Middle East conflict: U.S. President Donald Trump announced on June 21 that American military forces had conducted what he called a “very successful attack” on three of Iran’s key nuclear facilities — Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.
On his Truth Social platform, Trump declared, “A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow… Monumental Damage was done… Obliteration is an accurate term!” According to him, the strikes had struck deep into the hardened underground bunkers, which are considered the core of Iran’s uranium enrichment infrastructure.
But within hours of his triumphal announcement, a flurry of contradictory reports, satellite imagery, and expert analyses painted a far more uncertain picture — one in which the efficacy of the strike, and its consequences, remain far from clear.
According to Gen. Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, seven U.S. Air Force B-2 stealth bombers launched from Whiteman Air Force Base dropped a total of 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs) — 13,000-kg bombs designed to burrow through reinforced concrete and deep into mountainsides — on the Fordow and Natanz sites. Additionally, nearly two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from U.S. Navy submarines at the Isfahan complex.
This marks the first confirmed operational use of the MOP bomb in combat — a weapon explicitly designed for this type of scenario: destroying deeply buried and hardened targets, such as Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
At first glance, it seemed to be a masterstroke of precision military force. But in the days following the attack, cracks began to appear in the narrative of total destruction.
Iranian officials, in a move that many initially dismissed as propaganda, quickly claimed that they had evacuated enriched uranium and sensitive materials from these sites ahead of the attacks. Hassan Abedini, a senior figure in Iran’s state broadcasting apparatus, said, “The enriched uranium reserves had been transferred from the nuclear centres.”
This assertion was unexpectedly supported by satellite imagery dated June 19, just two days before the U.S. strikes, showing convoys of vehicles departing the Fordow facility. Similar movements were observed at Natanz and Isfahan, suggesting that Iran may have anticipated the attack — or at least deemed it probable enough to relocate critical assets.
If true, this would constitute a significant strategic victory for Tehran. The U.S. may have hit empty bunkers, damaging infrastructure but leaving the core of the nuclear program — enriched uranium and centrifuges — largely intact.
Post-strike satellite imagery tells a mixed story.
At Fordow, six fresh craters are visible around the site, likely entry points for the bunker buster bombs. The surrounding dust and debris indicate powerful explosions. Analysts suggest the targets included ventilation shafts — vital for the operation of underground centrifuges. But critics argue these shafts would have been engineered to withstand shockwaves and thermal effects.
At Natanz, satellite photos reveal two craters directly above underground enrichment halls and damage to above-ground facilities — much of which had already suffered in previous Israeli drone strikes.
Isfahan, meanwhile, appears to have sustained the most visible damage. Eighteen structures were destroyed or heavily damaged, and evidence suggests that suspected tunnels used for storing enriched uranium were targeted. However, no independent verification confirms whether the actual enriched uranium stockpile was destroyed.
Perhaps the most troubling uncertainty surrounds Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium (HEU). Multiple analysts — including Dr. Jeffrey Lewis of the Middlebury Institute and David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security — believe that the uranium was likely moved before the strikes.
Lewis noted, “Despite extensive Israeli and U.S. attacks on the Isfahan facility, there does not seem to have been any effort to destroy the underground tunnels near the Uranium Conversion Facility where the 400 kg of HEU was stored.” He warned, “We still don’t know where it is.”
Albright echoed this concern, saying that Iran’s program has always relied on dispersed, compartmentalized elements — including secret stockpiles and undeclared enrichment sites. “It could be possible to transfer the uranium to a different, secret location where it might be enriched to the 90% level needed for a nuclear weapon in a comparatively short amount of time,” he warned.
This uncertainty casts a long shadow over Trump’s proclamation of success.
Chinese experts also cast doubt on the effectiveness of the strikes. Li Zixin of the China Institute of International Studies said, “Even with bunker-buster bombs, it would be very difficult to destroy the Fordow nuclear facility because it is located almost 100 meters underground.”
Zhang Junshe, a senior military analyst in Beijing, added that Iran’s engineers “knew exactly what kind of threat they were up against” and would have designed the facility accordingly.
Meanwhile, Russia’s former president Dmitry Medvedev took to social media to condemn the U.S. action. In a provocative statement, he warned that “the enrichment of nuclear material — and the future production of nuclear weapons — will continue,” and that unnamed countries were “ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.”
Though Medvedev is infamous for rhetorical excesses, his comment reflects growing Russian-Iranian alignment and may signal an escalatory stance from Moscow if hostilities intensify.
Interestingly, Vice President J.D. Vance took a far more restrained tone than his president. Speaking to ABC News, he said he was “not exactly sure” whether Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile had been destroyed. He hinted at further diplomacy: “We’re going to work in the coming weeks to ensure that we do something with that fuel.”
The discrepancy between Trump’s triumphant tone and Vance’s ambiguity has led some to question whether the White House is unified in its post-strike assessment — or if deeper concerns remain hidden behind public bravado.
Predictably, Iran has promised retaliation. Its UN ambassador warned that “all options” are on the table, and that the response would be “proportionate and decisive.” Already, reports are emerging of a fresh Israeli strike on Fordow. Iranian sources claim the facility was targeted again, likely due to persistent doubts over the first wave’s effectiveness.
With over 40,000 U.S. troops stationed across the region — from Qatar to Kuwait and Bahrain — the risk of retaliation is significant. Experts believe Iran could:
- Launch missile or drone attacks on U.S. bases.
- Activate proxy militias in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, or Yemen.
- Disrupt maritime shipping in the Strait of Hormuz — a narrow waterway that sees 20% of global oil trade pass through.
- Any of these actions would risk regional escalation and potentially draw the U.S. into a broader conflict.
On June 23, Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), weighed in. He said that “very significant damage is expected to have occurred,” particularly to centrifuges, which are extremely sensitive to shock and vibration.
However, Grossi also admitted that no international body has been able to conduct an onsite inspection. As such, the true extent of the damage — or lack thereof — remains a matter of speculation.
As the dust settles, the big question remains: Was this a tactical success but a strategic blunder?
Despite impressive footage and dramatic announcements, the core of Iran’s nuclear capability — the stockpile of HEU and the ability to enrich more — may have survived. If Iran did in fact anticipate the strike and evacuate critical components, then Trump’s “obliteration” may turn out to be a costly show of force that failed to achieve its strategic aim: halting Iran’s nuclear weapons trajectory.
Worse, the attack may push Iran to abandon whatever remains of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or nuclear safeguards, arguing — as it already has — that it was the victim of an unprovoked act of aggression.
And then there is the regional fallout. By directly attacking Iran, the U.S. has now entered a high-stakes game of deterrence and counter-deterrence, one that threatens to engulf the Middle East — and perhaps beyond — in conflict.
As of June 23, 2025, the U.S. government insists that its operation was a success. But with Iran’s core nuclear assets potentially intact, and with regional tensions surging, many experts remain unconvinced.
“Iran’s nuclear program can be reconstituted,” David Albright warned. “If the goal was total destruction, I don’t think that has been achieved.”
