In a dramatic escalation of tensions in the Middle East, Iran’s parliament has approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, the vital maritime chokepoint through which nearly 20% of the world’s oil and gas shipments pass daily. The decision comes in direct response to recent U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, marking a significant intensification of the conflict.

The final authority to implement the closure rests with Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, which is expected to make a decisive announcement soon. Iranian lawmakers and Revolutionary Guard commanders have indicated that the closure will be executed “whenever deemed necessary,” signaling Tehran’s readiness to disrupt global energy flows if pressured further.

The Strait of Hormuz, located between Oman and Iran, is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, with a shipping channel just 2 miles wide. It connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, serving as a critical artery for the export of crude oil from major producers including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the UAE, Kuwait, and Iran itself.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio urged China on Sunday to dissuade Iran from closing the strait, emphasizing that such a move would be “economic self-destruction” for Tehran and have far-reaching consequences for global markets. Rubio warned that closing the strait would represent a serious escalation, prompting a strong response from the United States and its allies.

The potential closure has sent shockwaves through global energy markets, with experts warning of sharp increases in oil prices and disruptions to supply chains. India, a major crude importer that relies on the strait for about 2 million barrels per day, is closely monitoring the situation and preparing contingency plans. While India has diversified its energy sources, a closure could still lead to short-term price spikes and inflationary pressures.

Iran’s move to block the Strait of Hormuz is a high-stakes gamble that could escalate the Middle East conflict into a broader crisis, affecting economies worldwide. The international community remains watchful as the Supreme National Security Council weighs its options amid mounting pressure.

In a dramatic escalation of the Middle East conflict, the United States launched a meticulously planned and highly coordinated airstrike on June 21, 2025, targeting three of Iran’s most sensitive nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. This operation marked the first direct U.S. military strike inside Iran in decades and involved the combined use of six B-2 stealth bombers dropping Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker-buster bombs and 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from submarines positioned 400 miles off the Iranian coast.

What Happened?

President Donald Trump announced the strikes as a “spectacular military success” and claimed that Iran’s key nuclear enrichment sites had been “completely and totally obliterated.” The Fordow site, deeply embedded inside a mountain and heavily fortified, was the primary target of the B-2 bombers, which dropped six 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs designed to penetrate and destroy underground facilities. Meanwhile, 30 Tomahawk missiles — long-range, subsonic cruise missiles known for their precision — were launched from U.S. Navy submarines to strike the Natanz and Isfahan sites.

Trump emphasized the unprecedented nature of the operation, stating on Truth Social, “A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. Fordow is gone.” He also reassured that all U.S. aircraft had safely exited Iranian airspace following the mission, underscoring the operation’s success and the skill of American forces.

Understanding the Tomahawk Missile

The Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) is a cornerstone of U.S. precision strike capability. Measuring 18.3 feet in length and weighing approximately 3,200 pounds (4,400 pounds with booster), each missile carries a 1,000-pound conventional warhead. Guided by GPS, inertial navigation, and terrain contour matching, Tomahawks can strike targets with an accuracy within 10 meters from distances up to 1,500 miles. Their stealthy, low-flying approach makes them difficult to detect and intercept, allowing them to penetrate sophisticated air defenses.

First used in combat during the 1991 Gulf War, Tomahawks have become a preferred weapon for surgical strikes against high-value, heavily defended targets. Their use in this operation allowed the U.S. to hit multiple sites simultaneously without risking manned aircraft in heavily contested airspace.

Why These Targets?

• Fordow: Located near Qom, Fordow is Iran’s most secure uranium enrichment facility, built deep inside a mountain to withstand attacks. Destroying it was crucial to delaying Iran’s ability to produce weapons-grade uranium.

• Natanz: Iran’s primary uranium enrichment plant, Natanz has been the focus of previous Israeli strikes and sabotage efforts. It remains central to Iran’s nuclear program.

• Isfahan: This site houses uranium conversion and research facilities, including production of near-bomb-grade uranium, making it a key node in Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Strategic and Political Implications

The strikes represent a historic shift in U.S. policy, moving from indirect support of Israel’s campaign to direct military action against Iran. President Trump’s decision came after weeks of deliberation and amid escalating Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets. The operation sends a clear message of U.S. resolve to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

While Iran confirmed that some sites, including Fordow, were attacked, it denied any serious damage or radiation risks. Iranian officials have vowed retaliation, raising fears of a wider regional conflict. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has warned about the dangers of attacks on nuclear facilities, particularly the risk of radioactive contamination, though experts have stated that the recent strikes are unlikely to cause a Chernobyl-like disaster.

What Comes Next?

The strikes are likely to provoke Iranian retaliation, potentially through missile attacks on Israeli cities and U.S. military bases in the region, proxy militia actions, cyberattacks, and disruptions to global energy supplies. The U.S. and its allies remain on high alert, anticipating a complex and prolonged conflict.

President Trump has framed the operation as a last warning, stating that if peace does not come quickly, the U.S. will strike additional targets with “precision, speed and skill.” The world watches anxiously as the Middle East stands on the edge of a potentially wider war.

The recent U.S. deployment of B-2 stealth bombers to strike Iran’s fortified nuclear sites represents a significant escalation in the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict. These precision strikes targeted critical facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, using bunker-buster bombs designed to penetrate deep underground infrastructure. The attacks have severely damaged Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities and marked the first direct U.S. military action inside Iran in decades.

Strategic Context and Impact of the Strikes

Israel’s sustained air campaign against Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure has already shifted the Middle East’s strategic balance, with Israel emerging as a dominant military power in the region1. The U.S. strikes using B-2 bombers have further intensified pressure on Tehran, degrading its nuclear program and eliminating senior commanders. This direct intervention signals Washington’s readiness to escalate beyond diplomatic and proxy engagements.

Iran’s leadership, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is reportedly in hiding amid fears of assassination, underscoring the gravity of the situation17. The strikes have also targeted Iran’s cyber capabilities, further disrupting regime control and internal security.

Likely Modes of Iranian Retaliation

1. Direct Missile and Drone Attacks on Israel and U.S. Forces

Iran is expected to intensify missile and drone strikes against Israeli cities such as Haifa and Beersheba, aiming to inflict casualties and damage critical infrastructure67. Given the involvement of U.S. forces and bases in the region, Tehran may also target American military installations in Iraq, Syria, Kuwait, Qatar, and the Gulf states5. These attacks would serve both as retaliation and a deterrent against further strikes.

2. Proxy Warfare Through the ‘Axis of Resistance’

Iran’s extensive network of proxy militias—including Hezbollah in Lebanon, militias in Iraq, Houthis in Yemen, and other groups—provides Tehran with asymmetric capabilities to strike U.S. and Israeli interests indirectly58. These proxies may launch rocket attacks, sabotage operations, or hostage-taking missions to pressure the U.S. and its allies without provoking full-scale war.

3. Cyber Attacks and Information Warfare

Following the targeting of Iran’s Cyber Police headquarters, Iran is likely to escalate cyber operations against U.S. military networks, financial systems, and critical infrastructure15. Cyber retaliation offers Iran a low-cost, deniable means to disrupt U.S. capabilities and signal resilience.

4. Disruption of Global Energy Supplies

Iran may threaten or attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint for global oil shipments5. Attacks on commercial shipping or oil infrastructure in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea could raise global energy prices and exert international pressure on the U.S. and its allies.

5. Political and Diplomatic Maneuvers

Iran will likely seek to rally regional and international support by framing itself as a victim of aggression, while simultaneously refusing direct talks with the U.S. until Israeli strikes cease27. Tehran may leverage diplomatic channels to isolate Washington and gain concessions on its nuclear program while preparing for prolonged conflict.

Constraints and Risks for Iran

Despite its willingness to retaliate, Iran faces significant challenges:

• Israeli and U.S. Air Defense: Israel’s Iron Dome and U.S. missile defense systems reduce the effectiveness of Iranian missile barrages36.

• Risk of Broader Regional War: Tehran must avoid provoking Gulf states or NATO allies into direct conflict, which could overwhelm Iranian capabilities4.

• Domestic Stability: Prolonged conflict and economic hardship risk internal dissent and weaken regime control1.

Conclusion

Iran’s retaliation after the U.S. B-2 bomber strikes will likely be multifaceted, combining missile and drone attacks, proxy warfare, cyber operations, and efforts to disrupt global energy routes. Tehran’s strategy will balance demonstrating strength and deterrence with avoiding full-scale war that could threaten regime survival. The United States and Israel remain on high alert, anticipating sustained Iranian responses while seeking to prevent escalation beyond the current conflict.

Summary Table: Iran’s Potential Retaliation Strategies

The coming weeks will be critical in determining whether the conflict escalates further or if diplomatic efforts can be revived amid rising tensions.

Sources:
Washington Post1, Reuters2, IISS3, Al Jazeera4, Newsweek5, Testbook6, Vanguard7, CSIS8 (June 2025)