Experts have long argued that airstrikes alone would not allow negotiations to permanently close Iran’s nuclear program.
The senator personally explained the US strike over Iran’s nuclear facility
Trump officials gave senators a classified briefing on the US strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
WASHINGTON – A highly politicized debate has unfolded over the impact of the June 21 US airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, raising questions about the targets and expected impacts of the attack.
President Donald Trump claimed Iran’s “major nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and completely wiped out,” and claimed a complete victory at the Awakening of the Strikes. Subsequent scrutiny of that claim during an early assessment from the Intelligence Reporting Agency led Trump and his allies to double and even expand his declaration of success. Defense Secretary Pete Hegses insisted to CNN that the strike “eliminates Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons.”
Iran itself acknowledges the effects of US and Israeli attacks.
But years after Washington withdrew from its nuclear deal with Tehran in 2015, experts and analysts stress that airstrikes alone do not derail Iran’s nuclear ambitions forever, but merely delay nuclear ambitions. Rep. Mike Quigley of D-Illinois reiterated his long-standing understanding in an interview on June 26th.
“The targets are hard targets, deep targets, mobile targets. So it wasn’t meant to eliminate the program,” Quigley told USA Today. “I had no intention of doing anything other than slowing down the program.”
A lawmaker who is on the House of Representatives Intelligence Email Committee and regularly receives Iranian briefings, said, “We’ve been told that the only way to end this (nuclear) program is through many troops that have been on the ground for a long time.”
Corey Hinderstein, former director of the National Nuclear Security Agency’s non-proliferation program, gave a similar tone.
“The traditional wisdom that air attacks alone cannot destroy Iran’s (nuclear) programmes is actually present,” says Hinderstein, now vice president of the Carnegie Fund for International Peace. “Some people say that airstrikes are tactically and strategically successful, but I don’t think the ju-describers have come out about it yet. There’s no information that they really need to believe that this program is gone.”
Third nuclear site, hidden centrifuge, missing uranium
If Iran is equipped with enrichment centrifuges and conversion devices, and if the regime wants to pursue it, it may have another nuclear site that allows it to continue the process of preparing uranium for use in nuclear bombs.
Shortly before Israel launched its air campaign against Iran, the administration told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had a third nuclear enrichment site but did not provide details.
Analysts believe that the private underground facility on Mount Pikakuse, near Natantz’s nuclear power plant, could be even deeper below the surface than the Fodow enriched plants that were severely damaged by the US strike. The Pickaxe Mountain facility was first opened to the public in 2023 by experts who spoke with the Associated Press.
And it is unclear whether Tehran’s approximately 880 pounds of highly enriched uranium was destroyed or buried during the strike. The satellite image shows cargo trucks parked outside the Fordow enrichment plant in the days before the US attack.
According to CNN, US lawmakers explained the intelligence report evaluation of the June 26th and June 27th strikes and called for a full accounting of the materials. Rep. Michael McCall, R-Texas, told the press that the issue of uranium’s whereabouts “emphasizes the importance of negotiating directly with us and directly with us.
However, whether Iran wants to negotiate is another question.
Despite the state’s obligations as a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Iranian Guardian Council approved on June 25th a law halting the state’s cooperation with the IAEA and testing of Tehran’s nuclear sites.
Contributions: Tom Vanden Brook and Cybele Mayes-Osterman, USA Today
Davis Winkie’s role in covering nuclear threats and national security at USA Today is supported by partnership with Autorider Foundation and Journalism Funding Partner. Funders do not provide editor input.
