Q&A: Expert on U.S. airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and regional fallout

In a dramatic escalation of tensions in the Middle East, the United States launched precision airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday, marking a sharp policy shift from indirect support to direct military engagement. As the region braces for potential retaliation and global concerns mount over the erosion of nuclear non-proliferation norms, CGTN on Sunday interviewed Wang Jin, director of the Center of Strategic Studies at Northwest University in Xi'an, to unpack the motives behind the U.S. operation, assess Iran's nuclear resilience, and explore prospects for diplomatic de-escalation. The conversations have been lightly edited for clarity and conciseness.

CGTN: The U.S. had previously limited its role to intelligence sharing in the Israel-Iran conflict. Why did it decide to conduct direct airstrikes using B-2 bombers on deeply buried nuclear facilities such as Fordow? Was this a strategic shift driven by domestic political factors or external pressure from its allies?

Wang Jin: There are two primary reasons behind the U.S. decision. First, the conditions were ripe: Israel's sustained strikes in recent weeks had severely degraded Iran's air defense systems, allowing the U.S. to carry out long-range bombing missions with reduced risk. Second, Washington came under mounting pressure from pro-war factions domestically and from its close ally, Israel. Certain Iranian nuclear facilities like Fordow are deeply embedded underground and beyond Israel's reach, necessitating direct U.S. action. However, the strikes appear to have been calibrated to remain "limited" in Washington's view, aimed at disruption rather than full-scale escalation.

CGTN: Iran claims that nuclear materials were relocated prior to the strikes, and that Fordow's mountainous protection minimized damage. Can physical strikes really terminate nuclear capability accumulation?

Wang Jin: While physical attacks cannot entirely destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities, they can significantly disrupt and delay the progress. A nuclear program is not just about material – it's a complex system involving personnel, expert networks, energy supply, logistics, and infrastructure. The strikes have likely damaged or interfered with multiple components of this ecosystem. So while Iran retains technical knowledge and material stockpiles, its ability to operate a sustained and coherent nuclear program will face serious setbacks.

CGTN: Both Washington and Tehran have invoked "self-defense" in ways that sidestep obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Does this signal a growing erosion of the global non-proliferation regime? Are we witnessing the hollowing-out of international norms when great powers or regional actors cite security to justify treaty violations?

Wang Jin: Absolutely. The attacks by the U.S. and Israel have undermined the legitimacy and authority of international norms and institutions. If states can unilaterally define threats and use that as justification for violating another country's sovereignty, then the foundation of modern international order – based on sovereign equality and dialogue – begins to crumble. What we are seeing is the projection of hegemonic and unilateral thinking by the U.S., which severely damages the global consensus on rules-based governance.

CGTN: The Houthi spokesperson has threatened to strike U.S. ships in the Red Sea if Washington supports Israeli operations against Iran. Could this conflict spill over into a multi-front hybrid war? How might the broader Middle East landscape shift?

Wang Jin: There is a real risk of broader regional escalation. U.S. military bases in several Arab states could become targets of Iranian retaliation, either directly or via proxy groups. Iran-aligned forces in Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and elsewhere may also enter the conflict. If that happens, the Middle East could spiral into a more chaotic and fragmented battlefield, marked by overlapping conventional and asymmetrical warfare. This would significantly destabilize the regional order.

CGTN: Iran has categorically rejected direct talks with the U.S. under current conditions. Are there still viable diplomatic off-ramps? Could neutral Middle Eastern states such as Oman facilitate dialogue? Under what circumstances might Iran return to the negotiations table?

Wang Jin: There is still diplomatic space – any third-party country willing to mediate should be encouraged. Both Iran and many regional actors remain open to dialogue in principle, and European nations are also eager to prevent further deterioration. Even the U.S., despite conducting strikes, likely hopes to convert military pressure into political leverage. The international community should act now to create communication channels and open more opportunities for de-escalation.