The US Attack on Iran Nuclear Facilities in June 2025 has ignited a firestorm of controversy, ethical debates, and calls for accountability. On June 21, 2025, under the directive of President Donald Trump, U.S. forces launched a series of airstrikes targeting three key Iranian nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. These strikes, involving B-2 stealth bombers and bunker-buster munitions, were justified by the U.S. as a preemptive measure to curb Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons ambitions.
Historical Context and Build-Up to the Strikes
However, the US Attack on Iran Nuclear Facilities has been widely condemned as a violation of international law, with Iran demanding reparations for the extensive damages inflicted.
Despite clear evidence of destruction and humanitarian implications, the international community has largely remained silent, raising questions about global justice and the influence of power politics.
This article examines the events, legal ramifications, economic impacts, and the moral imperative for the U.S. to compensate Iran, while critiquing the world’s muted response.
Tensions between the U.S. and Iran have simmered for decades, rooted in the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the U.S. embassy hostage crisis, and ongoing disputes over Iran’s nuclear program.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in 2015, aimed to limit Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief, but Trump’s withdrawal in 2018 escalated hostilities.
By 2025, with Iran enriching uranium to near-weapons-grade levels amid stalled negotiations, the stage was set for confrontation.
The US Attack on Iran Nuclear Facilities was preceded by Israeli strikes on Iranian targets, including proxy forces in Syria and Lebanon.
Intelligence reports, often cited by U.S. officials, claimed Iran was weeks away from a nuclear breakthrough, though independent verification was lacking.
President Trump, in a June 20 press conference, stated, “We cannot allow Iran to threaten the world with nuclear weapons.”
The strikes followed, marking a direct U.S. military engagement not seen since the Iraq War.
This US Attack on Iran Nuclear Facilities not only destroyed centrifuges and infrastructure but also symbolized a unilateral assertion of American hegemony, bypassing the United Nations Security Council.
Details of the US Attack on Iran Nuclear Facilities
The operation commenced at dawn on June 21, with B-2 bombers from Diego Garcia delivering GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators to the deeply buried Fordow site.
Tomahawk missiles targeted Natanz and Isfahan, causing explosions that reverberated across the region. Satellite imagery post-strike revealed craters, collapsed structures, and fires at all three facilities.
Iranian officials reported over 50 casualties, including scientists and guards, though the U.S. claimed minimal civilian impact.
A preliminary U.S. assessment, leaked to media outlets, indicated the strikes set back Iran’s nuclear program by only a few months, not years as hoped.
The US Attack on Iran Nuclear Facilities damaged enrichment halls but failed to eliminate underground stockpiles entirely.
Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian condemned the action as “state terrorism,” vowing to rebuild stronger.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed no radiation leaks but noted violations of safeguards, as the sites were under IAEA monitoring per JCPOA remnants.
Legal Violations and Condemnation
Under international law, the US Attack on Iran Nuclear Facilities constitutes an act of aggression. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against another state’s territorial integrity.
The strikes lacked UN authorization and were not in self-defense, as Iran posed no imminent threat.
The Geneva Conventions’ Additional Protocol I, Article 56, protects nuclear installations from attack if they risk releasing dangerous forces, a point raised by the IAEA.
The UN Secretary-General António Guterres described the event as a “perilous turn,” urging restraint. Human rights organizations like Amnesty International labeled it a war crime, citing civilian deaths and environmental risks.
Iran’s complaint to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) seeks a ruling on U.S. liability, drawing parallels to the 1986 Nicaragua v. USA case, where the U.S. was ordered to pay reparations.
Despite this, the US Attack on Iran Nuclear Facilities has faced limited formal condemnation, with veto powers in the Security Council stifling resolutions.
Economic and Humanitarian Damages
The US Attack on Iran Nuclear Facilities inflicted billions in damages. Estimates from Iranian state media peg reconstruction costs at $20-30 billion, including lost scientific equipment, disrupted research, and economic ripple effects.
Iran’s nuclear program, ostensibly for peaceful purposes like energy and medicine, supports isotopes for cancer treatment; the strikes halted production, exacerbating
source: raialkhalij