Before and after satellite images reveal scale of destruction from US bombing assault on Iran's nuclear sites
They were the strikes that took Iran – and the world – by surprise. Just days after US President Donald Trump told Iran it had two weeks to negotiate an end to its nuclear program, he announced on social media that the US had struck three key Iranian enrichment sites in the dead of night.
Late on Saturday US time, Trump said the sites at Natanz, Isfahan and 'nuclear mountain' Fordow had been 'completely and totally obliterated', although Pentagon officials said it was too early to assess the destruction, which appeared to be 'extremely severe'.
Loading
Since then, satellite images have emerged which show the devastation wrought by the US and its 13,600-kilogram bunker-buster bombs.
Here's what we know and can identify from the images so far.
Fordow
The enrichment site at Fordow was built secretly, deep inside a mountain to protect it from attacks before it was revealed in 2009. It has been the focus of Israel's efforts to end Iran's nuclear program, but only in these latest strikes has the US deployed B-2 bombers carrying the GBU-57 bunker-busting bomb required to penetrate the underground facility.
Analysis by CNN shows at least six large craters at the site after the US' strike, with grey dust and rubble around the possible entry points for bunker-buster bombs.
The United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said it is unable to assess damage to Fordow because of its underground location and the penetrating nature of the bombs used.
Natanz
Natanz, Iran's largest uranium enrichment site, sustained heavy damage in earlier strikes by the Israeli military.
Following the US strikes, satellite images show two large craters, which appear to have been caused by bunker-buster bombs, above the suspected locations of the complex's underground enrichment halls.
Isfahan
The Isfahan site, believed to be the primary location for Iran's secret nuclear weapon development program, appeared noticeably more blackened and rubble-strewn in satellite images from Sunday. Because Isfahan was attacked with more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles launched from a US Navy submarine, above-ground damage was more visible and straightforward to assess than the other two sites.
Loading
The IAEA has said based on the information available, there appeared to have been extensive additional damage, although it said Iranian nuclear authorities had told it there had been no increase in off-site radiation levels after the US' strikes.
How the US' payload – and decoy – missions unfolded
Under the US' 37-hour round trip mission, dubbed 'Operation Midnight Hammer', B-2 bombers struck the Iranian sites alongside fighter jets, with missiles also launched from a navy vessel in the Arabian Sea.
A feint in which a group of B-2 bombers flew west across the Pacific Ocean as a decoy was used to maintain tactical surprise. Mid-air refuelling points meant US planes did not need to take off from bases on the territory of European NATO allies.
This graphic, which uses US local times, lays out how the mission unfolded.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
Iran's closure of Strait of Hormuz could drive up petrol prices by 70 cents per litre
You may want to fill up your tank today. Iran's threatened closure of the Strait of Hormuz could send petrol prices soaring by up to 70 cents per litre, putting pressure on the RBA to delay further interest rate cuts and driving a sharp fall in global share markets. However, any prolonged disruption would also drag down economic growth and consumer spending, trimming underlying inflation and potentially putting the Reserve Bank in wait-and-see mode, according to AMP chief economist Shane Oliver, who is still leaning towards three more rate cuts this year in July, August and November. 'It's increasingly looking likely we might go into that worst-case scenario and the debate then goes into how long it lasts,' said Dr Oliver, who previously put a closure of the Strait of Hormuz as his 35 per cent 'risk case'. The narrow stretch of water in the Middle East, which connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, is one of the world's most vital shipping channels where 20 per cent of the world's oil and 25 per cent of liquefied natural gas (LNG) flows through daily. The waters are divided between Oman and Iran. At its narrowest, the strait is just 34 kilometres wide. Following US President Donald Trump's strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities on Saturday, Iran's parliament voted on Sunday to close the Strait, as the country's President said the US 'must receive response to their aggression'. While Iranian state media reported that the parliament had agreed to endorse blocking the Strait, the decision ultimately belongs to Iran's Supreme National Security Council — which is expected to make a final decision overnight on Sunday local time, according to Iran's state-run Press TV. 'Suicidal move' The move could block more than $US1 billion in oil shipments per day. Iran's major escalation in response to the US strikes 'will be done whenever necessary', Email Kosari, Commander in the Revolutionary Guards, said on Sunday. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned against closing the strait, calling such a decision an escalation of conflict. 'That would be a suicidal move on their part, because I think the whole world would come against them if they did that,' Mr Rubio told CBS. He earlier called on China to encourage Iran to not shut down the strategic channel after Washington carried out strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine said in a press conference the US was now on 'high alert' for retaliation from Tehran. 'You could face a situation where the US could quickly disable Iran's ability to block the Strait of Hormuz [but] that could still be weeks,' said Dr Oliver. 'It's not actually putting a rope across — they could put mines in it, use missiles and drones to attack shipping, use small speedboats to attack bigger boats, that sort of stuff. They've only got to do it once, just like the Houthis [attacking shipping in the Gulf of Aden]. All you've got to do is do it once, you threaten to do it and ships stay away.' As of Monday morning the Strait remains open and in commercial use, public vessel tracking data show, but shipping organisations and government organisations have urged caution. At least one Chinese oil tanker was observed making a U-turn at the Strait. Chinese are turning around as well.... this is something — Oil Bandit 🛢ï¸� (@OilCfd) June 22, 2025 The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO), one of the largest international shipping associations, has urged caution in the Middle East including the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea, after the Houthis announced renewed targeting of American vessels. 'The Houthi threat against shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden has also gone up,' BIMCO security chief Jakob Larsen told Bloomberg. 'The Houthis now threaten merchant ships with affiliation to Israel or the US, but attacks against merchant ships with other affiliations cannot be ruled out.' Greece's Shipping Ministry has also advised shipowners to 'reassess their transit through the Strait of Hormuz', the outlet reports. '70 cents per litre' Sustained disruption in the Strait of Hormuz could send the global oil price soaring to $US150 a barrel from around $US70 on Friday, according to Dr Oliver. 'Roughly speaking each $US1 a barrel equals one cent a litre,' he said. 'If you go to $US150 you're potentially adding another 60-70 cents a litre.' That would significantly increase headline inflation. Petrol accounts for about 3.5 per cent of the consumer price index (CPI), which rose 2.4 per cent in the 12 months to the March quarter. 'If you push up towards $US100 a barrel and beyond, it will easily add 1 per cent to headline inflation,' Dr Oliver said. 'But it then becomes a question of what the RBA does.' The current cash rate is 3.85 per cent, after a 25 basis point cut by the RBA in May. Three more cuts had been tipped this year to bring the cash rate down to 3.1 per cent. As of Friday, petrol prices had already risen by 10-12 cents per litre amid the Israel-Iran conflict. Dr Oliver said if the impact remained at that level, 'you could get a bit of a boost' to headline inflation but the RBA 'would probably look through that' and likely cut again in July. 'If alternatively we see a clear disruption to trade which goes on for more than few days, then oil prices spike and the RBA could conceivably wait a bit longer,' he said. 'The RBA would also be looking at underlying inflation and may want to wait through. It would be keeping an eye on the impact on the economy. Higher oil prices are effectively a tax on consumer spending and economic growth. Ultimately that could outweigh the impact of higher petrol prices alone and drag down underlying inflation.' Dr Oliver pointed out that while higher oil prices flowing from the war could drag on Australian economic growth via weaker global growth, Australia was relatively well placed as a net energy exporter and so may benefit from higher prices for gas exports. There are also 'lots of issues around that what the Australian dollar does'. 'China, being the largest customer for this oil stands to be the most affected,' Alex Moffatt, director of Melbourne investment firm Joseph Palmer & Sons, said in a note on Monday. 'We can expect our energy stocks to enjoy a hearty rally today and the Aussie dollar to rally on 'safe-haven' buying.' As of Monday morning oil futures were trading at around $US77 a barrel, up around 4 per cent from Friday. 'The risks are obviously increasing, but it's just a lot of noise at the moment,' Dr Oliver said.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
'Very concerning': US challenges 'international norms' with Iran strike
In the lead up to the Iraq War in 2003, United States Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the UN Security Council to present evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which required the US to take military action. The evidence, of course, turned out to be false. But the US was at least going through the motions of following the UN charter: seeking international approval, and making the case for war, before firing a shot. Donald Trump didn't bother with either. In fact, he openly rejected the assessment of his own security agencies that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon, nor planned to. "My intelligence community is wrong," he said. But Trump presented no evidence to support his own, differing assessment. Nor has he made the case as to why the threat of a nuclear armed Iran needed to be solved right now by military, rather than diplomatic, means. There is general agreement in the international community that Iran should not become a nuclear power. Not just because of the immediate threat an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose to Israel and other countries but because it would almost certainly spark a new nuclear arms race in the Gulf and beyond. And there are important questions Iran needs to answer about its nuclear program. Why, for example, does it possess a stockpile of uranium enriched to around 60 per cent, when a domestic nuclear program only requires around 3 per cent enrichment? And why did the International Atomic energy Agency (IAEA) recently find that Iran has not been fully cooperating with nuclear inspectors since 2019? These are important facts. But they are not evidence that Iran was on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon, resulting in the kind of imminent, unavoidable threat that would justify a military strike under the UN charter of self defence. "I can't really find a firm basis for this US action," Don Rothwell, a professor of international law at the Australian National University, said. "The United States has not been subject to an Iranian armed attack, so that removes its right under the UN charter." It puts American allies like Australia in a difficult position. Like other major countries, Australia did not call for the US to enter this war; instead it called for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy. Now that the strike has happened, Foreign Minister Penny Wong says Australia does support the US bombing raid. "The world has agreed Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, so yes, we support action to prevent that, and that is what this is," she told the ABC's AM program. At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council this morning, the US representative Dorothy Shea said the US attack was justified and legal. "This operation sought to eliminate a long standing but rapidly escalating source of global insecurity and to aid our ally Israel in our inherent right of collective self-defence, consistent with the UN Charter," she said. "The time finally came for the United States in the defence of its ally [Israel], and in the defence of our own citizens and interests, to act decisively." Rothwell worries about the precedent that has been set by the US action. "We've seen an erosion of some of these international norms, especially when it comes to the use of force [in] pre-emptive self-defence," he said. "It's very concerning. Because if these states are interpreting their right to exercise self-defence in this way, of course other states will look on and say, 'If the United States can do this, why can't we also use this right of self-defence to disarm our enemies in this way?'"
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
North Korea condemns US strike on Iran
North Korea says it strongly condemns the US strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities as a grave violation of a sovereign state's security interests and territorial rights, the North's state media reports. The United States and Israel are the culprits of the current tensions in the Middle East born out of Jerusalem's "ceaseless war moves and territorial expansion" accepted and encouraged by the West, North Korea's foreign ministry said. "(North Korea) strongly denounces the attack on Iran by the US which ... violently trampled down the territorial integrity and security interests of a sovereign state," the unnamed spokesperson said in a statement carried by KCNA news agency on Monday. "The just international community should raise the voice of unanimous censure and rejection against the US and Israel's confrontational acts," the statement said. Iran and nuclear-armed North Korea have maintained friendly ties and have been suspected for decades of military co-operation including in developing ballistic missiles. A now-defunct panel of experts monitoring UN sanctions said in 2021 the two countries had resumed co-operation on long-range missile development projects, including the transfer of critical parts. "Pyongyang could provide important assistance in helping Iran reconstitute destroyed missile production facilities, including at new sites to avoid scrutiny, perhaps," said Ankit Panda, of the US-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Whether either country would be interested in substantively co-operating on any efforts to rebuild or accelerate Iran's nuclear weapons program is less certain, given the political and military sensitivities over such technology, he said. "There are certain matters pertaining to weapons design that the North Koreans would not want to proliferate because once in Iran, they could be discovered by the United States and potentially assist the US in undermining its deterrent," Panda said. However, Pyongyang has substantive experience in weaponisation and could be able to assist in the non-fissile components of a nuclear bomb, such as the conventional explosives, he added. North Korea has taken unprecedented steps in the past year to deepen military assistance to Russia, another partner of Iran, by sending thousands of troops as well as ballistic missiles and other weapons for use in fighting Ukraine, according to US, Ukrainian, and other intelligence sources.
