US Claims ‘Severe Damage’ to Iran’s Nuclear Program After Airstrikes

A day after President Donald Trump authorized a high-stakes strike on Iran’s nuclear program, the United States claimed it had inflicted significant damage. Yet, uncertainty remains about how severely Tehran’s nuclear ambitions were actually set back.

While Trump made no public appearances or social media statements on Sunday, his national security officials took the lead in signaling a desire to prevent a broader conflict. They left the door open to renewed diplomacy with Tehran, despite the escalating fallout of the airstrikes. The president’s silence, in contrast to his usual style, appeared calculated — part of a larger strategy to manage both public perception and global reaction.

At the United Nations, Iran accused the U.S. of sabotaging diplomatic efforts. Iranian Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani told an emergency session of the Security Council that Washington’s “warmongering regime” had ignored repeated warnings and derailed ongoing talks with European leaders. He pointed to recent diplomatic outreach by Iran’s foreign minister in Europe as evidence that dialogue was possible — until, as he put it, the U.S. “decided to destroy that diplomacy.”

The rapid chain of events was triggered on June 13, when Israel launched a surprise wave of airstrikes on Iranian targets. Citing a looming threat of nuclear weapons development, Israeli officials framed the strikes as a preemptive measure. Iran responded with missile and drone attacks against Israel, prompting a continued exchange of fire between the two longtime adversaries. That tit-for-tat campaign set the stage for Trump’s intervention.

In the early hours of Sunday, the U.S. carried out a major military operation targeting three of Iran’s most sensitive nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Trump later declared that the airstrikes had “obliterated” the sites. The attack, codenamed “Operation Midnight Hammer,” was executed using B-2 stealth bombers that dropped more than a dozen bunker-busting bombs on the Fordow and Natanz facilities, while Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched at Isfahan.

Though the Pentagon touted the strikes as a decisive blow, officials acknowledged that a full assessment of the damage was still underway. Analysts have cautioned that much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is deeply buried and potentially beyond the reach of even the most powerful non-nuclear munitions. Whether enriched uranium stocks were destroyed remains unclear.

Iran’s official reaction has so far been limited to harsh condemnations and a diplomatic offensive. At the UN, Tehran lashed out at both Washington and Jerusalem, but Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has yet to deliver a definitive public response — a silence that leaves the world guessing whether retaliation or restraint will follow.

Inside the U.S., top Trump officials maintained that the United States was not at war with Iran. Still, by conducting direct military strikes, the administration has formally entered a conflict that had, until now, been waged largely between Israel and Iran through proxy groups and shadow operations. The White House warned that if Iran does not de-escalate, future strikes could follow. Trump even hinted that regime change in Tehran could become a U.S. goal.

Despite the administration’s message of strength and deterrence, the situation remains fluid and highly volatile. Whether the strikes will stop Iran’s nuclear development or push the region into deeper chaos remains to be seen. For now, the U.S. has entered a dangerous new phase — one that Trump insists is aimed at peace, but which may just as easily spiral into a broader and bloodier conflict.