US bombs Iran and the conspiracy theories start flying

The US just launched significant strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Washington declared it a victory, stating they've halted Iran's nuclear ambitions. However, several alternate theories are circulating about what truly transpired. These are speculative ideas, not confirmed facts, and the full implications of the strikes will likely unfold over time.

Theory 1: The Nuclear Sites Are More Resilient Than Believed

One prominent theory questions the effectiveness of the "bunker buster" bombs. Some suggest that Iran's nuclear sites, particularly the deeply buried Fordo facility, were constructed with advanced defenses specifically designed to withstand such attacks. If this is the case, the strikes may have caused only superficial damage, leaving Iran's nuclear program largely untouched and potentially prompting further escalation. Iran's Atomic Energy Organization has already asserted their program will continue uninterrupted. Initial assessments by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have not detected immediate signs of widespread radioactive contamination, though comprehensive damage assessments are ongoing. The US military confirmed the use of the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a 30,000-pound bunker buster, with some reports indicating multiple MOPs were dropped on Fordo. However, the precise extent of the damage remains a subject of considerable speculation.

Theory 2: A US-Led De-escalation Aimed at Israel

Another theory posits that the US attack, and its subsequent declaration of victory, was a strategic maneuver to de-escalate tensions between Israel and Iran. For weeks, Israel had been conducting its own strikes on Iranian targets. The US intervention, leveraging its powerful and unique bunker buster capabilities, might have aimed to pre-empt further, potentially more destabilizing, Israeli actions by achieving what Israel could not independently. In this view, the US stepped in to control the narrative and halt a dangerous cycle of regional conflict, providing Israel with a "victory" that negates the immediate need for its continued offensive.

Theory 3: A Deliberate "Show" for Geopolitical Purposes

A third, more cynical, perspective suggests the entire operation was a calculated performance. This theory proposes that the US may have deliberately allowed Iran time to prepare and mitigate the impact of the strikes. The core idea is that nothing fundamental has changed regarding Iran's nuclear capabilities. Instead, this "show of force" served to remove Israel's justification for continued independent attacks. It frames the events as a carefully choreographed diplomatic and military maneuver rather than a decisive blow, resulting in minimal actual change to Iran's nuclear program or regional power dynamics.

Theory 4: China and Russia's Strategic Interests in Maintaining Iran's Status Quo

Beyond the immediate actors, the roles of global powers like China and Russia also come into play. A fourth theory emphasizes their support for Iran and their desire for regional de-escalation. Both China and Russia have significant strategic and trade interests in maintaining a stable, if not amenable, Iran. For China, Iran is a key energy partner and a vital link in its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, which aims to reduce dependence on vulnerable maritime chokepoints. Russia, meanwhile, views Iran as a partner in challenging Western influence and has condemned Israel's recent actions against Iran. While both nations have called for a ceasefire, their long-term interests could lean towards preserving Iran's current geopolitical standing for strategic projection and trade, potentially even supporting its recovery. Russia has notably offered to help mediate a deal between Iran and Israel that would allow Iran to pursue a peaceful nuclear program while addressing Israeli security concerns.

Theory 5: Closing the Strait of Hormuz – A Move That Would Backfire on Iran's Allies

Finally, discussion often turns to Iran's potential retaliatory measures, particularly the long-threatened closure of the Strait of Hormuz. However, a fifth theory suggests that closing the Strait would inflict more damage on Iran's allies, especially China, than on Western markets. Approximately one-fifth of the world's total oil consumption, averaging 20 million barrels per day, transits through the Strait of Hormuz. While a closure would undoubtedly impact global oil prices and supply chains, a significant portion of the oil passing through the Strait is destined for Asian economies. Recent data for 2024 and early 2025 indicates that a substantial majority of crude oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) moving through the Strait of Hormuz was bound for Asian markets. For instance, China, India, Japan, and South Korea collectively accounted for approximately 69% of all crude oil and related liquids flowing through the Strait in 2024. China, as Iran's largest oil customer, relies heavily on Middle Eastern suppliers. India, for example, imports around 2 million barrels of crude oil daily through this strategic waterway. Iran itself exports a notable amount of crude oil through the Strait, primarily to China. Therefore, a prolonged closure would severely disrupt the energy supplies of its key trading partners, including China, potentially undermining their support for Tehran. This self-inflicted economic wound might deter Iran from taking such a drastic measure, suggesting that despite the rhetoric, the Strait of Hormuz remains unlikely to be closed.

Some of these theories may be proven wrong soon. But it's important to consider the possibilities rather than blindly accepting the narrative we are fed.