Kathmandu: The United States’ recent airstrikes on Iran’s key nuclear facilities have ushered in a new phase of global political tension, raising critical questions about the immediate and long-term impact of the operation and Iran’s likely response.

On Sunday, US President Donald Trump announced that strikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites — Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan — were “completely successful”, claiming that Iran’s nuclear infrastructure had been “completely destroyed.” However, experts and international observers remain skeptical, emphasizing that independent verification is still needed.

According to US defense officials, the Fordow facility, an underground uranium enrichment site located nearly 90 meters below the surface, was a key target. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the operation had “severely damaged” Iran’s nuclear capabilities. But experts, like Héloïse Faye of the Institute for International Relations in France, warned that Iran may have relocated enriched uranium in advance, complicating the impact assessment.

While structural damage may be significant, many analysts stress that Iran’s nuclear knowledge — built over decades — cannot be eliminated with bombs. Dr. Andreas Krieg of King’s College London called the mission “risky and inconclusive,” particularly in relation to underground facilities like Fordow.

Iran has yet to issue a direct military response. However, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi labeled the strike a “serious line crossed.” Analysts suggest that Tehran may respond strategically — possibly through cyberattacks, indirect strikes on US assets, or targeting Gulf infrastructure — rather than open warfare.

According to analyst Michael Horowitz, Iran could threaten the Strait of Hormuz or escalate tensions via proxy groups, while Renaud Mansour of Chatham House believes Iran is currently in “survival mode”, likely to balance defiance with caution in hopes of preserving long-term diplomatic options.

President Trump hailed the strike as a military victory, but critics warn of potential diplomatic fallout if Iran uses the event to mobilize global sympathy or destabilize US influence in the region.

The situation has not only intensified US-Iran hostility but also added new uncertainties to the regional security landscape, with implications for global energy markets, international diplomacy, and military alignments in the Middle East. All eyes are now on Tehran’s next move and Washington’s willingness to manage escalation.