WANA (Jun 22) – In the middle of a tumultuous night, as the skies over Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan lit up with explosions, the world confronted a new reality: for the first time, the United States had launched a direct attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. According to observers, this move reflected less a show of strength than the collapse of Washington’s long-standing proxy warfare strategy.

 

For years, the U.S. preferred to stay in the shadows of the Iran nuclear standoff. From the assassination of scientists to industrial sabotage and cyberattacks, Israel played the role of the frontline actor. But it seems Iran’s growing technical, security, and even military resilience has rendered Tel Aviv’s operations increasingly ineffective—forcing the U.S. to step in directly. Intelligence sources report that even in the most recent strikes, Israel encountered a complex and layered defense system that significantly blunted its destructive power. In short, Washington’s proxy arm has been neutralized.

Iranians burn a caricature of U.S. President Donald Trump during the 46th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Tehran, Iran, February 10, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

Washington Trapped on Tehran’s Turf

Analysts argue that Israel’s failure to effect meaningful change on the ground—combined with its diplomatic fallout—has brought the U.S. to a point where it must bear the full political and military costs itself. The strike on Iran’s nuclear sites was less an act of deterrence and more an admission of failure. As Iran’s IRGC bluntly put it: “This attack reflects the aggressors’ inability to alter the realities on the ground.”

 

The Collapse of the “Maximum Pressure” Doctrine?

Beyond Israel’s vulnerability, another key driver behind U.S. intervention appears to be the rising cost and diminishing returns of the “maximum pressure” strategy—a campaign that began with economic tools but has now escalated to strategic bombers. Yet, is this direct U.S. involvement enough to tip the balance? All signs suggest otherwise.

 

A member of Iran’s parliament representing Qom assured the public that the Fordow facility had suffered no significant damage, with only surface-level equipment—easily repairable—affected. This suggests a technical failure on Washington’s part: not only were the main targets left intact, but there were also no reports of radiation leaks, casualties, or sustained disruption to Iran’s nuclear activities.

Protesters burn Israeli and U.S. flags during an anti-Israeli protest after Friday prayers, amid the Iran-Israel conflict, in Tehran, Iran, June 20, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

More Than Missiles: A Message

Iran does not view the attack as merely a military operation. It sees it as a clear violation of red lines. As Abbas Araghchi, a former nuclear negotiator, put it: “Diplomacy has been destroyed.” In response to the strike, he asked: “How can Iran return to a negotiating table that the U.S. and Israel have shattered?”

 

In a formal letter to the UN Security Council, Iran called for an urgent session to address what it described as a “premeditated act of aggression” by the U.S. The letter demanded that Washington be held fully accountable, warning that failure to respond would endanger the entire international order.

 

Losing Control of the Battlefield?

Meanwhile, reports indicate that the U.S. had evacuated several of its regional bases in the days leading up to the strike—a move analysts interpret not as a tactical ploy, but as a sign of fear of Iranian retaliation. Tehran has announced it will not be misled by such maneuvers and promises a decisive response. Still, Iran’s focus, for now, remains squarely on confronting Israel, which it calls “America’s real base in the region.”

 

In its statement, the IRGC warned that a “regret-inducing response” is coming and that “Operation True Promise 3” will continue. Simultaneously, Iranian diplomacy has shifted into an offensive gear, mobilizing legal instruments to shape the official narrative of the strike—one that casts the U.S. not as a peacekeeper, but as the initiator of aggression.

 

A woman walks next to a billboard with a picture of Iranians supporting Iran, amid the Iran-Israel conflict, in Tehran, Iran, June 22, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

The End of the Proxy Game? 

What happened in the early hours of June 22 in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan may well mark a turning point in the Iranian nuclear crisis. A moment when the U.S. removed the mask of proxy warfare and stepped directly into the arena. If the initial calculations in Washington and Tel Aviv were based on the assumption that a show of force would force Iran into retreat, the emerging reality seems to indicate the opposite.

 

Iran has not only withstood the blow—it appears to have seized the initiative in military, diplomatic, and public opinion arenas. And perhaps that is what worries Washington most: a region no longer playing by the old rules.