In the pre-dawn hours of June 22, 2025 (Iranian time), President Trump gave the green light for a high-stakes military operation targeting Iran’s most heavily fortified nuclear installations at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. This was no ordinary strike: the U.S. unleashed some of its most sophisticated firepower, including six 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators—colossal bunker-busting bombs—delivered by stealth B-2 Spirit bombers. Meanwhile, a coordinated barrage of submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles slammed into other strategic points, crippling enrichment facilities and support infrastructure at Natanz and Isfahan. Following the strikes, President Trump addressed the nation and the world, boldly declaring that the targeted sites had been “completely and totally obliterated,” and warning Tehran in no uncertain terms: choose the path of peace or prepare for even harsher consequences.

In response, Iran struck a defiant pose, launching a volley of missiles toward Israeli territory and vowing fierce retaliation for what it condemned as an act of war. Iranian officials also claimed, perhaps questionably, that the attacks inflicted minimal damage and did not trigger any dangerous radiation leaks. Around the globe, reactions have been as divided as the region itself: Israel has publicly praised the U.S. show of strength and resolve, hailing it as a vital step in defending against a nuclear-armed adversary. Meanwhile, the United Nations and several European leaders have urgently called for restraint and de-escalation, warning that further strikes could ignite a broader regional conflict with unpredictable consequences. As tensions simmer, the world holds its breath to see whether this bold move will halt a nuclear threat or fan the flames of a new Middle Eastern war.

Rationale Behind the Strike

Supporters of the operation view it as a decisive and necessary measure to confront what many intelligence analysts believed was a fast-closing window before Iran reached nuclear weapons capability. By striking deeply buried facilities like Fordow, the U.S. sent a clear signal that no underground bunker is safe from American reach, thus restoring a sense of deterrence that some feared had eroded in recent years. This display of advanced precision warfare not only disrupted Iran’s enrichment plans but also served as a stark reminder to other hostile regimes that clandestine nuclear ambitions will not go unanswered.

For many, this show of strength aligns with a biblical understanding of just defense. Scripture calls on leaders to protect the innocent and restrain evil. Proverbs 21:15 declares, “It is joy to the just to do judgment: but destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity.” In this light, using America’s military might to shield Israel—one of our closest allies and a nation with deep biblical significance—fulfills a moral responsibility. Furthermore, by acting forcefully now, the U.S. arguably prevented a future scenario far worse: a nuclear-armed Iran blackmailing its neighbors or sparking a devastating regional arms race.

Finally, proponents argue that peace sometimes requires the credible threat of overwhelming force. A well-timed, surgical strike, when paired with continued diplomatic efforts, can serve as a catalyst to bring adversaries back to the negotiating table under more realistic terms, reminding them that America will always defend its interests and stand by its allies when push comes to shove.

Concerns and Risks of Escalation

While supporters hail the strikes as a bold move to prevent a nuclear Iran, critics are quick to spotlight the serious risks and unanswered questions surrounding this operation. One of the most immediate concerns lies in the realm of constitutional governance: President Trump ordered these strikes without seeking explicit Congressional approval, reviving a perennial debate about presidential war powers versus the authority of the legislative branch. Many legal scholars argue that launching offensive military action against another sovereign nation—without an imminent or direct attack against the United States—stretches, if not outright violates, the spirit of the War Powers Act.

On the global stage, questions of international law loom just as large. Under widely accepted norms, preemptive strikes require clear and present evidence of an imminent threat. Critics argue that while Iran’s nuclear ambitions are undeniable, the U.S. has not publicly presented smoking-gun proof that an actual weapon was just days or weeks away from completion. Without that, some allies fear the strikes could set a dangerous precedent that other nations might cite to justify their own preemptive attacks.

Beyond the legal and ethical debate is the practical military question: did the bombs actually achieve their full objective? Fordow, for instance, is buried beneath hundreds of feet of reinforced concrete and rock—some experts caution that even the most powerful bunker-busters may not have destroyed every critical chamber. If Iran can repair and rebuild, the strikes might buy time but not eliminate the problem.

Diplomatically, the fallout is already clear. Any fragile hope of coaxing Iran back to the bargaining table—under stricter terms—has likely evaporated overnight. Instead, the missile retaliation against Israel and the fiery rhetoric out of Tehran show that the region now teeters even closer to open war. Critics worry that an isolated military action, without a well-defined long-term plan for containment or political resolution, risks pulling the U.S. deeper into another protracted conflict in the Middle East, something the American public has little appetite for after decades of costly entanglements.

In short, while few dispute the gravity of Iran’s nuclear threat, many question whether this high-risk gamble, absent robust legal grounding and clear follow-through, could ignite more fires than it puts out.

A Faithful and Principled Judgment

Recognizing a Grave Threat

It’s crucial to begin with moral clarity: a nuclear-armed Iran is not merely an Israeli or American problem; it’s a threat to countless innocent lives across the Middle East and beyond. Our worldview holds the sanctity of life as sacred, and we cannot turn a blind eye when an aggressive regime moves closer to possessing weapons that could unleash devastation on a biblical scale. If credible intelligence showed that Iran was just months from crossing the nuclear threshold, decisive action to disrupt that timeline is not only understandable, but it may also be morally required.

Anchoring Action in Biblical Wisdom

Yet Scripture also reminds us that while nations must prepare for battle, ultimate victory and righteousness belong to the Lord alone. As Proverbs 21:31 declares, “The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD.” Military power, no matter how advanced, must be wielded with humility, prayer, and a firm reliance on God’s guidance. It should never become a tool of reckless pride or unchecked aggression.

Honoring Constitutional and Moral Authority

A cornerstone of conservative thought is fidelity to the U.S. Constitution. The wisdom of the Founders—and of Proverbs 11:14, “Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety”—teaches us that major acts of war should never rest on one man’s shoulders alone, no matter how resolute he may be. President Trump’s swift action, while arguably justified by the urgency of the threat, would have carried even greater moral weight and public trust if it had been debated and authorized by Congress. True strength is not diminished by accountability; it is reinforced by it.

Keeping the Door to Peace Open

As Christians, we are called not just to defend but to pursue peace whenever possible. Jesus himself instructs us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, a principle that does not evaporate in times of war. Even after these strikes, the path of diplomacy must not be abandoned. If there remains any chance—however slim—to negotiate real, verifiable nuclear disarmament alongside security guarantees, it should be pursued earnestly, with both firmness and good faith.

A Measured Conclusion

Taking all this into account, I believe that while striking Iran’s nuclear sites could be justified given credible evidence of an imminent threat, the manner in which it was carried out—without prior Congressional approval—undermines the constitutional safeguards that keep our republic strong and principled. Now that the operation is done, it is all the more important for our leaders to restore proper checks and balances by openly briefing Congress, seeking bipartisan support for any future military steps, and clearly articulating a broader strategy that aims for real peace rather than endless escalation. Bold military action must now be matched by constitutional accountability, moral restraint, and an unwavering commitment to extend the olive branch alongside the sword.

So, we pray: may this moment serve as a wake-up call to all parties to seek true security, not just through weapons and walls, but through wisdom, accountability, and the grace of the Almighty. May it deter evil rather than multiply it, and may it open the door for genuine peace in a region that has known far too little of it for far too long.