The intervention of the United States marked a clear stance in a conflict that rearranged alliances and global tensions.
When Distances Don't Matter
Twelve, just twelve days. How is it possible that in such a short span of days a latent conflict of decades begins and is resolved? How does a country with so much influence but on the other side of the hemisphere manage to end a war?
On June 13, 2025, an armed confrontation began between Israel and Iran due to Iran's advances in nuclear weapons manufacturing and its refusal to allow oversight by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). As declared by the Israeli government, this threatened the security not only of the country but of the entire world. In the following days, the Iranian government responded with attacks on Israeli territory, escalating into an armed conflict where dozens of ballistic missiles were exchanged, causing damage to civilian populations.
However, on June 21, the United States, following several statements regarding the armed conflict and in support of its historical ally in the Middle East, decided to create Operation "Midnight Hammer", deploying strategic stealth bombers B-2 and destroying in just 44 hours three Iranian underground nuclear plants: Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. Hours later, the Iranian government threatened the United States for its intervention and declared that no significant damage was detected at the plants.
Now, how is it possible for the United States to intervene from so many kilometers away? What strategic interest can justify a military intervention that, for many, borders on international illegality?
Between Allies, There Is No Distance
As it has done in different countries around the world, the United States has been involved in the Middle East promoting peace and bringing democracy to the region. Agreements such as Camp David (1978), or more recently, the Abraham Accords (2020) - signed by Arab countries and Israel with Washington as a mediator - are concrete examples of its active role in the region and its great interest in influence in the area.
The alliance with Israel, which dates back to its founding in 1948, has been not only an ideological matter but also a strategic one. For the United States, the political, military, and diplomatic costs of backing Israel have historically been lower than the benefits obtained: a position of influence in a key area, access to intelligence, technological cooperation, and above all, a reliable ally in an unstable region.
The recent military intervention led by President Donald Trump —as part of Operation "Midnight Hammer"— reinforces this logic. By attacking Iranian nuclear facilities, Washington not only defended its ally but also acted in the name of its own security. A nuclearized Iran, beyond the direct threat to Israel, could destabilize the region and indirectly threaten U.S. interests.
Although sectors of American public opinion questioned the presidential decision, the truth is that this intervention responds to a threat that exceeds the regional context. In this scenario, the strategic alliance between both countries not only remains but strengthens, consolidating Israel as the American anchor in the Middle East.
Intervene to Prevent
Following the U.S. military intervention in the region, Iran threatened the American country with attacks on its military bases in the area and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, located in the Persian Gulf, which is a strategic route through which approximately one-fifth of the world's oil production transits. It argued, along with other allied regimes, that the United States violated the principle of "Non-Intervention" of the United Nations Charter.
While many sectors raised the illegality of the intervention, due to the lack of a resolution from the UN Security Council authorizing it, it was based on a response to a nuclear threat to the region and to its Middle Eastern allies. From this perspective, we can apply the exceptions to the principle of the prohibition of the use of force, as also outlined in the United Nations Charter, which justify a military intervention for legitimate defense.
Iran's nuclear proliferation, combined with its refusal to allow comprehensive inspections by the IAEA and its repeated threats against Israel, pose a danger to international peace. In that context, inaction by multilateral organizations cannot be an excuse to tolerate the advancement of a nuclear program with offensive purposes.
For this reason, the U.S. intervention is considered an act of expanded legitimate defense, both in support of its strategic ally and in safeguarding an international order that cannot be sustained in the face of blatant violations. It is not an arbitrary action but a proportional and necessary response to a proven threat.
What the War Left Us
Finally, after 12 days of attacks between Israel and Iran with significant damage to civilian populations, these two countries and the United States declared that all three had "won" the war. This concept is ambiguous as a war is never truly won: it leaves scars on the civilian population, significant economic impacts, and primarily, high costs at both the domestic and international levels.
In the case of Iran, although it was declared that the U.S. intervention did not manage to destroy all the plants nor cause significant damage, its population and economy were severely affected, accompanied by dissatisfaction from sectors towards the regime of Ali Jamenei. However, preliminary reports from U.S. military intelligence stated that Iran’s nuclear manufacturing capability had only been delayed by months, not years, as Trump had anticipated.
In Israel, a high number of eliminations of Iranian nuclear commanders and scientists was identified. However, the damages were also high. Destruction of buildings in Ramat Gan and its surroundings, and a high number of deaths due to missiles that the Israeli defense system - "Iron Dome" - did not manage to intercept. Even so, there was a surprising support for the Israeli government, which had recently been heavily criticized and questioned for its inability to negotiate the release of hostages still held by Hamas since the massacre perpetrated on October 7, 2023, primarily by the families. This is because the Israeli population understands the threat that Iran poses in the territory and the influence it has over terrorist groups in the region. Understanding that by destroying or diminishing the ayatollah regime's capacity for action, terrorist groups like Hamas would weaken and the hostages would be returned.
The United States has been the country with the most opposition to the presidential decision. Activists and organizations have declared that Americans do not seek to enter into conflicts but to exit them. A parallel can be drawn with the vast conflicts in which the United States was involved, where public opinion pressured governments for withdrawal. Cases such as Vietnam, World War I and II, Korea, Iraq, etc. Additionally, the Democratic Party denounced that it had not been informed of the attack and that actions are necessary regarding the unilateral decision made by Donald Trump.
Tensions, Decisions, and the Price of Security
Wars are costly, painful, and destructive. They do not arise overnight, nor are they resolved with a simple bilateral meeting or a diplomatic call. They are the result of accumulated tensions over decades, where strategic interests, real threats, and difficult decisions converge.
The 12-day war, like others, was not resolved solely by a U.S. military intervention, but was influenced by internal and external factors that condition both the Iranian regime and the Israeli and American governments.
Ending the conflict, just like starting it, was a rational decision based on a strategic calculation where benefits outweigh costs. Because in the end, it is not about glorifying a war, but understanding that there are moments when not intervening implies renouncing the responsibility to protect. And in this case, acting was not only necessary for Israeli and American security: it was the right thing to do.
Comments