logo
Did the U.S. Really Destroy Iran's Nuclear Program?

Did the U.S. Really Destroy Iran's Nuclear Program?

Many in the world woke to the news on 22 June that the United States had bombed nuclear sites in Iran, with the goal of destroying the nation's ability to produce nuclear weapons. The raids targeted Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities in Fordow and Natanz, and its nuclear research centre in Isfahan, using stealth bombers to drop massive 'bunker-busters', and cruise missiles.
Although Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, experts have long assessed that Iran was close to having the capability of building nuclear weapons if it chose to do so. The US attacks followed a bombing campaign by Israel, which has since carried out further attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. On 23 June, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that "very significant damage is expected to have occurred" at the underground Fordow site.
Researchers at academic institutions and think tanks are also assessing the potential impacts of the attacks on Iran's nuclear capabilities. Analysts have said that the attacks probably set the nuclear programme back substantially, but not permanently. In particular, Iran could have moved stockpiles of highly-enriched uranium, and perhaps some enrichment centrifuges, elsewhere. David Albright, a nuclear policy specialist and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington DC, spoke to Nature about what researchers know.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
How do you assess the impact of the bombings on Iran's nuclear capabilities?
There aren't many researchers who are able to assess the impact of the bombings. We have decades of experience with the Iranian nuclear programme, so we know their facilities and activities very well. And we have great access to satellite imagery — which we have to buy. We try to buy some every day. And we utilize analysts who have decades of experience to analyze these images. We also have lots of contacts with governments, and we have colleagues who also have contacts with governments.
A lot of the damage is on the surface, so it's a question of knowing what the building did [in terms of its role in the nuclear program]. We rely on our repository of information about the sites that are attacked. So it's pretty straightforward.
Obviously, more problematic is the underground sites. When we initially assessed Israel's bombing of Natanz, three days later I saw a very small crater above the underground hall. I could work out and link it to a type of Earth-penetrator weapon that Israel is known to have. It would leave a really small crater when it went in, and the damage would be underground. The United States bombed it with a much more powerful Earth penetrator. So damage is probably more extensive.
How and when will we know for sure the extent of the damage?
As nuclear experts, we'd like to see this done with diplomatic agreements, where Iran would allow intrusive inspections into its programme. If that does not happen, then it's the job of US and Israeli intelligence to assess the damage. They're looking at communications intercepts, or trying to recruit people on the inside to reveal information.
Would there be radioactive materials detected outside Natanz, Esfahan and Fordow if the attacks were successful?
So far, the IAEA reports no such leaks. And it appears that Iran had moved the enriched uranium stockpiles in the days before the bombings. The United States has said that the target of its bombings was the facilities, so they understand they are not getting at the nuclear material.
Can shockwaves damage enrichment facilities even without a direct hit?
Shockwaves can cause a lot of damage. They will push against the centrifuges, and if they're spinning, it can cause the rotor inside to crash against the wall. It's anyone's guess how much is destroyed without additional information. But the idea of the US bombing was that Israel may not have done enough damage.
Would it pose more serious environmental risks if Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant were bombed?
Israel has said it will not attack nuclear reactors. And Israel negotiated with Russia not to attack the Russians who operate Bushehr. But yes, it really could be disastrous. The decay products of uranium fission that accumulate inside a reactor are much more dangerous than the uranium itself. That's why you don't want to have a nuclear reactor involved in a war.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

As Ted Cruz calls for a regime change in Iran, other Texas Republicans are more cautious
As Ted Cruz calls for a regime change in Iran, other Texas Republicans are more cautious

Yahoo

time44 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

As Ted Cruz calls for a regime change in Iran, other Texas Republicans are more cautious

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is pushing for military strikes and a possible regime change in Iran, a hardline stance few in the Texas delegation have yet to embrace. Texas' junior senator this week suggested the U.S. take a larger role in the conflict between Israel and Iran, something President Donald Trump is considering. Trump has, during the last decade, pushed Republicans toward an isolationist agenda, compared to the hawkish days of former President George W. Bush, who sent troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq. Trump has yet to announce a decision on military intervention. More specifically, he is debating, according to multiple news reports, whether to provide Israel with a 'bunker buster' bomb to destroy a nuclear enrichment site embedded within an Iranian mountainside. 'I may do it, I may not do it,' he told reporters outside the White House Wednesday. Cruz said on his podcast that an American attack on Fordow 'makes a lot of sense.' 'There is a reasonable possibility that the president will choose to authorize a targeted bombing strike on the Fordow nuclear weapons research facility,' he told reporters later at the Capitol on Wednesday afternoon. Cruz also said he has shared his opinions with Trump directly. Cruz also discussed the situation at length with conservative commentator Tucker Carlson. The combative interview between Carlson, an isolationist who does not support intervention, and Cruz, a self-described 'noninterventionist hawk,' has become a flashpoint inside Trump's MAGA movement. While Cruz said he does not currently support putting American troops on the ground, 'If the risk got severe enough, I would support that.' U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Waco, who is supportive of a military strike, told the Tribune that in conversations with members of Congress, he has found the 'vast majority' of them are supportive of military action. 'I do admit that there are those that do not support it,' he said in a Wednesday interview. The widest gap between Cruz and other Republicans is whether to seek a regime change. Such a change, Cruz argued on Monday, would 'enhance American security massively' given the animosity Iran has for the United States. 'I am advocating that we use maximum pressure and economic sanctions to pressure the regime in a way that might encourage this regime to fall,' he said. Texas' senior senator, John Cornyn, was more measured on the issue. 'I think that's up to the Iranian people,' he told the Tribune when asked about a regime change. 'Hopefully, they will take the opportunity that this may provide.' Cornyn appeared to be in support of limited military intervention, characterizing the use of larger U.S. munitions as 'a continuation of the current policy' toward Israel. On Fox News a few hours later, though, Cornyn stressed that the United States does not need 'to take the lead in this effort.' 'Israel has a variety of options, and they seem to be doing a very effective job on their own with our support,' he said. When pressed on whether Israel would be able to destroy the Fordow facility without American support, Cornyn said, 'I think they have multiple options,' including the deployment of Israeli ground troops. Other Texas Republicans have yet to take an explicit position on military strikes but say they stand with both Trump and Israel. 'We need to be ready to trust and support the President's decision,' Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a Houston Republican and former Navy SEAL, said on Tuesday. 'I stand with President Trump as we will continue to support our friend and ally, Israel, as it rightfully takes action to defend itself,' Rep. Chip Roy, R-Austin, said last week. Roy expressed support Tuesday for 'strategic limited support' for 'Israel's targeting & denial of Iranian nukes' but is in clear opposition of sending in 'ground troops, regime change, soccer fields, supplemental funding.' Sessions, who was first elected to the House in 1996, has been a player in national politics through several U.S. military operations in the Middle East. But he's not fearing a wide war if America intervenes to strike the nuclear facility. He praised Israel's response, but without American military power, he said, the country 'cannot necessarily finish the fight.' Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Amarillo, appeared ripe for military confrontation. Responding to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's declaration 'the battle begins,' hours after Trump declared him an 'easy target,' Jackson said 'BRING IT.' Three Texas Democrats, along with a bipartisan group in the Capitol's lower chamber, are urging the president to resist joining the fray without congressional approval. Reps. Greg Casar, Lloyd Doggett and Veronica Escobar have signed onto a resolution that would ask Trump to seek congressional approval if he decides to commit U.S. armed forces to Iran. Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

Administration briefing doesn't assuage House Democrats' fears of Iran nuclear capabilities
Administration briefing doesn't assuage House Democrats' fears of Iran nuclear capabilities

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Administration briefing doesn't assuage House Democrats' fears of Iran nuclear capabilities

A House briefing from Trump administration officials on last weekend's strikes against Iranian nuclear sites has done little to mollify the concerns of Democrats, who say they were presented little evidence that the attacks will prevent Tehran from producing nuclear weapons. Skeptical Democrats had gone into the briefing with two pressing questions: Did Iran pose an imminent threat to Americans, thereby justifying President Trump's move to launch the strikes without congressional approval? And did the attacks 'obliterate' Iran's capacity to make nuclear weapons, as Trump has claimed? Leaving the closed-door gathering, Democrats said they got satisfactory answers to neither. 'I would say that that particular briefing left me with more concerns and a true lack of clarity on how we are defining the mission and the success of it,' said Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.), the Democratic whip. Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), a former nuclear physicist, said the U.S. strikes likely knocked out Iran's centrifuges and other infrastructure required to enrich uranium in the future. But there's no evidence, he said, that the attacks destroyed Iran's existing stockpiles of enriched uranium. If those are intact, he warned, Iran could still produce weapons with the strength of a Hiroshima bomb in 'a very small breakout time.' 'I was very disappointed that we learned very little about the inventory of high-enriched uranium — 60 percent enriched uranium — its whereabouts and what that meant for the breakout time to Iran's first nuclear device,' Foster said. 'The 60 percent enriched material, while not weapons-grade, is weapons-usable. The Hiroshima device was a mixture of 50 percent and higher enriched uranium. And that worked pretty well.' 'The goal of this mission, from the start, was to secure or destroy that material,' he continued. 'That's where they're hiding the ball. And that's what we have to keep our eyes on.' Friday's House briefing came six days after Trump ordered strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites in an effort to dismantle Tehran's ability to produce nuclear weapons. The briefing was conducted by top administration officials — including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio — who had also briefed Senate lawmakers a day earlier. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence who has clashed with Trump over the threat of Iran's nuclear program, did not attend either briefing. Trump has repeatedly said the mission was an unqualified success, 'obliterating' Iran's nuclear capacity and setting the program back by years. And the president's GOP allies in the Capitol echoed that message after the briefing. 'It is clear, everyone can see by the videos, that these massive ordinance penetrating bombs did the job,' Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said. 'I think their key facilities have been disabled, and I think Iran is now a long time away from doing what they might have done before this very successful operation.' A preliminary report from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reached different conclusions, finding that the strikes set back Iran's nuclear program by months, rather than years. More recent statements from the CIA and Trump's head of national intelligence have disputed the DIA report, creating mixed messages from the administration about the success of the mission. Republicans are siding clearly with the latter. 'You can dismiss the low-level initial assessment, and you can rely upon what the CIA has said, because these are first-hand accounts,' Johnson said. 'The greatest evidence that we have of the effectiveness of this mission was that Iran came immediately and was willing to engage in a ceasefire agreement,' he added. 'That would have been unthinkable just a few weeks back.' Indeed, Trump said Wednesday that administration officials will meet with Iranian officials next week, when the U.S. will press Iran on ending its nuclear ambitions. At least one prominent Democrat, for his part, did air some satisfaction with the briefing: Rep. Jim Himes (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Rubio clarified that the objective of the mission 'was to set back or destroy Iranian nuclear capability in the service of bringing them to the table.' But whether that goal was achieved remains an open question. Himes said that even though the U.S. wants to bring Iran back to the negotiating table, it does not mean Tehran will follow suit. 'There's two questions: Did we, in fact, set back or destroy? And two, Will they come to the table?' Himes said. 'It's really too early to tell what the intentions of the Iranians are. If the intentions are to go to the negotiating table, great. 'But the intentions may also be to just go underground and produce a device.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Israel-Iran live updates: Trump says he is not 'talking to' Iran

timean hour ago

Israel-Iran live updates: Trump says he is not 'talking to' Iran

Trump last week raised the prospect of renewed nuclear talks with Tehran. 1:50 President Donald Trump said early Monday he is "not offering Iran anything" despite suggesting new nuclear talks with Tehran, following a ceasefire agreement between Iran and Israel agreed last week after an intense 12-day conflict. Through last week, the president and his administration continued to push back on an early intelligence report suggesting that the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities may have only set Tehran's nuclear program back by months. 15 minutes ago Macron presses Iran to greenlight nuclear inspectors French President Emmanuel Macron said in a post to X Monday that he spoke with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian to urge Tehran to "return to the negotiating table." Among the French leader's messages were for Iran to "respect for the ceasefire, to help restore peace in the region," Macron wrote. Macron also said he urged "a return to the negotiating table to address ballistic and nuclear issues," plus for Iran to uphold its commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty "and the swift resumption of the IAEA's work in Iran to ensure full transparency." 31 minutes ago Trump says he is not 'talking to' Iran President Donald Trump on Monday pushed back on suggestions by Democratic Sen. Chris Coons that the White House is considering sanctions relief for Iran as part of renewed nuclear negotiations. "Tell phony Democrat Senator Chris Coons that I am not offering Iran ANYTHING, unlike Obama, who paid them $Billions under the stupid 'road to a Nuclear Weapon JCPOA (which would now be expired!), nor am I even talking to them since we totally OBLITERATED their Nuclear Facilities," Trump wrote on social media. Coons spoke to Fox News on Sunday and referenced reports suggesting Trump "is now moving towards negotiation and offering Iran a deal that looks somewhat similar to the Iran deal that was offered by Obama. Tens of billions of dollars of incentives and reduced sanctions in exchange for abandoning their nuclear program."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store