The U.S. Strikes on Iran’s Nuclear Program: A Costly Miscalculation? By Charles Taylor (Florida)
On June 22, 2025, the United States launched a high-profile military operation, codenamed "Midnight Hammer," targeting three key Iranian nuclear facilities, Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. President Donald Trump hailed the strikes as a "spectacular military success," claiming they "completely and totally obliterated" Iran's nuclear enrichment capabilities. However, an early U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment, reported by CNN on June 24, paints a starkly different picture: the strikes failed to destroy Iran's nuclear program, likely only delaying it by a few months. Satellite imagery showing trucks removing uranium days before the attack, combined with reports of prior warnings given to Iran, raises serious questions about the operation's effectiveness and the broader implications of this strategic misstep.
The U.S. operation involved 125 military aircraft, including seven B-2 stealth bombers that dropped fourteen 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) "bunker buster" bombs on Fordow and Natanz, alongside Tomahawk cruise missiles targeting Isfahan. These weapons, designed to penetrate deeply buried targets, were meant to cripple Iran's ability to enrich uranium, a critical component of its nuclear program. Yet, according to the DIA's preliminary assessment, the strikes primarily damaged aboveground infrastructure, power systems and uranium metal processing buildings, while leaving the underground centrifuge halls and enriched uranium stockpiles largely intact.
Experts like Jeffrey Lewis from the Middlebury Institute of International Studies noted that satellite imagery showed six deep craters at Fordow, but the underground enrichment halls, buried 80–90 meters beneath the Zagros mountains, appeared unaffected. Similarly, Natanz's underground Fuel Enrichment Plant and Isfahan's lower levels, targeted with less penetrative Tomahawk missiles, sustained minimal damage to core components. The DIA estimated that Iran's nuclear program was set back by "a few months, tops," contradicting Trump's and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's assertions of "total obliteration."
A critical factor in the strikes' limited impact was Iran's apparent foresight, or warning. Commercial satellite imagery from Maxar Technologies, taken on June 19 and 20, revealed 16 cargo trucks lined up at Fordow's tunnel entrances, suggesting Iran was moving enriched uranium and equipment out of the facility. Similar activity was observed at Isfahan, where trucks were seen sealing tunnel entrances with dirt, possibly to protect remaining assets. Experts, including David Albright from the Institute for Science and International Security, believe Iran likely relocated its 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium, enough for approximately 10 nuclear weapons if further enriched, to undisclosed locations.
Iranian officials, including Hassan Abedini from state media, claimed the targeted sites had been "evacuated a while ago," and no significant nuclear material was lost. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported no increase in off-site radiation levels, supporting the notion that uranium stocks were either removed or unaffected. This pre-emptive action aligns with reports that Iran may maintain covert enrichment facilities, ensuring continuity of its program despite the strikes.
The presence of trucks days before the strikes suggests Iran had advance warning of the attack. Sources cited by Al Jazeera indicate Iran may have received indirect signals during U.S. diplomatic engagements, possibly through intermediaries at the G7 summit in Canada, where Trump was warned of Iranian retaliation. Posts on X further speculate that Iran's intelligence anticipated the strikes, allowing time to evacuate critical assets. While no definitive evidence confirms a deliberate leak, the timing of the truck activity, two to three days before the U.S. operation, raises questions about operational security.
The U.S. had coordinated with Israel, which began attacking Iranian nuclear sites on June 13, but relied on American bunker busters to target Fordow's fortified depths. The decision to use Tomahawk missiles on Isfahan, rather than MOPs, stemmed from doubts about penetrating its deeper levels, suggesting strategic compromises that may have diluted the operation's impact. The White House's dismissal of the DIA assessment as "flat-out wrong" and a "leak by a low-level loser" underscores internal tensions but does little to refute the evidence of Iran's preparedness.
The strikes' limited success has significant implications. First, they failed to eliminate Iran's nuclear threat, potentially emboldening hardliners who advocate for weaponisation as a deterrent against future attacks. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi's hints at withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signal heightened defiance. Second, the operation strained U.S. credibility. Trump's exaggerated claims, contradicted by the DIA and independent analysts, drew criticism from lawmakers like Rep. Michael McCaul, who noted the strikes were designed for "significant damage," not total destruction. A postponed congressional briefing further fuelled perceptions of obfuscation.
Regionally, Iran's missile retaliation against Israel and a U.S. base in Qatar, coupled with threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, escalated tensions. While allies like Australia and the UK supported the strikes, Gulf states expressed concern over potential Iranian reprisals against U.S. bases in their territories. Anti-war protests in U.S. cities and fears of Iranian cyberattacks highlight domestic and global unease.
The U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were a high-stakes gamble that fell short of their stated goals. Iran's pre-emptive removal of uranium, enabled by possible advance warnings, and the resilience of its underground infrastructure limited the operation to a temporary setback. The disconnect between Trump's triumphalist rhetoric and the DIA's sober assessment underscores the risks of overpromising in complex military endeavours. As Iran vows retaliation and the Middle East teeters on the brink of wider conflict, the strikes may have inadvertently strengthened Tehran's resolve while exposing the limits of U.S. military power against a determined adversary.
"Recent U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities did not eliminate the core components of Tehran's nuclear program and likely delayed it by only a few months, according to an early assessment by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), CNN reported on June 24, citing four sources familiar with the findings.
The analysis, based on a battle damage report from U.S. Central Command, contradicts public statements by President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who claimed the operation had "obliterated" Iran's nuclear capabilities.
"So the (DIA) assessment is that the U.S. set them back maybe a few months, tops," one source told CNN, adding that Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium was not destroyed and that most centrifuges remain "intact."
The White House acknowledged the assessment's existence but strongly dismissed it. "This alleged assessment is flat-out wrong and was classified as 'top secret' but was still leaked to CNN by an anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community," press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. "The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump, and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran's nuclear program. Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000 pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration."
Trump, for his part, stood by his assessment of the mission's success. "I think it's been completely demolished," he said on Tuesday. "Those pilots hit their targets. Those targets were obliterated, and the pilots should be given credit." Asked if Iran could rebuild, Trump responded: "That place is under rock. That place is demolished."
While both Trump and Hegseth praised the strikes as decisive, others expressed caution. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine said it was "way too early" to determine whether Iran retained nuclear capabilities.
Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, former chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also avoided endorsing the president's characterization. "I've been briefed on this plan in the past, and it was never meant to completely destroy the nuclear facilities, but rather cause significant damage," McCaul told CNN. "But it was always known to be a temporary setback."
The DIA's assessment reportedly found that damage at the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan sites was mostly limited to aboveground infrastructure, such as power systems and uranium metal processing buildings. The underground facilities—where Iran's most sensitive nuclear work takes place—were largely unaffected, the sources said.
According to CNN, Israel had been carrying out its own strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities prior to the U.S. operation, but relied on U.S. B-2 bombers equipped with 30,000-pound "bunker buster" bombs to finish the job. Despite over a dozen bombs being dropped on Fordow and Natanz, the sites' key components remain intact, the sources said.
The U.S. also reportedly used Tomahawk missiles launched from a submarine to target Isfahan, rather than deploying bunker busters. A source said this was due to doubts over whether the bombs could penetrate Isfahan's deep underground levels, which are believed to be even more fortified than Fordow.
Two sources also told CNN that Iran likely retains undisclosed nuclear facilities that were not targeted and remain operational.
Meanwhile, classified briefings for lawmakers on the strikes were postponed. The all-Senate briefing was rescheduled for Thursday, and the House briefing's new date remains unclear.
Comments