Perception trumps reality: Did the US really destroy Iran's nuclear programme?

Irish Examiner

14 hours ago

Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has contradicted US president Donald Trump's contention that the Iranian nuclear programme was destroyed by the US air attack on Iran on the night of June 22-23.
Grossi has also assessed that Iran still has the technical knowhow to produce enriched uranium within months. In an Irish Examiner article last week, Iranian response in Doha was only a carefully choreographed demonstration it was pointed out that the Iranians will recover quickly and would have backup teams of nuclear scientists to continue their work.
In the world of geopolitics, perception is often more important than reality.
Seeking the truth
Seeking the truth can be a frustrating experience in a time of mass communication, when conflicting messages are flashing by in sound bites. Logic teaches us some coping mechanisms.
Let us start with the concept of perspectivism, which, to summarise, means that no one statement holds absolute truth. Truth, instead, is the sum total of many statements.
For example, you are sitting in a Cork cafe. It's a beautiful morning and you are in good company. The waft of freshly-brewed coffee completes a precious moment of bliss. You open the Irish Examiner. You see the front page, but your companion sees only the back page, which somehow always manages to have a really interesting story. You both have different perspectives, but neither of you has the overall truth. The truth slowly reveals itself, page by page.
The aftermath of the US bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities presents a similar dilemma. Did the Americans destroy Iran's programme to produce nuclear weapons or not? Before you even ask yourself the question, let's be honest, what is the answer you want to hear? Essentially, which side are you on? Most probably, your basic platform of information is what you have read or watched on TV and cinema over your lifetime.
Taking sides
My generation was keenly aware of the Holocaust. It was captivated by the film Exodus and identified Israel's struggle to survive with Ireland's fight for freedom. We abhorred the PLO aircraft hijackings and the murder of Israeli athletes in Munich in 1972. It took two generations to change that view and see the present leadership in Israel as the bad guys that turned Gaza into a human slaughterhouse.
Whatever side you are on, let's consider the US intervention in Iran as objectively as possible. Within hours of the US bombing, selected leaking from a preliminary US intelligence report, to CNN, sensationally contradicted Trump's claim that the Iranian nuclear complexes were obliterated. The main contentious point of the leaked report was that Iran's nuclear programme was only set back for a few months.
The Trump administration's overreaction to this report actually heightened the public perception that the US air attacks were not successful. Moreover, that caused more problems for the Israelis, whose stated war objective was the removal of the Iranian nuclear threat, not just its delay.
The Israelis continued attacking targets in Iran even though Trump and defence secretary Pete Hegseth were claiming that the Iranian nuclear facilities were obliterated.
The joint press conference held by Hegseth and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, was unprecedented. Hegseth went ballistic in his criticism of the media, blaming them for being unpatriotic. Caine gave a calm, measured presentation on the operation and explained why it would be several weeks before the full extent of damage to the facilities was known.
We must remember that this mission had been planned in detail for the past 15 years at least. Over that period of time, both US and Israeli intelligence assets in Iran would have been compiling a mass of data. The bombs used in the attack, the massive ordnance penetrators, were designed with these specific targets in mind.
The great Arthur C Clarke, engineer and science fiction writer, stated:"If an eminent scientist tells you something is possible, believe him. If he tells you something is impossible, don't believe him.
The US Army Corps of Engineers has a simple motto, which explains its outlook on taking on tough tasks. It says: 'The very difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer.'
Bearing in mind both comments, we must also not forget that it was the Americans that pulled off the greatest engineering feat of all time, landing men on the Moon and bringing them back alive.
In early 1972, I remember being in Cape Kennedy watching astronauts in training for a Moon flight. On one wall the planning and preparation sequence for the Apollo Project was laid out using a concept called systems engineering.
The air operation in Iran had the benefit of the most advanced technology available in the world today. Conducted in one non-stop 36-hour round trip from the US to Iran, involving air refuelling, the final run to the targets was carried out in complete darkness.
In the Irish Military College, cadets and officers are always advised to keep their plans as simple as possible, to consider and anticipate every contingency, to rehearse as much as possible and allow for backup personnel and equipment. The more complicated the plan, the more likely something will go wrong. Disasters can happen. The US learned a lot from the 1980 failed rescue operation in Iran, during which eight US servicemen were killed in a helicopter crash, when Delta Force tried to free the captured US Embassy staff.
The big question now is if the 400kg of enriched uranium stockpiled by the Iranians was in the Fordow facility. The Iranians say they had removed it to a safe location. US observers think it would have been too difficult to move in time, but the Iranians must have known that Fordow was a prime target.
A satellite picture of Iran's underground nuclear enrichment site at Fordow in March. Picture: Planet Labs PBC/AP
Iran foresees the day when its oil runs out and it will require a reliable energy source. Nuclear energy is a viable alternative and Iran should be allowed to develop a peaceful nuclear energy programme. However, it should accept international control over any enriched uranium.
Trump was asked at the recent Nato meeting in the Hague about US-Iran talks. His immediate reaction was that he saw no reason for talks. Since then he has changed his mind and behind the scenes, efforts are being made to get the Iranians back to the negotiating table.
Latest reports are that the US and Iran are set to resume nuclear talks in Oslo. Iran is reported to want a US guarantee before talks begin that it will not be attacked. To use an Americanism, the 'game' is not over until the fat lady sings.
Dorcha Lee is a retired army colonel and defence analyst.
Read More
Unreliability of Donald Trump's US means a cascade of nuclear armament is on the way