The attack on Iran nuclear
Executive summary
The June 2025 strikes — a coordinated Israeli campaign followed late in the 12-day war by a large-scale U.S. operation dubbed “Midnight Hammer” — targeted Iran’s Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear complexes and used bunker‑busting bombs, cruise missiles and stealth bombers to inflict heavy damage on enrichment, conversion and centrifuge-manufacturing infrastructure [1] [2] [3]. Analysts and governments disagree on the scope of the setback: U.S. and Israeli officials claim the attacks “obliterated” critical capabilities while technical assessments say Iran’s short‑term breakout time was lengthened but reconstruction and clandestine options remain possible [4] [3] [5].
1. What happened: scale and methods of the strikes
The operation involved dozens of aircraft and munitions: reports describe 125 U.S. military aircraft including seven B‑2 stealth bombers and scores of precision weapons, together with dozens of cruise missiles fired from submarines and 14 GBU‑57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators aimed at hardened Fordow and other sites [1] [2]. The strikes were the most overt U.S. attacks on Iranian soil since 1988 and the first direct U.S. offensive against Iran’s nuclear program since 2020, coming at the tail end of a wider Israel–Iran exchange of attacks [2] [1].
2. Immediate technical impact on Iran’s nuclear capacity
Independent technical assessments by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) and other experts find major setbacks: severe damage or elimination of the majority of centrifuges at Natanz, significant damage to Fordow’s underground halls, and destruction of conversion and metal‑production lines at Esfahan that are important for weaponization pathways [3] [6]. CSIS and ISIS both conclude those losses increase the time Iran would need to assemble a deliverable device and create bottlenecks in metallurgy and enrichment that would force Iran to rebuild or clandestinely reconstitute capabilities [5] [6].
3. What remains uncertain and unverifiable
Tehran suspended co‑operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency after the strikes, leaving independent verification of stockpiles and exact damage levels incomplete; both Iran and some Iranian state media asserted material had been moved earlier, complicating damage assessments [7] [1]. U.S. government claims of having “obliterated” Iran’s ability to make nuclear weapons are backed by selected intelligence and imagery but a final, comprehensive bomb‑damage assessment was still ongoing months later, per public reporting [4] [2].
4. Strategic logic and competing narratives
Washington and Jerusalem framed the attacks as preventive measures to halt an emergent weapons capability and to enforce non‑proliferation imperatives after IAEA findings of non‑compliance [2] [8]. Critics and some independent analysts warn the strikes shift Iran toward covert dispersion, accelerate military hardening, and risk regional escalation while undermining diplomatic verification mechanisms — notably because Tehran curtailed IAEA access and signaled possible legal brinkmanship around the NPT [7] [9] [8].
5. Humanitarian, environmental and escalation risks
Military analysts cautioned about radiological and chemical fallout risks if strikes hit reactors or large inventories of spent fuel; the attack deliberately avoided major contamination so far by focusing on enrichment and conversion facilities rather than operational power reactors, but remaining hardened targets pose either high fallout risks or demand further escalation to neutralize [10]. The 12‑day conflict killed over a thousand Iranians in total and heightened the prospect of retaliatory strikes and broader confrontation across the region [11] [1].
6. The road ahead: rebuilding, monitoring and politics
Satellite imagery through late 2025 shows persistent destruction and limited cleanup at many struck sites, though some signs of repair and renewed activity in related missile and possibly clandestine nuclear construction projects have been reported, suggesting Iran retains pathways to recovery that will hinge on its political will and external pressure [6] [12] [9]. The attacks also fed domestic unrest and economic strain inside Iran, factors that shape Tehran’s strategic choices as much as its technical capacity [13] [9].