Have Iran's nuclear facilities really been destroyed?

BarcelonaWith the end of the war that Donald Trump has been quick to dub "the 12-day war," all countries have claimed victory in the conflict, and both the United States and Israel have prided themselves on having achieved the objective for which they justified the attacks on Iran: preventing Tehran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. But to what extent has Iran's nuclear program been damaged? Can it be considered destroyed, as the American president boasts?

Hours after Seven US B-2 aircraft launched GBU-57a missiles against the Iranian plants of Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan in an unprecedented intervention, Donald Trump celebrated the fact that Iran's nuclear facilities had been "completely destroyed" in what he called a "spectacular military success." Secretary of State Marco Rubio downgraded the damage estimate to "severe" the following day at a press conference on Sunday morning, while Iran confirmed the attack but asserted that it would not halt its nuclear program.

However, an initial assessment by US intelligence services indicated that the attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities have only delayed the development of its program by several months. According to reports, which have been released by US media such as New York Times and CNN, the impact of the projectiles would have only blocked the entrances to two of the facilities, but would not have caused the collapse of the underground buildings and, therefore, the destruction of the plants. Thus, before the attack, US intelligence agencies estimated that, if Iran tried to rush into making a bomb, it would take about three months to have one. Now, after the bombings and days of attacks by the Israeli army before the final blow in Washington, the Defense Intelligence Agency only added six months to these estimates.

The White House has called these reports "completely wrong." In fact, during the NATO summit in the Netherlands, Donald Trump once again insisted that Iran's nuclear program had been "destroyed" and attacked CNN and the New York Times, whom she accused of "lying."

Early Thursday morning, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard came out to reaffirm Trump's stance, claiming that "new intelligence" confirmed the total destruction of the three nuclear plants attacked. "Iran's nuclear facilities have been destroyed. If the Iranians were to choose to rebuild, they would have to rebuild all three facilities (Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan) completely, which would likely take years," Gabbard told X, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, also reported, "reliably stating that several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would need to be rebuilt over the years."

During Wednesday's NATO summit, President Trump went even further, comparing the magnitude of the US strikes to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which "ended the war." Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed the sentiment in a statement to Political that Iran is "much further from a nuclear weapon" after "the president took the bold action" of bombing its facilities.

In addition, the Trump administration on Tuesday postponed the congressional briefing on classified information about US attacks on Iran, a move that has outraged Democrats.

What does the evidence say?

The Fordow facility has long been considered Iran's most impenetrable military target, because its completely buried location made it unreachable by Israeli bombs. Supposedly, only the United States possesses the appropriate weapons to deliver a strike. At this plant, Iran enriched the uranium needed to build the atomic bomb. But shortly after a dozen 13,600 kg US artillery shells, known as bunker-busters, fell, the UN nuclear watchdog denied any signs of radioactive contamination around this or any other facility.

Satellite imagery after the attack showed signs of a fire, but was inconclusive. The main building of the complex appeared to have been undamaged, but the topography of a nearby area appeared to have been altered and flattened, with six craters appearing from the impact of the bombs.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, also declined to assess the extent of the damage at first: "As for assessing the degree of damage underground, we cannot comment. It could be important, it could be significant, but neither we nor anyone else could say." This morning, the agency's director stated that his "number one priority" was to return to the nuclear facilities to assess the radiological impact on the ground. Furthermore, Grossi made it clear that "the technological know-how and industrial capacity still exist in Iran" and that the question is not whether the bombings have delayed the program "two or three months," but whether a diplomatic solution "that will stand the test of time" can be found.

Specialized international agencies are opting for caution, but there are several factors that would explain why the impact has not been what Trump claims. For one thing, Iran claimed it had evacuated the facilities a couple of days before the attack and moved sensitive materials. "The enriched uranium stockpiles have been transferred from the nuclear facilities, and there are no materials that, if attacked, could emit radiation or be harmful to our compatriots," said Hassan Abedini, deputy political director of Iran's state broadcaster. Three days before the US attacks, sixteen cargo trucks were seen near the Fordow entrance tunnel. Furthermore, the Iranian Red Crescent also did not record any deaths from the US attacks, in line with claims made by Iranian officials.

On the other hand, some experts suggest that the US projectiles were designed with calculations regarding reinforced concrete resistant to 5,000 psi. But Iran could have used stronger concrete to protect its nuclear treasure, so the impact of the bunker-buster bombs would not have been as severe as expected.