Despite President Donald Trump’s assertion that US airstrikes have ‘obliterated’ Iran’s nuclear facilities, satellite images reveal minimal damage to the underground sites, indicating that the impact on the nuclear program is only temporary. However, this does not necessarily imply that the Israeli-American campaign against Iran has not achieved its goals.
In contrast to President Donald Trump’s assertion that US airstrikes have “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear facilities, satellite imagery has revealed only minor damage rather than total destruction.
The United States targeted Iran’s nuclear sites at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan using 30,000-pound ‘bunker buster’ bombs and submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles. The main objectives were the underground enrichment facilities, stored enriched uranium, and centrifuges.
Satellite images from the three locations hit by the United States show significant disruption, but not permanent damage, according to Y Nithiyanandam, the Head of the Geospatial Research Programme at the Takshashila Institution.
Although both Israel and the United States have asserted the elimination of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, independent evaluations of the evidence indicate that the setback is merely temporary.
The high-resolution satellite imagery currently available indicates noticeable above-ground damage; however, there is no evidence yet regarding the effects on underground facilities, as stated by Nithiyanandam.
This analysis aligns with the assessment from the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reported by CNN, which indicated that US strikes did not eliminate the essential components of the Iranian nuclear program situated deep underground. The assessment also noted that the stockpile of enriched uranium remained intact and that centrifuges were not destroyed.
Despite the limited extent of the damage, it is improbable that Iran will shift towards developing a nuclear weapon as a desperate measure to restore deterrence, given that such capabilities are undermined by Israeli air superiority and the ability of Israel to strike anywhere within Iran at will, according to Kabir Taneja, a West Asia scholar and Deputy Director of the Strategic Studies Programme at the Observer Research Foundation (ORF).
‘Severe but not irreversible damage’: Evidence contradicts Trump regarding US strikes
Of the three nuclear facilities, Fordow is considered the most fortified. Depth estimates have varied from 60-100 meters to half a mile below ground.
The site is not buried under dozens or hundreds of meters of soil, but rather solid concrete, which can only be breached by American 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs, as previously stated by Daphne Richemond Barak, an Israeli expert in underground warfare, to Firstpost.
The United States targeted the Fordow and Natanz sites with 14 such bombs. Current evidence indicates that the outcomes were at best moderate and at worst disappointing.
“At Fordow, satellite imagery reveals at least six crater-like formations in the rugged mountainous area near what is believed to be the entrance of the facility. Furthermore, Nasa’s Fire Information for Resource Management System (Firms) identified a significant heat signature approximately 3 kilometers north, potentially indicating a detonation point that could have caused a shockwave deep within the site,” states Nithiyanandam, a geospatial intelligence analyst at Takshashila.
If that explosion impacted core structures, the operational disruption could be substantial, although this remains speculative without internal visuals, according to Nithiyanandam.
Likewise, above-ground damage is observable in satellite images of Isfahan, continuing from prior Israeli strikes, and above-ground damage is also evident at the Natanz facility, though underground damage remains uncertain.
Regarding the Natanz site, Nithiyanandam notes that two distinct impacts are visible on the surface.
Nithiyanandam informs Firstpost, “One impact is located above the suspected site of the underground facility, indicating a potential direct effort to disrupt underground operations. However, without subsurface verification, it is unclear whether the internal systems were affected.”
Overall, Nithiyanandam asserts that given the complexity and construction of these Iranian facilities, designed to endure assaults, it cannot be determined from the current evidence that they have been permanently incapacitated.
Nithiyanandam further states, “The strikes likely resulted in operational halts and necessitated emergency protocols, but whether the infrastructure is functionally neutralized necessitates ground-level evaluations. As a geospatial analyst, I would argue that the imagery shows significant disruption but not irreversible harm.”
Does non-irreversible harm indicate a failure on the part of the US and Israel? Since the primary objective of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the conflict with Iran was to dismantle the nation’s nuclear program, the inability to neutralize nuclear capabilities would suggest a failure of the war; however, the situation is more complex.
There have been longstanding concerns — even prior to Israel’s military engagement with Iran — that Iran might opt to pursue a nuclear weapon to re-establish deterrence if its conventional military capabilities were significantly diminished. Now that Iran finds itself in a precarious position, with its military severely impacted, air defenses nearly obliterated, and leadership largely decimated, fears have escalated that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei may ultimately authorize the development of a nuclear weapon.
However, Taneja, a scholar of West Asia and Deputy Director of the Strategic Studies Programme at the think tank ORF, argues that the situation is not straightforward.
Taneja informs Firstpost, “Iran is unlikely to engage in further political or nuclear brinkmanship. Dialogue will be restricted. They will hasten to create the bomb if possible, but they face a significant challenge in the form of Israeli air superiority throughout the nation, which will likely hinder such progress. If Israel can maintain air dominance over an extended period and continue its bombardment of Iran, it will be exceedingly challenging for Iran to develop the bomb — at least in the near term. Currently, Iran lacks a response to Israeli airstrikes.
In any event, Taneja asserts that the Iranian nuclear program has been delayed by a minimum of two to two and a half years.
This outcome may be satisfactory for Israel, as Barak, an expert in Israeli underground warfare, previously mentioned to Firstpost.
“In such a scenario, it might seem that Israel has suffered a loss, but that is not the reality. Even without the destruction of Fordow, Israel has diminished Iran’s capabilities and postponed the Iranian nuclear program by several years. This is a sufficiently favorable outcome for Israel, short of the total annihilation of nuclear capabilities,” stated Barak, who is a professor of international relations at the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy & Strategy at Reichman University in Israel.
Rather than relying on satellite imagery, Nithiyanandam suggests that the determination of whether the US strikes were successful, and to what extent, may be found in the radiation detection surrounding the targeted sites.
Following the US strikes on the locations in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, no significant radiation has been observed. Nithiyanandam posits that this could indicate one of three possibilities.
“It could imply one of three scenarios. First, the stockpiles were not located at the intended sites. Second, the stockpiles remained intact due to their secure underground positioning. Third, the stockpiles were relocated prior to the strikes,” Nithiyanandam explains.
According to the DIA assessment reported by CNN, the stockpile of near-weapons grade uranium was removed from the targeted locations and was not destroyed. If this assessment holds true, it would suggest that the military efforts of the US and Israel indeed fell short of their primary objective. However, this may only represent a tactical setback, as Netanyahu and Trump remain focused on the larger goal of toppling Khamenei’s regime.
“Both Israel and the United States are earnest regarding regime change, or at least wish to appear so, yet they cannot openly and explicitly express this intention. Should regime change occur, I believe neither party would object. However, President Trump is unlikely to invest in that process, as it would result in a domestic catastrophe for him. I perceive that the Israelis are more actively engaged. Once again, he prefers to have the Israelis handle the more controversial aspects while providing support from the background rather than taking the lead in any such endeavor,” states Taneja.
