Following a series of aggressive airstrikes by the United States targeting Iran’s key nuclear sites, President Donald Trump declared the missions a major success, claiming that the Islamic Republic’s core enrichment facilities had been “completely and fully obliterated.” The American operation, conducted over the weekend, involved B-2 bombers and Tomahawk cruise missiles and focused on deeply buried nuclear locations including Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. However, despite Trump’s confident statement, the actual level of destruction at these heavily fortified underground sites remains unclear, and concerns are mounting globally over the fate of nearly 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, which are currently unaccounted for. This level of enrichment falls short of weapons-grade uranium, which requires 90% purity, but far exceeds what is necessary for civilian energy production.
Addressing the United Nations Security Council, Rafael Mariano Grossi, head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog, confirmed visible external damage to the Fordow and Natanz facilities. Grossi explained that entrances to storage tunnels and buildings involved in uranium conversion at Isfahan had sustained strikes, while the Natanz fuel enrichment plant was again hit. Craters were observed at the Fordow site, where uranium had been enriched to dangerous levels, but Grossi emphasized that neither his agency nor any external body could verify the extent of underground damage without on-site inspection access. He appealed for international support to reestablish monitoring of Iranian nuclear stockpiles and verify the whereabouts of the 400kg of highly enriched uranium, which poses a critical non-proliferation concern.
Despite the significant nature of the U.S. attack, analysts and nuclear experts remain skeptical about its long-term effectiveness. Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed confidence that Iran was unable to relocate its enriched uranium, stating that much of it was likely still buried under the Isfahan facility. However, other experts disputed this assessment. Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear nonproliferation professor, argued that while the attacks caused visible damage, they failed to target Iran’s most important underground storage systems and core production infrastructure. He noted that significant uranium stockpiles are believed to be hidden in tunnel systems that appear to have been untouched by the bombings. Similarly, the vast underground complex adjacent to Natanz, capable of producing new centrifuges, was not struck.
Before the attack on Fordow, satellite imagery had revealed unusual movement, with 16 cargo trucks seen entering the site and then disappearing the following day. Some believe this indicates that critical material or equipment may have been relocated just prior to the strikes, suggesting Iranian foreknowledge or anticipation of the operation.
Iran has responded defiantly, with high-ranking officials signaling a continued commitment to its nuclear ambitions. Ali Shamkhani, senior advisor to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, stated that destruction of physical sites would not end Iran’s nuclear aspirations, emphasizing that technical knowledge, material, and political will endure. This narrative appears to resonate among segments of the Iranian public. AI-based monitoring from groups analyzing social media trends indicates a growing belief among Iranians that the country needs a nuclear weapon to deter future attacks. These sentiments could further entrench the political support for nuclear development within Iran’s leadership.
Strategic experts from international think tanks caution that military force alone cannot fully dismantle Iran’s nuclear program. Darya Dolzikova, a senior researcher focused on non-proliferation, argued that while airstrikes might temporarily disrupt infrastructure, they cannot erase the scientific knowledge, operational experience, and national will driving Iran’s nuclear pursuits. She noted that the program, built over decades, is resilient and deeply embedded within Iran’s strategic framework. Even if some facilities were destroyed, the underlying expertise and capability to rebuild remain intact. Furthermore, physical verification of true damage to subterranean areas, such as the centrifuge halls beneath Fordow, is impossible through satellite imagery and can only be assessed with reliable human intelligence.
The broader implication is that the U.S. and Israel may have delayed Iran’s nuclear progress but have not ended it. In fact, some fear the attacks could harden Iran’s resolve, accelerate its program in secrecy, and further limit diplomatic paths forward. The unaccounted-for enriched uranium remains a pressing concern, posing a threat not just to regional stability but to global non-proliferation efforts. Until inspectors are allowed to return and verify the status of Iran’s nuclear stockpile and sites, uncertainty will continue to fuel international anxiety.
Despite Washington's claims of a strategic victory, the episode leaves a host of questions unanswered. What happened to the 400kg of enriched uranium? Can Iran restore its infrastructure faster than anticipated? And does this strike merely mark the beginning of a more intense covert nuclear race between Iran and its adversaries? As tensions simmer and rhetoric escalates, the fragile state of non-proliferation hangs in the balance, awaiting clarity in the aftermath of destruction.
