There are moments in history when a single command is enough to destroy decades of diplomatic work - and to plunge the world into an abyss whose depth no one can truly fathom. The United States' attack on three Iranian nuclear facilities - Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan - on the night of June 22, 2025, marks such a moment. It was not merely a military strike - it was a targeted assault on critical infrastructure where highly enriched uranium is handled, in the midst of an escalating regional war between Israel and Iran. That US President Donald Trump described the attack on social media as "very successful" exposes the recklessness of an administration that believes military might can substitute for responsibility. With the use of B-2 stealth bombers and the most powerful bunker-busting bombs, the Pentagon not only provoked Iran but also violated the most fundamental principles of nuclear safety. Bombing active nuclear facilities not only carries the danger of radioactive releases but also the risk that such a precedent will be seen by other actors as a green light for similar attacks.
The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, announced an emergency meeting of the Board of Governors for Monday. The very fact that such a body has to convene to discuss attacks on a state's nuclear facilities underscores the gravity of the moment. Even US intelligence agencies had declared just last week that Iran posed no immediate threat from a deployable nuclear weapons program. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy wrote that Iran was not close to building a deliverable nuclear weapon. The talks that were derailed by Israel's attacks could have succeeded. What now looms is a complete collapse of diplomacy. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi declared that both bilateral talks with the US and negotiations with the EU had been terminated due to the strikes. The Iranian UN ambassador also accused the United States of having "started the war" - a war that, if it continues, could take on not just regional but global dimensions.
The attack on nuclear facilities is more than a provocation - it is a breach of taboo. Targets of this nature have for decades been considered a red line in international security norms. Those who strike them play with the possibility of radioactive catastrophes, with the destabilization of entire regions - and with the credibility of global nuclear disarmament regimes. The symbolism of the sites is also troubling: Fordow, drilled deep into rock, was once seen as proof of Iran’s advancement in uranium enrichment. Natanz has repeatedly been the target of sabotage - and Isfahan is the core of Iran’s uranium conversion technology. An attack on these facilities is no “surgical strike,” as US officials suggest - it is the deliberate destruction of a complex and dangerous system. While in Israel the wounded are being counted and rubble cleared, Bahrain urges its citizens to avoid roads, and Europe seems paralyzed, the world is faced with a new reality - the threshold for military escalation involving nuclear technology has been crossed. What remains is the hope that this act of irresponsibility does not become the beginning of an uncontrollable nuclear chain reaction - not in a reactor, but in the geopolitical realm. But hope has rarely been a viable substitute for foresight.
English 
German 
Ist es nicht viel krasser, wenn ein Staat die Vernichtung eines anderen Staates propagiert und dann Uran jenseits der 5% anreichert?
Die Frage zielt auf ein zentrales Spannungsfeld der internationalen Sicherheitspolitik: das Verhältnis zwischen politischer Rhetorik und nuklearer Ambition. Am Beispiel des Iran, der immer wieder durch israelfeindliche Aussagen auffällt und zugleich Uran über den Schwellenwert von 5 % hinaus anreichert, entsteht auf den ersten Blick ein Bild der Bedrohung, das nicht nur ernst genommen werden muss, sondern international zurecht Besorgnis auslöst. Doch eine differenzierte Betrachtung zeigt: Die tatsächliche Gefährdungslage ergibt sich erst im Kontext – und nicht in moralischer Schwarz-Weiß-Malerei.
Zunächst ist unbestritten, dass Vernichtungsrhetorik – egal von welchem Staat – niemals bagatellisiert werden darf. Wenn Teile der iranischen Führung offen die Auslöschung Israels fordern oder dieses Ziel zumindest implizit gutheißen, überschreiten sie eine rhetorische Schwelle, die auch völkerrechtlich und diplomatisch Konsequenzen haben sollte. Gleichzeitig jedoch ist die Anreicherung von Uran über 5 % aus technischer Sicht noch weit von einer waffenfähigen Stufe entfernt. Die Produktion von hochangereichertem Uran (über 90 %) sowie der Bau einer einsatzfähigen Atomwaffe erfordert zusätzliche Schritte, die bislang nicht belegt sind. Dass Iran nach dem Bruch des Atomabkommens durch die USA überhaupt wieder anreichert, ist somit nicht der Ausgangspunkt der Eskalation, sondern eine politisch motivierte Reaktion – keine Überraschung, sondern absehbare Folge eines gebrochenen internationalen Vertrags.