Afrasianet - By Dr. Hisham Okal - Professor of Crisis Management and International Relations - In June 2025, at the height of the mixed regional escalation between diplomacy and gunpowder, the United States chose to send its political messages in the form of missiles directed at Iranian reactors believed to pose a clear nuclear threat. Air strikes targeted "Natanz", Fordow and Arak" Isfahan, the strikes appeared to be a limited response, but they carried in their depth a larger message, a message that says sit down before we force you to sit down.

Satellite images did not show complete destruction, but rather the departure of a project whose shipments were transported secretly and the devices were hiding underground. The Iranian nuclear project was not killed, but changed its shape and turned into a new ghost that inhabits the mountains and is away from all direct observation.

Russia and China did not condemn or move, and neither of them raised a finger of objection, as if they were watching from afar. America is running in a minefield, just as Russia has been involved in the quagmire of Ukraine. China is silent. Perhaps America will bleed more on the Iranian front, while Moscow sets fire to Europe and Washington is panting behind the specter of uranium in the Persia Mountains.

In Israel, Netanyahu took advantage of the US strike to ease street pressure, which led to a decrease in demonstrations and a shift in the debate from the hostage crisis in Gaza to the Iranian nuclear file, with perceptions shifting that the American missile came to save the Israeli government from an internal crisis rather than stop Iran's nuclear program. As for Hamas, it disappeared from view, and attention was focused on Iran, which became the most important and present enemy in the headlines, while the issue of Gaza and the suffering of its residents declined.

The current American President Donald Trump promised the Iranians two weeks to assess the situation. The rockets were fired on the same day. He was given a period of sixty days. Then Israel carried out the strike the next day. He announced that the war in Gaza would end in a few days. So in Al-Ghazzawi he is still buried looking for a bundle of dry bread. Trump does not fight with strategy, but with tweets. He does not negotiate with values, but with timings. He does not read intelligence reports, but he quotes from evening bulletins.

But what if there was a nuclear leak in one of the Iranian reactors? What if Iran hit an Israeli Dimona reactor in the heart of the Negev desert? What if the world woke up to a radioactive emission flying over the Mediterranean Sea and hugging the shores of southern Europe? Will Trump then realize that a nuclear weapon is not a tool of attack but a comprehensive alarm bell? Will the world realize that playing with uranium is like playing crazy in the middle of a gas station closed with lies?

This reality brings to mind the saying of Winston Churchill: War is a continuation of politics by other means, but in the time of Trump, war is an electoral tool, a propaganda voice, and part of an advertising campaign that extends from platforms to cannons.

The end of this scene is still blurry. Are we facing the dismantling of a project or the beginning of the formulation of a new nuclear project underground and under the table? All scenarios are open and all doors lead to rough roads.

Gandhi said strength does not come from physical ability but from invincible will, but it seems that the power of this age comes from drones, hasty decisions and strategic tricks.

Acute angle ask

If civilization is measured by the number of nuclear warheads, the number of refugees, and the number of official lies, can we still call this a human world? What about Iran's threats to close the Strait of Hormuz?

Are we on the cusp of a strategic maritime shift that mixes energy and trade maps? What is the meaning of talking about Iran's withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

Is this a prelude to abandoning international legal controls and why Iran's Supreme National Security Council has not issued any statement so far about the official response to the planes that attacked the reactors?

And why Iran has not yet used the "Qom Shahr" missiles and was satisfied with the "Khaybar" missiles, is this for a tactical reason or is there a more complex strategy waiting for the signal moment?