US-Israel strikes damaged Iran’s nuclear sites but didn’t eliminate its capabilities; Iran
remains a nuclear threat due to enriched uranium and halted inspections.
LONDON: Before the ill-judged attack on Israel by the terrorist group Hamas on 7 October 2023, Iran appeared to be riding high. As an energy-rich but isolated middle power, the Islamic Republic had adopted a strategy of proxy warfare, funding a chain of mostly Shiite proxies from the Levant to Mesopotamia down to the Arabian Peninsula.
These provided a defensive buffer, pestered the US bloc, and allowed Teheran to effectively claim territory where Sunni power faltered, rather like Iraq after America’s invasion. As the Arab states more or less abandoned the Palestinian cause, the regime in Iran stepped up as its champion, garnering a respect among global Muslim audiences that was denied it by much of the Iranian populace, especially the secular and well-educated. “Death to Israel” rang out at government rallies as the regime moved forward with its nuclear programme, always insisting that it was for domestic energy needs. All the while, America’s post-9/11 wars and the Arab Spring created vacuums into which Teheran projected power and presence. The post-war government that emerged in Iraq was an Iranian client protected by US airpower.
Iran’s Quds Force led by Qasem Soleimani, who was later assassinated on the orders of President Donald Trump, protected the regime of Syria’s President Assad, while the Teheran-backed Houthis resisted attempts by Saudi Arabia to destroy them in a long and brutal war. Then came the 7 October attack, which shook Israel to its core. The massacre, rape and hostage-taking of so many innocent Israeli civilians cast such a serious doubt on the Jewish state’s ability to defend itself, that strict retribution was inevitable. Sure enough, it happened. One by one, Israel eliminated or severely reduced the capacity of Iran’s proxies in the region, before setting its sights on the Islamic Republic itself.
Israel launched the surprise air war on 13 June in the worst blow to the Islamic Republic since the 1980s war with Iraq. Operation “Rising Lion”, as it was called, began with attacks on Iranian radar systems, followed by precision airstrikes on Iranian enrichment facilities and senior military officers and scientists. It’s reported that Israel spent roughly $1.45 billion in the first two days, and in the first week of strikes on Iran costs hit $5 billion. They were quickly followed by US air strikes using seven B-2 stealth bombers, which made an 18-hour journey to Iran, in an attempt to complete the destruction of Iran’s nuclear sites around the country. At the same time, two dozen cruise missiles were launched at the Isfahan site from a submarine. In total, 75 “precision-guided weapons” were used by the US during the operation.
Mystery surrounds the effectiveness of the US and Israeli bombing and the remaining ability of the Islamic Republic to continue production in some form. But one man is certain. “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” said a jubilant Donald Trump on 22 June in a speech from the White House, after the US strikes on the nuclear sites at Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow the night before. As usual, analysts quickly checked Trump’s rhetoric with reality, noting that the US president is well known for politicising intelligence.
Isfahan was Iran’s main nuclear site where it prepared uranium for enrichment and converted it into metal when it was done, a critical step towards building nuclear weapons. Aerial photography shows the above-ground facilities were indeed largely destroyed, but in recent years Iran has created deep tunnels close-by in which some stocks of highly enriched uranium were probably stored. These appear largely intact. The same was true for Natanz, although the US dropped two Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs) on the underground portion of the site which may have caused severe damage. Fordow presented the US bombers with a formidable task as Iran’s heavily fortified nuclear facilities were buried deep inside a mountain under 300 feet of granite. It was for this site that the Pentagon developed the MOP, a 30,000-pound bunker busting bomb with 5,000 pounds of explosives in the nose. Most nuclear scientists believe that serious damage was done to Fordow but “it may be tough to find out what happened at Fordow unless someone goes in”, a leading scientist admitted. The questions on everyone’s lips after the bombing are “does Iran remain a nuclear threat?” “How much enriched uranium is still there?” After all, every plant can be rebuilt and every centrifuge repaired or replaced, or so runs the argument.
Very soon, the vital elements of Iran’s nuclear enterprise might be just as menacing as before. At the end of May this year the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran possessed over 400kg of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity, well above the level used for civilian purposes and close to weapons grade. Three months earlier it had been estimated to be about 300kg. This figure caused deep alarm in Israel. “Such a level of enrichment exists only in countries actively pursuing nuclear weapons and has no civilian justification whatsoever”, said Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. US officials estimated at the time that if Iran chose to pursue a weapon it could produce weapons-grade material in less than two weeks and potentially build a bomb within a month. These conclusions were refuted by Iran and other non-aligned countries, but probably led to Israel’s decision to bomb the sites weeks later.
On Wednesday, the Pentagon released its official damage assessment of the attacks. It’s spokesman, Sean Parnell, claimed that the strikes set back Iran’s nuclear programme by one to two years, which was a notably more measured view than Donald Trump’s claim of “obliteration”. It could be significantly less, however. A senior official with the IAEA said that while the US inflicted “a very serious level of damage”, some essential infrastructure may remain intact and that “Iran could potentially restart centrifuge operations and begin producing enriched uranium in a matter of months”. Clearly, even if facilities were heavily damaged, skilled Iranian scientists and engineers still possess the expertise to rebuild centrifuge cascades and resume enrichment. The main problem for the IAEA, however, is that following the bombing, the Islamic Republic has suspended cooperation with the organisation and has barred inspectors from the sites, hampering independent verification of Iran’s recovery.
Meanwhile, Teheran signalled it will continue enriching uranium, while also being open to negotiations under the right conditions. So yes, Iran can continue its nuclear programme and remain a threat to the region. Military action caused a temporary delay and inflicted serious damage, but it did not eliminate Iran’s technical capabilities or enriched uranium reserves. Recovery could be relatively swift, possibly within months, depending on how aggressively Teheran proceeds and how covertly it operates. The real question going forward isn’t technical capability, it’s political will and diplomatic containment. Without renewed transparency, inspections and enforceable limits, Iran has both the ability and material foundation to resume advancing its nuclear programme. This could have both regional and global implications.
