US Strikes On Iran Nuclear Sites Are Real-Life Test Of Hard Power's Limits
Vienna:
US military strikes overnight in which President Donald Trump said Iran's main nuclear sites were "obliterated" will put to the test the widely held view that such attacks can delay a nuclear programme but not kill a determined push for atom bombs.
As Iran's nuclear programme has expanded and become more sophisticated over the past two decades, many officials and nuclear experts have warned: You can destroy or disable a nuclear programme's physical infrastructure but it is very hard or impossible to eliminate the knowledge a country has acquired.
Western powers including the United States have publicly suggested as much, complaining of the "irreversible knowledge gain" Iran has made by carrying out activities they object to.
"Military strikes alone cannot destroy Iran's extensive nuclear knowledge," the Washington-based Arms Control Association said in a statement after the US strikes with massive bunker-busting bombs on sites including Iran's two main underground enrichment plants at Natanz and Fordow.
"The strikes will set Iran's programme back, but at the cost of strengthening Tehran's resolve to reconstitute its sensitive nuclear activities, possibly prompting it to consider withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and possibly proceeding to weaponisation."
Israel has also said it has killed Iranian nuclear scientists but, while little is known about the personnel side of Iran's nuclear programme, officials have said they are sceptical about that having a serious impact on Iran's nuclear knowledge, even if it might slow progress in the near term.
The West says there is no civilian justification for Iran's enrichment of uranium to near weapons-grade fissile purity. Iran says its nuclear objectives are solely peaceful and it has the right to enrich as much as it wants.
Iran's nuclear programme has made rapid advances since Trump pulled the United States out of a 2015 nuclear deal between Tehran and major powers that placed strict limits on its atomic activities in exchange for sanctions relief.
After the US withdrawal in 2018 and the re-imposition of US sanctions, Iran pushed past and then far beyond the limits imposed by the deal on items like the purity to which it can enrich uranium and how much it can stockpile.
Uranium Stock
At least until Israel's first strikes against its enrichment installations on June 13, Iran was refining uranium to up to 60% purity, a short step from the roughly 90% that is bomb-grade, and far higher than the 3.67% cap imposed by the 2015 deal, which Iran respected until the year after Trump pulled out.
The last report on May 31 by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog that inspects Iran's nuclear facilities, showed Iran had enough uranium enriched to up to 60%, if enriched further, for nine nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick. It has more at lower levels like 20% and 5%.
The exact impact of Israeli and US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and materials has yet to be determined. In addition to the enrichment sites, the US struck Isfahan, where officials have said much of Iran's most highly enriched uranium stock was stored underground.
One important open question is how much highly enriched uranium Iran still has and whether it is all accounted for.
A senior Iranian source told Reuters on Sunday most of the highly enriched uranium at Fordow, the site producing the bulk of Iran's uranium refined to up to 60%, had been moved to an undisclosed location before the US attack there.
Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi told state TV last weekend Iran would take measures to protect nuclear materials and equipment that would not be reported to the IAEA, and it would no longer cooperate with the IAEA as before.
North Korea Looms Large
The IAEA has not been able to carry out inspections in Iran since the first Israeli strikes nine days ago, but has said it is in contact with the Iranian authorities.
What Iran will do next in terms of its nuclear programme is also unclear. Its threat to pull out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty hints at a race for nuclear weapons, but Iran has maintained it has no intention of doing so.
The only other country to announce its withdrawal from the NPT is North Korea in 2003. It expelled IAEA inspectors and went on to test nuclear weapons.
"Our biggest concern is that we end up with a North Korea scenario whereby these strikes convince the Iranians that the only way to save the regime is to go for the bomb. Nobody is bombing North Korea now, are they?" a European official said.
Even if inspections continue, because of Trump's withdrawal in 2018 Iran had already scrapped extra IAEA oversight provided for by the 2015 deal. That means the agency no longer knows how many centrifuges Iran has at undeclared locations.
The IAEA says that while it cannot guarantee Iran's aims are entirely peaceful, it also has no credible indication of a coordinated nuclear weapons programme.
The Israeli and now US strikes have already raised fears among diplomats and other officials, however, that Iran will use those centrifuges to set up a secret enrichment site, since one could be built inside a relatively small and inconspicuous building like a warehouse.
"It is quite possible that there are enrichment sites that we don't know about. Iran is a big country," a Western official said, while adding that Iran could also choose to bide its time.
"In two years, if Iran were to start from scratch, they would only need a few months to reconstitute a new programme and to get back to where they were yesterday."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
26 minutes ago
- India.com
Iran-Israel War: ‘Chernobyl in the Making?' Explosions Rock Iran's Nuclear Plant After US Strikes
Iran-Israel War: Tensions in the Middle East soared further on June 22 as explosions echoed through Iran's southern port city of Bushehr, home to the country's only operational nuclear power plant. The Israeli military claimed responsibility for the strike, saying it also targeted missile launchers in Isfahan and Ahvaz. The timing of the attack – barely hours after the United States struck three Iranian nuclear sites – has raised serious fears of a looming nuclear crisis. While Iranian officials have yet to confirm any damage to the nuclear plant itself, concerns are mounting. Built with Russian assistance, the facility operates using nuclear fuel supplied by Moscow. The same fuel is shipped back to Russia after use to mitigate proliferation risks. As of now, Iranian authorities report no radiation leaks. But the attack is being viewed in international circles as a dangerously provocative move. Rafael Grossi, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), had previously warned that a direct strike on the Bushehr plant could trigger catastrophic consequences. 'A hit on the facility could lead to a massive release of radioactivity, affecting not just Iran but its neighbours as well,' he had said while addressing the UN Security Council. Experts agree that if a direct strike compromises the reactor, the fallout could mirror nuclear disasters of the past. The comparison many are drawing is to Chernobyl. In that 1986 tragedy, a botched test led to an explosion and fire at a reactor in Ukraine, spreading radioactive contamination across Europe and causing long-term health damage to thousands. According to international nuclear safety protocols, any such incident at Bushehr would demand swift protective actions. These would likely include mass evacuations, iodine distribution, food and water restrictions and large-scale radiation monitoring across several hundred kilometres. Russia has issued its own warnings. With more than 600 personnel, including 250 permanent staff, stationed at the Bushehr facility, Moscow had reportedly sought assurances from Israel for their safety. Rosatom chief Alexey Likhachev said any damage to the site could unleash a disaster on the scale of Chernobyl. The Israeli military had previously claimed its mention of Bushehr as a target was a mistake. But the latest strikes tell a different story. As images of smoke rising over Bushehr surface on social media and satellite data, the world is left to reckon with the possibility that a new chapter in warfare – one where nuclear power plants become battlefronts – may be closer than ever imagined. For now, the region holds its breath. Radiation levels remain normal. But questions remain – how close did the world come to a nuclear nightmare? And what happens if the next missile does not miss?
Deccan Herald
27 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
Shah's anti-English position harms India
Union Home Minister Amit Shah's denunciation of the English language is ill-conceived and uninformed, and will only work against the country's unity and development. Speaking at the launch of a book by a former civil servant in Delhi on Thursday, Shah said, ''The time is not far away for people speaking in English in the country to feel ashamed'. The prejudice against English is part of the ideology and politics of his party, and Shah has only given expression to it. He is right in saying that the languages of our country are the jewels of our culture, but wrong in dismissing the role of English as a linking and unifying language. He is also right in saying that we should take pride in our languages, but pride in one's own language need not translate into shame about another language. Languages are not zero sum games, and the knowledge of another language does not mean degradation or devaluation of the mother tongue. Languages gain by interaction. All Indian languages have enriched themselves from their interaction with English. .English not a shame but power: Rahul Gandhi hits back at Amit Shah's remarks, says discouraging it to deny opportunities .English is spoken by over 100 million people in the country, and the number exceeds the number of speakers of most other languages. It is the official language in many states. India is also said to have the second largest English-speaking population in the world. English has served as the official and link language for centuries in our country, which speaks richly diverse languages. It is difficult to imagine English losing its status in the near future, going by the people's attitude towards it. The usefulness and popularity of a language don't always depend on government policies. People's relationship with language is a sensitive matter and governments should handle it with care and caution. .Shah's tirade against English should also be seen in context of the efforts of the central government and the BJP to promote Hindi aggressively. This has resulted in apprehensions about domination of Hindi in non-Hindi states. English was the language of power in India during colonial times but after the British left, it serves as a link language, with an equal relationship with all languages of the country. The replacement of English would lead to its place being taken up by Hindi, which comes with political baggage. English is also India's window to the world in every respect, and closing that window would hurt and set the country back. Shah says India cannot be imagined with a foreign language. But the idea of India is not static--it has room for English, which is no longer considered a foreign language.
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Oil soars as Trump's attack on Iran ramps up risks to supplies
Oil surged after the US struck Iran's three main nuclear sites and threatened further attacks, exacerbating a crisis in the Middle East and stoking concerns that energy supplies from the region could be disrupted. A map showing the Strait of Hormuz and Iran is seen behind a 3D printed oil pipeline in this illustration taken June 22, 2025.(Reuters) Global benchmark Brent rallied as much as 5.7% to $81.40 a barrel, extending three weeks of gains. Timespreads widened. In a weekend address, US President Donald Trump said air attacks had 'obliterated' the trio of targets, and threatened more military action if Iran didn't make peace. In its initial reply, Tehran warned the strikes would trigger 'everlasting consequences.' The US assault — which targeted sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — dramatically raises the stakes in the confrontation and increases the premium that traders are pricing into the global energy market. Still, the extent of the gains will hinge on how Tehran opts to respond to the US moves. The global oil market has been gripped by the crisis since Israel attacked Iran more than a week ago, with futures pushing higher, options volumes spiking along with freight rates, and the futures curve shifting to reflect tensions about tighter near-term supplies. The Middle East accounts for about a third of global crude output, and higher, sustained prices would boost inflationary pressures worldwide. 'This could set us on a path toward $100 oil, if Iran responds as they have previously threatened to,' said Saul Kavonic, an energy analyst at MST Marquee. 'This US attack could see a conflagration of the conflict.' There are multiple, overlapping risks for physical crude flows. The biggest centers on the Strait of Hormuz, should Tehran seek to retaliate by attempting to close the chokepoint. About a fifth of the world's crude output passes through the narrow waterway at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. Iran's parliament has called for the closure of the strait, according to state-run TV. Such a move, however, could not proceed though without the explicit approval of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Rival Suppliers In addition, Tehran could opt to target crude infrastructure in rival suppliers in the Middle East, such as fellow OPEC producers including Saudi Arabia, Iraq or the United Arab Emirates. After the US attack, both Riyadh and Baghdad expressed concern about the targeting of the nuclear facilities. Elsewhere, Tehran could orchestrate attacks on ships on the other side of the Arabian peninsula in the Red Sea, encouraging Yemen-based Houthi rebels to harass vessels. After the US attacks, the group threatened retaliation. If the hostilities escalate, Tehran's own oil-producing capabilities could be targeted, including the key export hub at Kharg Island. Such a move, however, could send crude prices soaring, an outcome that America might want to avoid. So far, Kharg Island has been spared, with satellite imagery pointing to a drive by Iran to expedite its exports of oil. The crisis will also throw a spotlight onto the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and its allies including Russia. In recent months, OPEC has been relaxing supply curbs at a rapid clip seeking to regain market share, and yet members still have substantial idled capacity that could be reactivated.
