How far will US strikes set back Iran's nuclear programme?
The United States struck three key nuclear sites in Iran early on Sunday, injecting itself into Israel's war with Iran in a sophisticated mission and prompting fears of military escalation in the Middle East amid Israel's brutal onslaught of Gaza.
In a televised address early on Sunday, US President Donald Trump justified the strikes, saying they were aimed at stopping 'the nuclear threat' posed by Iran. Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow sites, which are involved in the production or storage of enriched uranium, were targeted.
'Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,' he said, warning Tehran against retaliation.
Israel and Trump claim that Iran can use the enriched uranium to make atomic warheads. But Iran insists its nuclear programme is solely for civilian purposes. The United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has also rejected Israeli claims that Iran was on the verge of making nuclear weapons.
Condemning the strikes, which US officials said were highly coordinated, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that the time for diplomacy had passed and that his country had the right to defend itself.
'The warmongering, a lawless administration in Washington, is solely and fully responsible for the dangerous consequences and far-reaching implications of its act of aggression,' he said at a news conference in Istanbul, Turkiye.
Iranian officials, meanwhile, have not detailed the extent of the damage and have attempted to downplay the significance of the hits. Speaking on state TV, Hassan Abedini, the deputy political director of Iran's state broadcaster, said the three nuclear sites had been evacuated 'a while ago' and that they 'didn't suffer a major blow because the materials had already been taken out'.
Here's what to know about the nuclear plants hit and what the attacks mean for Iran:
Which facilities were hit?
Trump on Sunday said a full payload of bombs 'obliterated' Iran's Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear sites. Iranian officials, according to the Reuters news agency, also confirmed that the three facilities were hit.
Fordow is an underground enrichment facility in operation since 2006. Built deep inside the mountains some 48km (30 miles) from the Iranian city of Qom, north of Tehran, the site enjoys natural cover. The primary focus of Sunday's strikes, Fordow was hit with 14 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOPs) or 'bunker-buster' bombs delivered from B-2 stealth bomber planes, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in a briefing on Sunday. The 13,000kg (28,700lb) GBU-57 MOP is the most powerful bunker-buster bomb, able to penetrate 60m (200 feet) below ground and delivering up to 2,400kg (5,300lb) of explosives, while the bombers are hard to detect. Israel had earlier attacked Fordow on June 13, causing surface damage, but security analysts believe only US bunker busters can penetrate the facility. An independent assessment of the scale of the damage is not yet available.
Natanz is considered the largest nuclear enrichment facility in Iran, located about 300km (186 miles) south of Tehran. It is believed to consist of two facilities. One is the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP), which is a test and research facility located above ground and used to assemble centrifuges, rapidly rotating machines used for uranium enrichment. According to the non-profit Nuclear Threat Initiative, the facility had close to a thousand centrifuges. The other facility, located deep beneath the ground, is the Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP). US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Dan Caine said on Sunday that 'more than two dozen' Tomahawk missiles were fired at Natanz and Isfahan. US media earlier reported the missiles were launched by submarines.
Isfahan is an atomic research facility located in the central city of Isfahan. It was built in the 1970s and was used for uranium conversion. It was the last location hit before the US bombing mission, which involved about 125 aircraft, withdrew from the Iranian airspace, according to officials. Hegseth said the Iranians did not detect the mission and were notified afterwards.
Are the sites destroyed?
Independent impact assessment of the US strikes at Fordow remains unclear.
Hegseth on Sunday said the US's 'initial assessment is that all our precision munitions struck where we wanted them to strike and achieved the desired effect', citing particular damage at Fordow.
An Iranian lawmaker told Al Jazeera that the site suffered superficial damage. Israeli strikes on the plant last week only caused 'limited, if any, damage' at the underground plant, according to IAEA boss Rafael Grossi.
The extent of damage at Natanz is also unclear following Sunday's strike. Earlier Israeli attacks 'completely destroyed' the above-ground plant, and caused centrifuges in the underground parts of the uranium plant to be 'severely damaged if not destroyed altogether', even though it was not directly hit, Grossi told reporters last week.
Meanwhile, the IAEA said on Sunday that six buildings at Isfahan suffered damage following the US attacks, including a workshop handling contaminated equipment. Earlier Israeli strikes had damaged four buildings on the site, the agency had reported, including the plant's central chemical laboratory.
Initial reports from Iran and neighbouring Gulf countries such as Kuwait further indicate that there is no significant leakage of radioactive material from any of the plants. That could suggest that Iranian officials might have moved the stockpiles of enriched uranium out of the facilities targeted by the US, analysts say.
According to the IRNA news agency, Reza Kardan, the deputy director of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran and the head of the National Nuclear Safety System Center in the country, confirmed on Sunday that 'no radiation contamination or nuclear radiation has been observed outside' the sites.
'Preliminary plans had been made and measures had been taken to protect the safety and health of the dear people of the country, and despite the criminal actions this morning in attacking nuclear facilities, due to the previously planned measures and the measures taken, no radiation contamination or nuclear radiation has been observed outside these sites and facilities,' Kardan said.
The IAEA also said the radiation levels near targeted sites had not increased.
'Following attacks on three nuclear sites in Iran – including Fordow – the IAEA can confirm that no increase in off-site radiation levels has been reported as of this time,' the agency said in a social media post on Sunday.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, says it is likely Iran had taken precautionary actions ahead of the US attacks.
'It appears that they already had gotten an advanced warning,' he told Al Jazeera.
'They understood that he [Trump] was buying time while moving military assets in order to actually strike. So, I think for some time they have moved those assets – where they are is unclear at this point.'
Will this derail Iran's nuclear efforts?
The impact of the strikes on Iran's overall nuclear programme is yet unknown.
However, analysts say there was no clear evidence that Iran had advanced so far as to be able to reach weaponisation in its nuclear programme in the first place.
Parsi said Iran's most valuable nuclear asset is its stockpile of enriched uranium.
'As long as they continue to have that, they still actually have very much a nuclear programme that still could be weaponised,' he added.
'And I think we are going to start to hear from the Israelis in rather short order, that this was not the type of successful strike Trump has claimed, but they are going to start making the case that there needs to be a more ongoing bombing campaign against Iran.'
Has Iran's nuclear programme suffered setbacks before?
Yes. Iran's nuclear ambitions started back in the 1950s under the leadership of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a close ally of the US and Israel. The shah's original vision was to build Iran's nuclear capacities for both energy generation and, to a lesser extent, weapons manufacturing. The US, Germany, and France all supported the country with aid and technology. However, following the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the new government, under leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, halted or paused parts of the programme, arguing that it was expensive and that it represented Iran's continued reliance on Western technology.
Shelved or cancelled programmes further took a hit during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) when the country was forced to divert resources to the war effort after Iraq's invasion. Its Bushehr nuclear reactor site, which was under construction as part of a partnership with the industrial manufacturing giant Siemens, was bombed severely by Iraq and was left in near-total damage. Siemens eventually withdrew from the project. The government would later on reportedly restart the nuclear programme, although Iranian leadership has always insisted it is pursuing nuclear power for civilian use.
Stuxnet – a computer virus developed by Israel and the US, likely launched back in 2005 but discovered in 2010 – caused extensive damage to Iran's nuclear capabilities. The programme, nicknamed Operation Olympic Games, compromised the Iranian network and caused centrifuges to tear themselves apart. It reportedly expanded rapidly under former US President Barack Obama, but began during the administration of US President George W Bush.
Under the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (officially known as Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA), the country was forced to limit its enrichment capabilities in exchange for sanctions relief. The deal, signed between Iran, China, Russia, the US, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the European Union, capped enrichment at 3.67 percent. Sanctions, some of them in place since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, were gradually removed. Tehran complied with the terms of the deal, according to the (IAEA). It also agreed to allow the IAEA regular monitoring access. However, Trump pulled out of the agreement during his first term as US president in 2018, and slapped on sanctions as part of a 'maximum pressure' campaign, forcing Tehran to also discard the terms though it continued to cooperate with the IAEA.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
Can Iran really shut down the Strait of Hormuz?
Amid Israel's ongoing attacks in Gaza and Iran, US President Donald Trump's unprecedented decision to bomb three Iranian nuclear sites has deepened fears of a regional conflict in the Middle East. Over the weekend, the United States military carried out its first known strikes against Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution toppled pro-Western Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Tehran has vowed to respond, prompting fears of escalation. During an address to a meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in Istanbul, Turkiye on Sunday, Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the US crossed 'a very big red line' by attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. One way Iran could retaliate is to shut the Strait of Hormuz, a vital trade route where one-fifth of the world's oil supply – roughly 20 million barrels – and much of its liquified gas, is shipped each day. That would lead to a surge in energy prices. So, what do we know about the strategic passage, and can Iran afford to block it in response to the US and Israeli aggression? What is the Strait of Hormuz? The Strait of Hormuz lies between Oman and the United Arab Emirates on one side and Iran on the other. It links the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea beyond. It is 33km (21 miles) wide at its narrowest point, with the shipping lane just 3km (2 miles) wide in either direction, making it vulnerable to attack. Energy traders have been on high alert since Israel launched a wave of surprise attacks across Iran on June 13, fearing disruptions to oil and gas flows through the strait. While the US and Israel have targeted key parts of Iran's energy infrastructure, there has been no direct disruption to maritime activity in the region so far. Still, even before the US strikes on Saturday, the escalation of the conflict between Israel and Iran had sparked ocean freight rates to surge in recent weeks. Freight intelligence firm Xeneta said average spot rates have increased 55 percent month-over-month, through to last Friday. Who would need to approve the closure? Iran has in the past threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, but has never followed through on the threat. Iran's Supreme National Security Council must make the final decision to close the strait, Iran's Press TV said on Sunday, after parliament was reported to have backed the measure. However, the decision to close the strait is not yet final, as parliament has not ratified a bill to that effect. Instead, a member of parliament's National Security Commission, Esmail Kosari, was quoted in Iranian media as saying: 'For now, [parliament has] come to the conclusion we should close the Strait of Hormuz, but the final decision in this regard is the responsibility of the Supreme National Security Council.' Asked about whether Tehran would close the waterway, FM Araghchi dodged the question on Sunday and replied: 'A variety of options are available to Iran.' In his first comments since the US strikes, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Israel has made a 'grave mistake' and 'must be punished', but did not make any specific reference to either Washington or the Strait of Hormuz. How would the closure work in practice? Iran could attempt to lay mines across the Strait of Hormuz. The country's army or the paramilitary Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) may also try to strike or seize vessels in the Gulf, a method they have used on several occasions in the past. During the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, the two sides engaged in the so-called 'Tanker Wars' in the Persian Gulf. Iraq targeted Iranian ships, and Iran attacked commercial ships, including Saudi and Kuwaiti oil tankers and even US Navy ships. Tensions in the strait flared up again at the end of 2007 in a series of skirmishes between the Iranian and US navies. This included one incident where Iranian speedboats approached US warships, though no shots were fired. In April 2023, Iranian troops seized the Advantage Sweet crude tanker, which was chartered by Chevron, in the Gulf of Oman. The vessel was released more than a year later. What would it mean for the global economy? US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday called on China to encourage Iran to not shut down the Strait of Hormuz after Washington carried out strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Speaking to Fox News, Rubio said: 'It's economic suicide for them if they do it [close the strait]. And we retain options to deal with that, but other countries should be looking at that as well. It would hurt other countries' economies a lot worse than ours.' For starters, shutting Hormuz risks bringing Gulf Arab states – which have been highly critical of the Israeli attack – into the war to safeguard their own commercial interests. Closing the strait would also hit China. The world's second-largest economy buys almost 90 percent of Iran's oil exports (roughly 1.6 million barrels per day), which are subject to international sanctions. According to Goldman Sachs, a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz could push oil prices above $100 per barrel. That would push the cost of production up, eventually affecting consumer prices – especially for energy-intensive goods like food, clothing and chemicals. Oil-importing countries around the world could experience higher inflation and slower economic growth if the conflict persists, which could prompt central banks to push back the timing of future rate cuts. But history has shown that severe disruptions to global oil supplies have tended to be short-lived. Before the start of the second Gulf War, between March and May 2003, crude oil surged by a whopping 46 percent at the end of 2002. But prices quickly unwound in the days preceding the start of the US-led military campaign. Similarly, Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 sparked a sharp rally in oil prices to $130 a barrel, but prices returned to their pre-invasion levels of $95 by mid-August. These relatively quick reversals of oil price spikes were largely due to global spare production capacity available at the time, and the fact that the rapid oil price increase curbed demand.
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
As Israel-Iran war escalates, Ukraine fears ‘more losses' to Russia
Kyiv, Ukraine – There is a Persian word millions of Ukrainians fear. Shahed – also spelled as Shaheed or Shahid, originally a Quranic term for 'martyr' or 'witness' – is the name given to the triangular, explosives-laden, Iranian-designed drones that became a harrowing part of daily life and death in wartime Ukraine. These days, they are assembled in the Volga-region Russian city of Yelabuga and undergo constant modifications to make them faster, smarter and deadlier during each air raid that involves hundreds of drones. Their latest Russian versions shot down in Ukraine earlier this month have artificial intelligence modules to better recognise targets, video cameras and two-way radio communication with human operators. 'The word 'Shahed' will forever be cursed in Ukrainian next to 'Moscow' and 'Putin',' said Denys Kovalenko, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Kovalenko's face and arms were cut by glass shards after a Shahed exploded above his northern Kyiv neighbourhood in 2023. Shaheds are the most visible and audible part of the military alliance between Moscow and Tehran that is being tested this month amid attacks by Israel and the United States on Iran. Other aspects of the alliance that affect the Russia-Ukraine war include Iranian-made ammunition, helmets, and flak jackets, according to Nikita Smagin, an author and expert on Russia-Iran relations. However, the year 2022, when Putin started the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, was the 'peak of Iran's significance for Russia as a military partner', Smagin told Al Jazeera. The Kremlin has invested tens of billions of dollars into its military-industrial complex and shadow systems to supply chips, machine tools and dual-purpose goods for its weapons that bypass Western sanctions. The flow of military technologies usually went the other way as Moscow supplied advanced air defence systems, missiles and warplanes to Tehran, keeping Israel worried. In 2009, then-Israeli President Shimon Peres told this reporter in Moscow that his visit was aimed at convincing the Kremlin to 'reconsider' the sale of S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Tehran. Russia's advanced Su-35 jets were supposed to be delivered to Tehran earlier this year, but were not seen in the Iranian sky. Washington's arms supplies to Israel have already affected Kyiv's ability to withstand Russia's air raids and slow advance on the ground. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on June 9 that the White House decided to divert 20,000 anti-drone missiles earmarked for Kyiv. 'Without the help of the United States, we'll have more losses,' Zelenskyy said in televised remarks. More Ukraine-bound military aid may now be diverted to Israel, and the Kremlin 'counts on this scenario', analyst Smagin said. This possible diversion already alarms Ukraine's top brass. Arms that were 'made for Ukraine will go to the Middle, so there are no illusions about it', Lieutenant General Ihor Romanenko, former deputy head of Ukraine's general staff of armed forces, told Al Jazeera. There should be no illusions about Russia's ability to protect Iran, he said. Even though Moscow and Tehran hail their strategic partnership, it does not envisage a mutual defence clause. Therefore, the Kremlin will hardly be able to commit to military action similar to the Russian air raids against Syria's then-opposition to support then-President Bashar al-Assad's faltering regime, he said. 'They won't change anything significantly,' Romanenko said. 'But they will have enough for arms supplies.' Any arms supplies may, however, enrage US President Donald Trump, who has so far showed unusual leniency towards Moscow's actions in Ukraine as his administration botched peace talks between Moscow and Kyiv. Moscow's condemnation of Israeli and US strikes on Iran evoked a sense of hypocrisy, some observers said, as Russia's description of the attacks sounded familiar. 'No matter what arguments are used to justify an irresponsible decision to subject a sovereign state's territory to missile and bomb strikes, [the decision] rudely violates international law, the United Nations charter and the resolutions of the UN Security Council,' Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Sunday. 'Moscow and Iran compete for China's market' There is an area where Russia and Iran compete for multibillion-dollar oil trade profits that keep their sanctions-hobbled economies afloat. 'Moscow and Iran compete for China's market, and China will respectively have to buy more Russian oil at a higher price,' Smagin said. A third of global oil exports go through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow channel between Iran and Oman that is fully controlled by Tehran's 'mosquito fleet' of tiny warships. Crude prices will skyrocket worldwide if Tehran opts to close the strait to tankers. It would also strike a financial bonanza for Russia that could further finance the war in Ukraine. And as Moscow's war in Ukraine consumes most of Russia's resources, its reputation in the Middle East will suffer. 'Reputation-wise, Russia suffers huge losses as it risks not to be seen as a great power in the Middle East,' Smagin said. If Tehran rejects Trump's 'ultimate ultimatum' to work out a peace deal, Washington's attention to Iran and Israel may spell disaster for Kyiv. 'Undoubtedly, the US's refocusing on the Middle East and Iran is a geopolitical catastrophe for us; there's nothing to argue about,' Kyiv-based analyst Aleksey Kuschch told Al Jazeera.
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
UN nuclear chief estimates damage to Iran's facilities ‘very significant'
The United Nations nuclear chief has estimated that military attacks by Israel and the United States have inflicted considerable damage to Iran's nuclear facilities. Rafael Grossi on Monday told an emergency board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – the UN's nuclear watchdog – that craters caused by ground-penetrating US bombs were visible at Fordow, the cornerstone of Iran's nuclear enrichment programme. Israel said as it launched the attacks on Iran on June 13 that Tehran was close to developing a nuclear weapon. The US made the same claim as it entered the conflict directly on Saturday, striking Iran's three key nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. US President Donald Trump claimed the strikes had 'obliterated' the three sites. Grossi said while 'no one, including the IAEA, is in a position to have fully assessed the underground damage at Fordow', it is expected to be 'very significant'. That is because of 'the explosive payload utilised and the extreme vibration-sensitive nature of centrifuges', Grossi added. The IAEA chief also pointed out that the Natanz and Isfahan facilities were bombed by US warplanes and Tomahawk cruise missiles and damaged as well. At Natanz, he said, the US hit a fuel enrichment plant. At Isfahan, it destroyed several buildings including some 'related to the uranium conversion process', while the entrances to tunnels used to store enriched material were hit. The Israeli military continued its daytime strikes across Iran on Monday, with huge explosions reported in Tehran and other areas. Officials from Israel and Iran also reported another attack on Fordow. Iran has continued to launch waves of missiles and drones against Israel and has promised to retaliate against the US. Tehran has also threatened to quit the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and lawmakers have backed an effort to suspend cooperation with the IAEA. Iran has accused Grossi and the IAEA of being complicit in the conflict, saying that its 'biased' reporting on Iran's nuclear activities was used as a 'pretext' by Israel for its attack. During the IAEA board meeting, Grossi again emphasised that 'armed attacks on nuclear facilities should never take place', but did not directly condemn Israel or the US for the attacks. He called for Iran and the US to return to the series of negotiations that were cancelled by the Israeli strikes, warning that 'violence and destruction could reach unimaginable levels' should the conflict persist. He reiterated that IAEA inspectors must be admitted to assess the damage at the nuclear facilities. At this point, no rise in radiation has been reported. 'I'm ready to travel immediately to Iran. We need to keep working together despite existing differences,' Grossi said. Iranian authorities have not indicated whether they would be open to extending an invitation for the watchdog chief to visit. Former IAEA official Tariq Rauf told Al Jazeera that Iran's short-term nuclear enrichment capacity has been damaged or destroyed, but that the country still has about 9,000kg (19,800 pounds) of enriched uranium – at levels between 2 and 60 percent – that is unaccounted for. 'At some point, the IAEA will need to go in and again make material balance to ensure that all the material is there,' Rauf said.
