Mexican president states that Trump is not…See more

In Jerusalem and Washington, the response was mixed but notably defiant. Some voices celebrated what they framed as a historic victory, a decisive strike against a nuclear program that had long loomed as an existential threat. Commentators praised the precision of the operation, the swift execution, and the perceived boldness of American leadership. Strategists argued that a message had been sent—not only to Iran, but to any nation considering a similar path. Yet even in these circles, undercurrents of doubt persisted. Military analysts warned that retaliation could come in unexpected forms: cyberattacks, proxy warfare, disruptions to oil markets, or asymmetric assaults targeting allies.

Across European capitals, the mood was far grimmer. Diplomats convened in emergency sessions, poring over satellite images, intelligence briefings, and treaty obligations. They spoke of treaties turned to ash overnight, of fragile agreements shredded by a single unilateral move. Some whispered that the world was slipping perilously close to the brink of a wider conflict, one that could spiral beyond the Middle East into global instability. In Berlin, Paris, and London, policymakers debated in hushed tones whether there was any viable way to de-escalate a situation that now seemed entirely beyond control. Their fear was not just about immediate retaliation; it was about the precedent set, the erosion of trust, and the fragility of the rules that had governed international engagement for decades.