Today’s US military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, authorised by President Donald Trump, is a global reckoning. This decisive action targeted key sites including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. The President gave the Iranian regime plenty of time to respond, but it was clear that religious bullies respect force and nothing else. Well, they got force.

The strikes, conducted by B-2 stealth bombers, were a technological response to a technological evil. A nuclear-armed Iran would be a catalyst for catastrophic proliferation, empowering terrorist proxies like the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah with unprecedented destructive potential. Iran’s refusal to allow UN inspectors unfettered access to its nuclear program, coupled with its ongoing attacks on Israel, left the United States with no choice but to act.

This strike was a necessary intervention to halt a rogue regime’s march toward nuclear weapons and to prevent the unthinkable – a nuclear-armed terrorist axis.

Iran’s nuclear ambitions have long been a geopolitical albatross, with numerous reports suggesting it has cost the regime an estimated $500 billion while delivering negligible civilian benefits. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has documented Iran’s enrichment of uranium to 83.7 per cent at Fordow, perilously close to the 90 per cent threshold for weapons-grade material. Yet, Tehran’s persistent refusal to grant UN inspectors full access to its facilities coupled with the closure of nuclear sites to IAEA oversight during recent hostilities signalled a clear intent to conceal its weapons program.

As IAEA chief Rafael Grossi noted, no country enriches uranium at Iran’s rate without military aspirations, even if concrete proof of weaponisation remains elusive. Iran’s obfuscation is not a bureaucratic oversight, it is a deliberate strategy to shield its nuclear agenda from scrutiny, betting that the international community’s diplomatic inertia will allow it to cross the nuclear threshold.

President Trump’s decision to strike was not reckless but a calculated response to Iran’s evil intent. The US deployed B-2 stealth bombers were armed with GBU-57 ‘bunker-buster’ bombs, the only ordnance capable of penetrating Fordow’s mountain-encased fortifications. This operation, described by Trump as ‘successful’, was a direct rebuttal to Iran’s gamble that its underground facilities were impervious to attack.

By targeting enrichment production facilities, the US and its ally Israel, whose own strikes preceded America’s, have delayed Iran’s nuclear timeline by an estimated two to three years, according to Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar. This breathing room is critical, not only for Israel, which faces an existential threat from a nuclear Iran, but for the global order, which cannot tolerate a regime that would bankroll terrorists wielding the ultimate weapon.

The gravest implication of a nuclear-armed Iran lies in its ‘Axis of Resistance’ consisting of the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has reportedly funnelled over $1 billion annually to these proxies, arming them with ballistic missiles, drones, and advanced weaponry. The IRGC’s Quds Force have reportedly trained over 100,000 Shiite fighters across the region, from Syria to Yemen, creating a network of militias that amplify Tehran’s influence.

A nuclear Iran would not hesitate to extend its nuclear capability to these groups, either through direct transfer of weapons-grade material or by providing technical expertise to construct nuclear devices. The Houthis, who have already fired ballistic missiles at Israel and disrupted Red Sea shipping, could wield nuclear threats to choke global trade. Hamas, despite its setbacks in Gaza, could target Israeli cities with crude nuclear devices, escalating its campaign of terror. Hezbollah, though weakened by Israel’s recent operations, retains a missile arsenal capable of delivering catastrophic payloads across the Levant.

The decimation of Hamas and Hezbollah’s leadership, alongside the fall of Iran’s ally Bashar al-Assad in Syria, has already weakened Tehran’s regional grip. This moment of vulnerability, as Israeli intelligence penetrated Iran’s security apparatus, was the opportune time to act. Trump’s strike, while unilateral, aligns with the broader strategic imperative articulated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – to sever the ‘head of the octopus’ after crippling its tentacles.

In the meantime, the Australian government has ruined Australia’s reputation as a credible ally of the US. Instead of getting with the program to defend Western Civilisation, Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong have rabbited on about ‘dialogue and diplomacy’.

Their weakness has helped our enemies, and our enemies know it.

Albanese and Wong’s failure to act represents the worst kind of political leadership – stupid and industrious.

How much diplomacy was necessary before the US had to act?

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had dismissed President Trump’s calls for ‘unconditional surrender’, warning on X that:

‘The harm the US will suffer will definitely be irreparable if they enter this conflict militarily.’

President Trump had the chutzpah to act, but not before years of trying the peaceful approach.

The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, abandoned by Trump in 2018, failed to curb Iran’s ballistic missile program or its support for terrorism, proving diplomacy’s limits against a regime driven by ideological zeal. Saudi Arabia’s warning to Iran in April 2025 – take Trump’s deal or face Israeli strikes – went unheeded, further validating the necessity of military action.

This operation was not about regime change or occupation, it was a targeted effort to neutralise a clear and present danger.

The US has no boots on Iranian soil, and Trump’s actions emphasise a swift, decisive blow rather than prolonged engagement. The risk of Iranian retaliation exists, but Tehran’s proxies are diminished, and its military leadership has been decimated by Israeli strikes, limiting its capacity for sustained reprisals. The US military’s repositioning of assets, including the USS Carl Vinson and B-2 bombers to Diego Garcia, ensures readiness to counter any Iranian miscalculation.

Ultimately, Trump’s strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities was a bold act of leadership in a world too often paralysed by indecision. It reaffirmed America’s commitment to preventing a nuclear-armed Iran and sent a resolute message to its terrorist proxies.

As the dust settles over Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan, the global community must recognise that stability hinges on enforcing red lines, not appeasing those who cross them. Iran’s refusal to cooperate with UN inspectors left no room for doubt about its intentions.

By acting decisively, Trump has bought time to forge a new approach, one that ensures neither Iran nor its proxies ever wield the power to hold the world hostage.

Mr Albanese and Ms Wong, are you ready to act now?

Dr Michael de Percy @FlaneurPolitiq is the Spectator Australia’s Canberra Press Gallery Correspondent. If you would like to support his writing, or read more of Michael, please visit his website.