美国钻地弹炸开了战争之门，还是炸开了谈判大门

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the articles revolves around the U.S. military action against Iran's nuclear facilities, which has sparked global condemnation and raised concerns about potential escalation into war or negotiations [1][2][3]. - The U.S. military operation, named "Midnight Hammer," involved over 125 aircraft and a submarine, targeting three nuclear sites in Iran with significant firepower [1]. - The international community, particularly China, has condemned the U.S. actions as violations of international law and a threat to global safety, emphasizing the risk of nuclear leakage and regional instability [2]. Group 2 - The potential consequences of the U.S. airstrikes hinge on Iran's response, particularly whether it will retaliate against U.S. military bases in the region [3][4]. - Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has threatened severe retaliation, indicating that U.S. personnel and interests in the Middle East are now considered legitimate targets [4]. - The U.S. has expressed a willingness to negotiate following the strikes, suggesting that the military action could serve as a catalyst for diplomatic discussions with Iran [5][6]. Group 3 - Iran faces two primary options in response to the U.S. strikes: a limited symbolic retaliation or a decision to refrain from further attacks [7][8]. - Historical context shows that Iran has previously conducted limited retaliatory strikes without significant casualties, indicating a potential for a measured response [9]. - The possibility of negotiations regarding the Iran nuclear issue remains uncertain, as ongoing tensions between Israel and Iran continue to complicate the situation [10].