How effective was the US attack on Iran's nuclear sites?
Donald Trump
was quick to claim that
US
strikes on
Iran's
nuclear facilities had
'completely and totally obliterated' them
. Still, it remains unclear how much physical damage has been done or what the longer-term impact might be on Iran's nuclear programme.
What was the target?
Israel-Iran map
The Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran (AEOI) confirmed that attacks took place on its Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz sites, but insisted that its nuclear programme would not be stopped. Both Iran and the United Nations nuclear watchdog said there were no immediate signs of radioactive contamination around the three locations after the strikes.
The Iranian Red Crescent also reported no deaths in the US strikes on the nuclear sites, appearing to confirm Iranian claims they had been evacuated in advance. In the immediate aftermath, US military officials suggested the three sites had suffered 'severe damage' after an operation that had been weeks in planning, suggesting that it was fully co-ordinated in advance with
Israel
.
The Pentagon said a battle damage assessment was still being conducted.
READ MORE
What do we know about the strike on Fordow?
Iran's underground nuclear enrichment site at Fordow was one of three targeted by the US. Photograph: Planet Labs PBC/AP
Long regarded as the most difficult military target among Iran's nuclear sites, the uranium enrichment facilities at Fordow – the primary target of the operation – are buried beneath the Zagros Mountains. Reports have suggested that the site was constructed beneath between 45m and 90m of bedrock, largely limestone and dolomite.
Some experts have suggested that the layering of the sedimentary rocks, including faults, would also make it more difficult to strike the centrifuge array, providing a kind of geological cushioning against a blast wave.
The attack – code-named Operation Midnight Hammer – was carried out by seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers flying from the US, after a deception flight by other B-2s into the Pacific. Tomahawk missiles were also fired from US ships in waters south of Iran.
The site was hit by a dozen 13,600kg ordnance penetrators – known as bunker busters – at about 2.10am Iranian time. It was the massive weapon's first operational use. The number used suggests some lack of confidence that a smaller strike could penetrate to the target.
The result would, to a large extent, depend on the kind of concrete inside the facility, with estimates of the bunker busters' penetration based largely on reinforced concrete resistant to 5,000 psi. Iran is believed to have used more resistant concrete.
[
US attack on Iran 'not about regime change', says defence secretary after Trump hails 'spectacular military success'
Opens in new window
]
While video from the site showed evidence of a fire in the immediate aftermath, satellite images published on Sunday were inconclusive.
The Open Source Centre in London highlighted what appeared to be at least two locations where the weapons appeared to have penetrated.
While the main support building at the site looked to be undamaged, the topography of a prominent area of ridge lines and small wadis appeared to have altered and been flattened out, with some evidence of rock scarring exposing damaged bedrock near an area that could show fresh cratering.
Analysts had previously suggested that a strike could hit the main entrance tunnel to the site. However, the main effort appears to have been in a different location.
There was speculation that the chief aim of the strikes may have been to bury access to Fordow.
What was the impact at Isfahan?
Isfahan's nuclear technology centre was struck by cruise missiles as opposed to bunker busters. Video posted on social media showed a distant detonation from the site on Saturday night.
According to the
International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), in addition to four hit by Israeli strikes, six other buildings now been attacked, including a fuel rod production facility.
The IAEA said facilities targeted at Isfahan either contained no nuclear material or small quantities of natural or low-enriched uranium.
What was hit at Natanz?
Natanz had previously been damaged by the first Israeli strikes of the conflict, with assessments then suggesting they had hit the power plant supplying the main centrifuge hall. Uranium had been enriched to up to 60 per cent, short of weapons-grade material.
It appears that Natanz's underground enrichment hall was targeted, but it is unclear how much damage was inflicted.
In response to the US strikes, Iran launched ballistic missiles at Israel on Sunday, triggering countrywide air raid sirens and injuring 16 people.
Was Iran's nuclear programme obliterated?
Vehicles at the Fordow enrichment facility in Iran on June 20th. Photograph: Maxar Technologies/AP
Iran has claimed that it evacuated the sites several days ago, and satellite imagery from several days ago suggests there was unusual truck traffic at Fordow. That appears to confirm the movement of some material from the site, possibly including the uranium stockpile – or parts of it – which remains unaccounted for.
Hassan Abedini, the deputy political head of Iran's state broadcaster, said Iran had evacuated the three sites – Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow – some time ago.
'The enriched uranium reserves had been transferred from the nuclear centres and there are no materials left there that, if targeted, would cause radiation and be harmful to our compatriots,' he said.
Three days before the US attacks, 16 cargo trucks were seen near the Fordow entrance tunnel.
The head of the AEOI, Mohammad Eslami, claimed this month that Iran had another enrichment site 'in a secure and invulnerable location' where centrifuges could be.
Analysts have long argued that while it is possible to disrupt the physical function of a nuclear facility and limit the scope of a programme through, for example, the Israeli assassination of scientists, the breadth of technical knowledge acquired during the decades-long programme is impossible to destroy.
[
How Iran could hit back at the US and what that could mean
Opens in new window
]
Ultimately, the question is whether the US-Israeli attacks are seen as sufficient for Iran to capitulate, or whether they instead encourage the regime to accelerate its efforts to produce a viable nuclear weapon. – Guardian
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
US-Iran: Unclear what comes next after Donald Trump's riskiest foreign policy action as president
The news broke on Saturday evening as a sweltering heat belt settled across the central and eastern sections of the United States . A bombing strike had been launched on Iranian nuclear bunkers. US president Donald Trump would address the nation at ten o'clock that evening. Only a few days earlier, on Wednesday, Trump had been puckish about his intentions towards Iran. 'I may do. I may not do knows what I am going to do.' Now, the world knew. When he spoke, flanked by vice-president JD Vance, secretary of state Marco Rubio and defence secretary Pete Hegseth, it was in the knowledge that militarily, the immaculately planned bombing raid on the three key Iranian nuclear targets in Natanz, Isfahan and the most critical target in Fordow had been a glittering success. Trump, with his customary gusto, announced Iran's nuclear capabilities had been 'obliterated'. The action ended the will-he-won't-he question mark over a president who had campaigned vociferously last year on a platform which would end the Russia-Ukraine conflict and restore peace in the Middle East. READ MORE Instead, after opening his second term by issuing vague threats to claim Greenland and seeking to re-order global trade patterns with on-again-off-again tariff sections, Trump move decisively against Iran with a series of strikes. His administration insists those actions can usher in a new set of parameters through which White House negotiators can broker peace. But even as Secretary Hegseth emphasised the military accomplishment of the Midnight Hammer operation, which was the largest B2 spirit bomber and the second longest B2 mission ever flown, the mission raised a blizzard of new questions. The most obvious revolves around the uncertainty over how Iran, and the 86-year old Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, will respond to the US act of aggression , which complements the recent series of Israeli attacks that killed key Iranian generals and nuclear scientists. The US has warned Iran against retaliatory attacks on its bases in the region, with general Dan Caine, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, warning that a counter-attack, or proxy attacks, would represent 'an incredibly poor choice' of response on the part of Iran. Convincing Trump to withdraw from a deal was a diplomatic victory for Israel's prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu Within hours, the domestic response to the attacks was sharply divided along political lines. Republican lawmakers, with the conspicuous exception of Kentucky's Thomas Massie, uniformly praised the decisiveness and success of the operation. Democratic representatives emphasised that the depth of damage caused by the strikes had yet to be fully determined and warned that the decision greatly escalates the risk. Connecticut representative Jim Himes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, stated on Sunday that Trump 'has just taken an enormous, enormous gamble. And if history matters – Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, gambles in the Middle East very rarely go the way you expect or even hope they might go.' Perhaps the clearest indication of Trump's intentions were contained within his public rebuke days ago of Tulsi Gabbard, his director of national intelligence, when he flatly declared 'she's wrong' in relation to her March testimony that Iran was not in the process of building a nuclear weapon. [ US-Iran: Nobody, including Trump, knows what will happen next Opens in new window ] On Friday, Gabbard contradicted her position in response to Trump's criticism, stating on social media: 'America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months.' The strikes draw renewed attention to Trump's decision, in 2018, to withdraw from the nuclear agreement the US had entered into with Iran during president Barack Obama's administration in 2015. Convincing Trump to withdraw from a deal was a diplomatic victory for Israel's prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who has spent decades issuing warnings to the effect that Iran is on the cusp of nuclear capability. The Israeli leader was arguably the one person more exultant about the US intervention on Saturday night. Sceptics noted that for a full year afterwards, Iran remained in compliance with the terms of that shredded agreement. In 2020, Trump approved what was the boldest military action of his first term in office: the targeted assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the prominent military leader. That provocation drew a limited Iranian response, with missile launches at Iraqi bases where US forces were stationed. It remains to be seen how it will respond to what stands as Trump's boldest and riskiest foreign policy action as president.
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
US-Iran: Alarm in Middle East amid fears of widening conflict
Countries in the Middle East and beyond responded with alarm after US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites as the EU and the UN called for immediate diplomacy. Gulf states, which historically have been regional rivals with nearby Iran and critical of its nuclear ambitions, expressed serious concern amid the risk of retaliation against US military bases hosted in their countries. The United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar and Oman criticised the US attack and urged de-escalation. Qatar, which hosts the biggest US military base in the Middle East, said it feared serious repercussions regionally and internationally. READ MORE 'The current dangerous escalation in the region may lead to catastrophic consequences at both the regional and international levels,' its foreign ministry said in a statement. It said it was calling on all parties 'to exercise wisdom, restraint, and to avoid further escalation'. [ US attack on Iran 'not about regime change', says defence secretary after Trump hails 'spectacular military success' ] Gulf leaders including the UAE president, the emir of Qatar and the crown prince of Saudi Arabia discussed the serious implications of the escalation for international and regional security, the UAE state news agency reported. Saudi Arabia was on a high security alert, expressing 'great concern' and stressing the 'need to exert all efforts to exercise restraint ... and avoid escalation'. UN secretary general António Guterres said he was 'gravely alarmed'. He said 'at this perilous hour' it was crucial to 'avoid a spiral of chaos'. 'There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy. The only hope is peace,' he said. Iraqi government spokesperson Basim Alawadi said: 'This military escalation constitutes a grave threat to peace and security in the Middle East and poses serious risks to regional stability.' Pakistan, the only nuclear-armed Muslim country and a long-time Washington ally, said the US attacks 'violate all norms of international law'. Russia 'strongly condemned' the strikes, calling these 'irresponsible', a 'gross violation of international law' and a 'dangerous escalation'. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas called for a return to negotiations. She said Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, describing the possibility as 'a threat to international security'. French president Emmanuel Macron also called for dialogue, saying he had urged Iran to 'exercise the utmost restraint in this dangerous context to allow a return to the diplomatic path'. Germany's chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said Iran must 'immediately enter into negotiations with the US and Israel and to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict'. British prime minister Keir Starmer said in a statement: 'We call on Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis.' But Ukraine said the US and Israeli strikes on Iran were justified to prevent Tehran developing nuclear weapons, praising the military intervention as a 'clear signal'. – Guardian
Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
US attack on Iran was carried out ‘in full co-ordination' with Israel
'Fordow is gone' was the simple message sent by US president Donald Trump on social media early on Sunday, putting an end to days of speculation over whether he would be willing to provide the coup de grace to Iran's nuclear project. Seven B-2 bombers dropped a dozen 'bunker buster' bombs on the Fordow nuclear facility while navy submarines fired 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles at two other nuclear sites, Natanz and Isfahan. The US strikes came nine days after Israel's surprise attack on Iran, launching a war that has reshaped the Middle East, lifting Israel's military supremacy to new heights while leaving Iran and its so-called Axis of Resistance in tatters – and, at the same time, reinforcing Washington's image as the pre-eminent global superpower. Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu said the US attack was carried out 'in full co-ordination' with Israel and was a continuation of the Israeli military and Mossad operations in Iran against the Iranian nuclear programme, which he said threatened Israel's existence and endangered world peace. READ MORE 'At the beginning of the operation, I promised you that Iran's nuclear facilities would be destroyed one way or another. That promise has been kept,' he said. 'President Trump is leading the free world with strength. He is a great friend of Israel, a friend like no other.' Despite the apparent success of the American bombing, it remains unclear how much of its supply of enriched uranium Iran managed to transfer away from the nuclear sites that were hit. [ US attack on Iran 'not about regime change', says defence secretary after Trump hails 'spectacular military success' ] Israel's national security council chief Tzachi Hanegbi said the US attack had pushed Iran's nuclear programme back by several years. A few hours later, Iran launched 30 ballistic missiles towards Israel, scoring direct hits in Tel Aviv and another location in central Israel, injuring 30 people. However, the attack was no bigger than similar strikes last week. The discipline of residents, who headed to safe rooms and bomb shelters, ensured there were no fatalities despite large damage to buildings. Israel temporarily closed its airspace after the US attack and reinstituted strict guidelines for public gatherings, permitting only essential activity. Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said Tehran reserved all options to defend its sovereignty, interests and people', warning that the US attack would have 'everlasting consequences.' However, Iran's military options appear limited and would be likely prompt a US counter attack. Houthis in Yemen also threatened to respond, after previously warning that a US strike would lead to a resumption of attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea. For much of his political career Netanyahu has made thwarting Iran's nuclear programme his priority, raising the issue in speech after speech in apocalyptic terms, arguing that Iran would not be deterred and that an Iranian nuclear bomb would present an existential threat to Israel. With Israeli intelligence concluding Tehran was moving dangerously close to the bomb, something had to give between the two rival regional powers. Israel believed that following the defeat of Hizbullah and the fall of the Assad regime in Syria last year, Tehran took a strategic decision to acquire a nuclear bomb and already had enough enriched fissile material for at least nine bombs. The decades-long waiting game was over. The deadly Hamas attack on southern Israel on October 7th, 2023, resulted in the biggest number of Jews killed in a single day since the Holocaust. Most Israelis believed this traumatic event would become Netanyahu's legacy: a day of infamy he would never be able to erase. But he now sees an opportunity to reshape that legacy once again and go down in history as the leader who with patience and determination saved Israel from the threat of nuclear annihilation. It's a narrative that the majority of the Israeli public appear to be buying into – for now, at least.
