After the Airstrike on Iran

    “Those who use force to feign benevolence are tyrants; tyrants must have great nations. Those who practice benevolence through virtue are kings; kings need not be great—Tang ruled with seventy miles, and King Wen with a hundred miles. Those who subdue others by force do not win their hearts; their strength is insufficient. Those who subdue others through virtue win their hearts and gain their sincere submission, like the seventy disciples who submitted to Confucius!” 

—Mencius: Gongsun Chou

On June 21, U.S. warplanes crossed the Atlantic and launched precision airstrikes on three key Iranian nuclear facilities—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—in an operation codenamed “Midnight Hammer,” shocking the world. Three days after the strike, the NATO summit in The Hague opened, and Europe finally approved an unprecedented plan to increase defense spending—NATO allies committed to raising defense spending to 5% of GDP over the next 10 years, far exceeding the current 2% guideline. Recently, International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Grossi stated that despite attacks on multiple Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States and Israel, Iran is likely to resume uranium enrichment “within months.” The complex consequences of the U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities remain to be assessed over time.

Consequences of the strikes remain unclear

In addition to the U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities, Israel carried out preemptive strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, military sites, and personnel between June 13 and 24, causing further damage to Iran. Recently, Israel has been negotiating with Hamas to reach an agreement. Mediators in the Gaza Strip are in contact with Israel and Hamas, hoping that Gaza can also follow the momentum of the ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Trump publicly stated that he believes both sides may reach a ceasefire agreement within seven days.

However, Iran does not seem to have responded positively to the possibility of the United States easing its “strong” sanctions. Instead, Khamenei issued his first public statement after the war, declaring “victory over the U.S. regime.” Since the war began, Khamenei has not been seen in public. Following this statement, Trump immediately abandoned all efforts to ease sanctions and other matters. The Iranian Foreign Ministry has not yet responded to this.

Following the “Midnight Hammer” operation, Trump stated at a White House press conference that Iran’s nuclear facilities had been destroyed and that he did not believe Iran would ‘quickly’ resume nuclear weapons activities. However, International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Grossi stated that despite attacks on multiple Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States and Israel, Iran could likely begin producing enriched uranium “within months.”

After all, it remains unclear whether Iran was able to transfer part or all of its approximately 408.6 kilograms of highly enriched uranium stockpile before the attacks. This uranium is enriched to 60%, above civilian levels but still below weapons-grade. If further refined, it would be sufficient to produce more than nine nuclear bombs.

Trump insists that Iran’s nuclear program has been set back “decades.” Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif stated that the damage to the nuclear facilities is “severe,” but specific details remain unclear. What is even more concerning is that the bombing of Iran’s nuclear and military facilities may result in long-term ecological damage. Soil contamination in military conflicts is one of the most severe yet often overlooked environmental consequences of war. These harmful substances often remain in the topsoil for decades, severely damaging soil quality, including its fertility and natural regenerative capacity. The consequences of Iran’s last war already forced millions of people to migrate.

A wake-up call for China

Trump’s recent strikes against Iran not only demonstrate U.S. military hegemony in the Middle East but also highlight its role as the only global power capable of unilateral action: B-2 bombers flying thousands of miles from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to strike Iran showcase America’s global power projection capabilities. This strike reinforces the United States’ prestige as the global hegemon, reminding the international community that the United States remains the most powerful player today. If the United States can precisely strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, which are highly fortified targets, then by extension, it also has the capability to strike China’s military facilities to strengthen the protection of its allies.

China maintained diplomatic restraint after the U.S. airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities and did not take any substantive actions to support Iran. As an ally of Israel, the United States has intervened militarily in Iran using its powerful military strength; as a close partner of Iran, China can only call for de-escalation, lacking substantive leverage to avoid being drawn into the conflict. This contrast highlights China’s lack of influence in the Middle East—despite its growing economic interests in the region, it is not a major security actor, limiting its role.

The resurgence of U.S. power has undermined the Chinese political elite’s claim of “the rise of the East and the decline of the West,” as well as the appeal of China’s proposed “alternative global order.” China’s restraint and low profile in the Iran crisis reflect the limitations of its global influence, which is also why China seeks to position itself as a stabilizing force, contrasting with Trump’s “America First” policy. Although the United States deployed B-2 bombers to demonstrate its military strength, the focus was on Iran and Israel, so China will not immediately alter its Taiwan strategy unless the United States explicitly links the two regions. The “Midnight Hammer” operation at most serves as a deterrent from the United States toward China.

China seeks stability and opposes the use of military means to resolve any type of conflict or confrontation, regardless of the parties involved, and there are reasons for this. After all, over half of China’s crude oil imports depend on the Middle East, and China is the largest consumer of Iranian oil. A prolonged war would disrupt its oil supply, and an Iranian blockade of the strategically important Strait of Hormuz would have the same consequences. During this period, China’s greatest concern is avoiding the threat of “soaring oil prices” to its energy security. Only by positioning itself as a potential mediator and rational voice amid the escalating regional crisis can China indirectly safeguard its investments, trade, and business operations amid the turmoil.

Europe’s Ambiguous Shift in Attitude

European countries have sharp divisions over Israel’s actions in the Gaza war, with many European citizens strongly opposing them on humanitarian grounds. Over the past few months, Israel’s far-right government has been isolated in Europe, and Netanyahu has become the subject of an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court. Two ministers, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, have been sanctioned by the UK, with some EU countries planning to follow suit. However, European parties generally acknowledge that Iran’s nuclear program poses an existential threat to European security.

Since the airstrikes began, the UK, France, and Germany have publicly acknowledged that Iran’s nuclear weapons pose a threat not only to Israel but also to Europe. European countries have not issued major condemnations of the airstrikes targeting Iran’s nuclear capabilities. For instance, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer called for de-escalation but mentioned the UK’s “long-standing concerns” about Iran’s nuclear program. In this context, Iran has now placed the Gaza war on the back burner. This marks a major diplomatic victory for Israel in European strategic thinking, separating the Iranian nuclear issue from the Palestinian issue and paving the way for the Netanyahu government to gain some legitimacy on the European continent.

Actions speak louder than words. At the recently concluded NATO summit, NATO member states committed to increasing defense spending to 5% of their respective GDPs. Of course, European countries are attempting to balance the currently contentious US-EU tariff and trade issues by purchasing more US defense-related products. However, this commitment clearly signals that Europe tacitly approves of the U.S. airstrikes on Iran. This is closely tied to the EU’s deep dependence on the U.S., particularly in security matters. Even if the EU disagrees with many U.S. policies, including the imposition of significant tariffs, it is likely to seek compromise with the U.S. due to a “fear of the U.S.” and cultural affinity with it.

Of course, there are still voices claiming that the U.S.’s military action constitutes an outright violation of Iran’s sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity, and sends a wrong signal to the world that disputes can be resolved through force. Although Iran does not yet possess nuclear weapons, it is clear that it has the capability to produce them. Despite Iran’s repeated denials of any intent to develop nuclear weapons, certain aspects of its nuclear program, such as uranium enrichment, have raised concerns within the international community. Actions speak louder than words. Additionally, reports indicate that Douglas McGregor, a former U.S. Department of Defense advisor and retired colonel, stated on the social media platform X that the U.S. had warned Iran two hours before bombing its nuclear facilities that an attack was imminent.

Additionally, days before Trump decided to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the Islamic Republic of Iran acknowledged that it had hundreds of sleeper cells within the United States, ready to launch attacks at any time. Under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, the intent to infiltrate sleeper cells for terrorist attacks is classified as an “armed attack,” thereby acknowledging the right to self-defense. Iran’s acknowledgment a few days before Trump’s decision to destroy its nuclear weapons program easily provided a legitimate justification for the attack. The U.S.’s decision to severely damage Iran’s nuclear facilities at this time was “a natural consequence.”

The ever-present human conflict

The U.S. airstrike on Iran compels people to reflect on whether the use of force to end war remains an option that cannot be abandoned in today’s international society. Sociologist Charles Tilly once said that war creates nations, and nations create war. In international relations, there are naturally “rules of the game” such as international treaties, the principle of sovereignty, and the supremacy of human rights; however, the frequent conflicts between different political systems and the trends of various local wars in recent years have repeatedly forced those who harbor good intentions toward humanity to recognize the importance of “power.”

The airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, coupled with the safe withdrawal of all U.S. aircraft from Iranian airspace, once again demonstrates that the United States continues to play a significant role on the international stage, particularly in the military domain, and its formidable strength is widely recognized worldwide. Additionally, this operation marks Trump taking an action he had long vowed to avoid: military intervention in a major foreign war. In this interconnected age, complete non-intervention is impossible. The issue lies in whether intervention in war is controlled by political authorities such as nations or international institutions: whether the purpose is to end the war or to assist one side or the other in the war; and through what means the aforementioned purpose is achieved.

The philosophical debate over the relationship between “purpose” and “means” has never ceased. Taking war as an example, the party that initiates the war is naturally unjust. If the opposing side then resists with force, being drawn into this forced war, their resistance is an unavoidable response, and their purpose is to stop the war. Is such resistance a necessary—or even moral—means? Contemporary conflicts and wars are endless and difficult to resolve, as if trapped in a circular argument of “the chicken or the egg,” unable to escape.

War has never completely disappeared from human history; various forms of conflict and violence have continued to occur. Any rational person opposes war. Therefore, the focus should not be on “anti-war” rhetoric, but on how to confront war—especially “war that is forced upon us.” The vast majority of people yearn for peace. The problem is that no matter how much we advocate against war or emphasize peace, there will always be those who seek to wage war for personal gain. This forces us to confront war that is forced upon us. The first priority in facing such a war is prevention. However, if prevention fails and war breaks out, the ability to resist war still lies in strength.

Article/Editorial Department, Sameway Magazine

Photo/Internet