Exploring the Implications of US Strikes on Empty(!) Iranian Nuclear Sites, By James Reed and Paul Walker

President Donald Trump has claimed the strikes on Iran's nuclear sites had "completely and totally obliterated" Iran's nuclear enrichment capabilities, aiming to halt what he described as a nuclear threat from the "world's number one state sponsor of terror." However, reports from Iranian officials and some security experts suggest a provocative scenario: the targeted sites may have been largely empty, with enriched uranium and critical equipment moved beforehand!

According to Iranian state media and officials, such as Hassan Abedini, deputy political director of Iran's state broadcaster, the nuclear facilities at Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan were evacuated "a while ago," with enriched uranium stockpiles, including approximately 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium, moved to secure, undisclosed locations. Satellite imagery showing unusual truck activity near Fordo days before the strikes supports claims of pre-emptive relocation. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported no increase in radiation levels post-strike, suggesting minimal nuclear material was present, though some contamination may have occurred within the facilities. If true, this suggests Iran anticipated the attacks, possibly due to intelligence leaks or heightened regional tensions following Israel's earlier strikes on June 13, and took steps to safeguard its nuclear assets.

This scenario raises questions about the effectiveness of the U.S. operation, dubbed "Operation Midnight Hammer," which involved 125 aircraft, including seven B-2 stealth bombers deploying 14 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs and Tomahawk missiles. The Fordo facility, buried deep under a mountain, is designed to withstand conventional airstrikes, and even the MOP's ability to destroy it is uncertain. Iranian officials, including a lawmaker from Qom, claimed damage was "superficial" or "not irreversible," though U.S. officials and some analysts, like David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security, argue the strikes caused significant structural damage, potentially to centrifuge halls and support infrastructure. If Iran indeed moved its enriched uranium and key equipment, the strikes may have hit empty or partially operational facilities, limiting their impact on Iran's nuclear program.

If the U.S. struck largely empty facilities, several immediate consequences emerge. First, the strategic objective of crippling Iran's nuclear program would be undermined. Iran's nuclear capabilities rely on enriched uranium, advanced centrifuges, and scientific expertise. While infrastructure damage could delay operations, the preservation of uranium stockpiles, particularly the 60% enriched uranium, a short step from weapons-grade 90%, means Iran could resume enrichment at clandestine or alternative sites. The IAEA's May 2025 report noted Iran's stockpile could theoretically produce nine nuclear bombs, and its relocation to an undisclosed location complicates verification efforts.

Second, the strikes' political and symbolic impact remains significant. Trump's public declaration of success and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's praise frame the operation as a decisive blow against Iran's nuclear ambitions. This narrative could strengthen domestic support in the U.S. and Israel, particularly among those who view Iran as an existential threat. However, Iran's claim of minimal damage and pre-emptive evacuation undermines this narrative, potentially portraying the U.S. and Israel as overreaching militarily while achieving little tangible disruption. Iranian leaders, including President Masoud Pezeshkian, have vowed a response, with missile strikes on Tel Aviv and Haifa injuring dozens, signalling that retaliation is already underway.

Third, the absence of significant nuclear material at the sites reduces the risk of radiological contamination, as confirmed by the IAEA and Saudi Arabia. This mitigates fears of environmental or health crises but also highlights Iran's strategic foresight, potentially bolstering its domestic narrative of resilience against Western aggression. Iran's ability to anticipate and counter the strikes could embolden its leadership and proxies, such as Hezbollah, despite the latter's stated reluctance to escalate further.

The relocation of enriched uranium suggests Iran is adapting to military pressure by decentralising its nuclear program. The IAEA has expressed concerns about Iran's lack of cooperation since 2019, particularly after it breached the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) by enriching uranium to 60% and expanding centrifuge operations at Fordo. If Iran has secured its uranium stockpile and expertise, it could pursue enrichment at covert facilities, such as the third enrichment site announced in June 2025. This would shorten its "breakout time" to produce weapons-grade uranium, estimated at two to five days before the strikes. The destruction of known facilities may push Iran toward a clandestine program, increasing the risk of a nuclear breakout without IAEA oversight.

Moreover, the strikes could harden Iran's resolve to pursue nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Prior to June 13, Iran maintained it was not building a nuclear weapon, a position supported by U.S. intelligence in March 2025. However, Israel's initial attacks and the U.S.'s subsequent involvement may shift Iran's strategic calculus. A military expert cited by the BBC suggested that, with sufficient highly enriched uranium (HEU), Iran could develop a crude nuclear device if left unimpeded. The loss of conventional military capabilities, as evidenced by Israel's systematic targeting of Iran's air defences and missile stockpiles, may push Tehran to view nuclear armament as a necessary hedge against future attacks.

The strikes' limited impact, if sites were empty, could destabilise the Middle East further. Iran's retaliatory missile and drone attacks on Israel, injuring 86 people, indicate a cycle of escalation that risks drawing in regional actors. The Houthis in Yemen, previously neutral toward the U.S., have threatened to target American ships in the Red Sea, while Iran's threats to block the Strait of Hormuz could disrupt global oil supplies, causing economic shockwaves. Saudi Arabia's neutrality, as indicated by its radiation monitoring, may shift if a nuclear arms race emerges, with Riyadh potentially seeking its own nuclear capabilities to counter Iran.

Globally, the strikes have strained diplomatic efforts. The collapse of U.S.-Iran talks mediated by Oman, which aimed to trade sanctions relief for enrichment limits, reflects the failure of diplomacy under military pressure. Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, called the strikes a "very big red line," accusing the U.S. of "blowing up diplomacy." The UN Security Council's emergency session and calls for restraint from Secretary-General António Guterres underscore the risk of a wider conflict. European allies, like France, are pushing for renewed negotiations, but Iran's insistence on retaining enrichment rights complicates prospects for de-escalation.

Security experts arguing that the sites were empty point to Iran's strategic foresight and the IAEA's radiation findings as evidence. They suggest Iran's evacuation was a calculated move to preserve its nuclear program while exposing U.S. and Israeli military actions as costly and ineffective. This perspective aligns with Iranian claims that the strikes caused no major blow, potentially embarrassing the U.S. and Israel if confirmed. However, other experts, like David Albright, argue that satellite imagery showing craters and damage at Fordo indicates significant disruption, even if uranium was moved. The destruction of centrifuge halls and electrical infrastructure could set back Iran's program by years, though not indefinitely, especially if parallel facilities exist.

Critics of the strikes, such as those cited by NBC News, argue that the U.S. and Israel's "zero enrichment" demand is unrealistic, given Iran's insistence on peaceful nuclear energy. They contend that the attacks, based on disputed claims of an imminent nuclear threat, mirror the flawed intelligence leading to the 2003 Iraq invasion. Conversely, supporters, including Israeli officials and some U.S. Republicans, argue that the strikes were necessary to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, citing the IAEA's concerns about Iran's 60% enriched uranium and non-compliance since 2019.

If Iran successfully preserved its nuclear assets, several scenarios are possible:

1.Clandestine Nuclear Development: Iran could accelerate enrichment at a secret facility, aiming for weapons-grade uranium. Without IAEA access, verifying non-proliferation becomes nearly impossible, increasing the risk of a nuclear-armed Iran within months. This could trigger a regional arms race, with Saudi Arabia and others pursuing nuclear capabilities.

2.Escalatory Retaliation: Iran's missile strikes on Israel and threats against U.S. bases suggest a tit-for-tat escalation. If Iran targets critical infrastructure or proxies like Hezbollah reengage, the conflict could spiral, potentially involving U.S. ground forces despite Trump's assurances otherwise.

3.Diplomatic Stalemate: The collapse of U.S.-Iran talks and Iran's distrust of Western intentions could freeze diplomacy. Iran's insistence on enrichment rights and the U.S.'s demand for zero enrichment are irreconcilable without a new framework, possibly involving regional powers like Saudi Arabia or China.

4.Domestic and Regional Backlash: In Iran, the strikes could rally public support for the regime, framing it as a victim of U.S. and Israeli aggression. Regionally, anti-American sentiment may grow, complicating U.S. alliances in the Gulf and beyond.

The possibility that the U.S. struck empty Iranian nuclear sites underscores the complexity of targeting a hardened, adaptive adversary like Iran. While the strikes caused structural damage, the pre-emptive removal of enriched uranium and equipment could allow Iran to preserve its nuclear ambitions, potentially at covert sites. This outcome challenges the U.S. and Israel's strategic objectives, risks further escalation, and complicates diplomatic efforts to curb Iran's nuclear program.