strait of Hormuz, threatening over 40% of global oil shipping. This would not only lead to soaring oil prices but also dampen global market sentiment.
Additionally, Gulf countries are cautiously optimistic about the U.S. and Israel's joint strikes against Iran. They do not wish to see an enhancement of Iran's nuclear capabilities nor do they want to see the Middle East engulfed in war again. This "geopolitical awkwardness of being caught between two powers" makes their stance particularly delicate.
5. Implications for Investors: Black Swan or Safe Haven?
The greatest risk of this raid event is not a sudden conflict but the chain reactions it may trigger:
Energy market fluctuations: If Iran takes action against oil and gas shipping routes, oil prices could rapidly soar. In the short term, this benefits the energy sector but puts pressure on aviation, manufacturing, and consumer inflation.
Safe-haven assets are heating up: Prices of non-sovereign assets like gold have shown signs of increase recently, and Bitcoin remains stable at $100,000 amid rising tensions. If the situation continues to escalate, capital may continue flowing into safe-haven assets.
Regional investment uncertainty is rising: Tensions in the Middle East will affect foreign investment into Gulf countries and their infrastructure projects, particularly in ports, energy, electricity, and water resources.
Increased volatility in U.S. stocks: Although U.S. stocks may rise in the short term due to "strong performance," if the war escalates or supply chains are disrupted, the market will face the risk of correction.
Conclusion: Can military victory bring peace?
The U.S. raid on Iran's nuclear facilities is undoubtedly a significant military event, but its long-term impact is far from being resolved by a single "precision strike." It tests the diplomatic wisdom between the U.S. and Iran and challenges the strategic stability of the entire Middle East region.
In today's increasingly complex global geopolitical landscape, where the market is highly sensitive to uncertainty, both ordinary audiences and investors should closely monitor the developments to avoid the hidden real costs behind the slogan "peace comes from strength."
