
How Much Damage Has Israel Inflicted On Iran's Nuclear Programme?
Israel's strikes on Iran have targeted several of its nuclear facilities as it claims the country is seeking to develop nuclear weapons -- an accusation Tehran denies.
Experts told AFP that while the attacks had caused some damage to Iran's nuclear programme, they are unlikely to have delivered a fatal blow.
Here is an update on Iran's nuclear sites as of Tuesday.
Israel's operation included strikes on Iran's underground uranium enrichment sites at Natanz and Fordow, and on its Isfahan nuclear site, the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said, citing Iranian officials.
A key, above-ground component of Iran's Natanz nuclear site has been destroyed, including its power infrastructure, the IAEA reported Monday.
The UN watchdog added Tuesday that satellite images indicated possible "direct impacts" on the underground section of the plant, where thousands of centrifuges are operating to enrich uranium.
At the underground Fordow enrichment plant, Iran's second uranium enrichment facility, the IAEA said it observed "no damage" following the attacks.
At the Isfahan nuclear site, however, "four buildings were damaged" -- the central chemical laboratory, a uranium conversion plant, the Tehran reactor fuel manufacturing plant, and a metal processing facility under construction, the IAEA said.
Significant uranium stockpiles are believed to be stored around the Isfahan site.
Ali Vaez, the International Crisis Group's Iran project director, told AFP that if Iran managed to transfer significant quantities to "secret facilities," then "the game is lost for Israel".
Iran's only nuclear power plant, the Bushehr plant, was not targeted, nor was the Tehran research reactor.
While "Israel can damage Iran's nuclear programme... it is unlikely to be able to destroy it," Vaez said, saying that Israel did not have the massively powerful bombs needed "to destroy the fortified, bunkered facilities in Natanz and Fordow".
Destroying those would require US military assistance, added Kelsey Davenport, an expert with the Arms Control Association.
She also noted that Israel's unprecedented attack would not erase the expertise Iran had built up on nuclear weapons, despite killing nine Iranian nuclear scientists.
The IAEA has not detected any increase in radiation levels at the affected sites.
"There is very little risk that attacks on Iran's uranium enrichment facilities would result in a harmful radiation release," Davenport said.
But an attack on the Bushehr plant could "have a serious impact on health and the environment", she said.
After Israel launched its strikes, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said that nuclear facilities "must never be attacked" and that targeting Iranian sites could have "grave consequences for the people of Iran, the region, and beyond".
After the United States under President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew in 2018 from a landmark deal that sought to curb Tehran's nuclear activities, Iran has gradually retreated from some of its obligations, particularly on uranium enrichment.
As of mid-May, the country had an estimated 408.6 kilogrammes (900 pounds) enriched to up to 60 percent -- just a short step from the 90 percent needed for a nuclear warhead.
Iran theoretically has enough near-weapons-grade material, if further refined, for about 10 nuclear bombs, according to the definition by the Vienna-based IAEA.
Iran is the only non-nuclear-armed state producing uranium to this level of enrichment, according to the UN nuclear watchdog.
While the IAEA has been critical of Iran's lack of cooperation with the UN body, it says there are "no credible indications of an ongoing, undeclared structured nuclear programme".
Tehran has consistently denied ambitions to develop nuclear warheads.
But Davenport warned that the strikes could strengthen factions in Iran advocating for an atomic arsenal.
"Israel's strikes set Iran back technically, but politically the strikes are pushing Iran closer to nuclear weapons," she said. A satellite image released by Maxar Technologies showing the Iranian nuclear site of Fordo on June 14, 2025 AFP A satellite image released by Maxar Technologies showing the Iranian nuclear site of Natanz after Israeli strikes AFP A satellite image released by Maxar Technologies showing the Iranian nuclear site in Isfahan after Israeli strikes, on June 14, 2025 AFP A satellite image released by Maxar from June 15, 2025, showing the damage at the Natanz uranium enrichment site AFP

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


DW
24 minutes ago
- DW
'Mixed feelings' in Iran: journalist Gilda Sahebi – DW – 06/17/2025
06/17/2025 June 17, 2025 People in Iran are mostly scared, fearing for their lives, says German-Iranian journalist Gilda Sahebi. They may be hoping that this may be the end of the regime, but though the regime is obviously weak, it is still as repressive as ever.


DW
an hour ago
- DW
Israel-Iran conflict: Where exactly does Trump stand? – DW – 06/17/2025
US President Donald Trump calls himself a "peacemaker" — but also labeled Iran's Supreme Leader an "easy target." So where does he really stand, and are he and Israeli PM Netanyahu on the same page? Israel's assault on Iran was discussed with Washington before it was launched. "There were no surprises here," said Fox News anchor Brett Bair after an interview with US President Donald Trump last Friday. The US government has made clear that it was not actively involved in the attack, though questions arose on whether this would remain so when the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz was rerouted from the South China Sea to the Middle East. And on Tuesday, Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social that the US knew the exact location of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. "He is an easy target, but is safe there," Trump wrote. "We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now." On the campaign trail ahead of the 2024 US presidential election, Trump never tired of repeating that he had no desire to allow the US to get caught up in global military conflicts. In his January 2025 inaugural address, Trump called himself a "peacemaker," pledging to use the might of the US to "stop all wars and bring a new spirit of unity" to the world. Speaking in Saudi Arabia in May, he announced the dawn of a new era of peace in the Middle East. The front page of an Iranian newspaper reporting on recent nuclear negotiations between Washington and Tehran Image: Atta Kenare/AFP/Getty Images What's Trump's stance on Iran? Not much remains of this peaceful attitude in the wake of Israel's full-on assault on Iran. On Monday night, Trump wrote on Truth Social that "everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran." In a previous post, he wrote that he had given Tehran's leaders "chance after chance" to sign a new nuclear deal, warning that if they failed to sign one, Iran would face an attack worse than anything they could imagine. Trump wrote that hardliners who had come out against an agreement "are all dead now," adding, "it will only get worse!" Delegations from both nations have met several times since April, with the aim of negotiating a replacement treaty for the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) deal that Trump withdrew the US from in 2018. Trump claims his aim has always been to ensure that Iran can never build a nuclear weapon — which was also the aim of the JCPOA. Beyond military and civilian targets, Israel's attacks also hit Iranian nuclear sites. An attack on Iran's state broadcaster: Tehran appears incapable of protecting critical infrastructure from Israeli assault Image: IRIB Is Israel leading the US into war? So where does Donald Trump actually stand in this conflict between the hardline governments of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Iran? British-Israeli political scientist Daniel Levy, president of the non-profit research institute US/Middle East Project, suggests Israel may have convinced the US that a military attack against Iran could help advance nuclear talks between Washington and Tehran. Levy also told DW it was no coincidence that Israel had chosen this moment to attack. "I think one of the primary motivating factors for Netanyahu was to act now because were there a break-through in the talks, he would probably feel sufficiently constrained by the Americans not to act." In any case, Trump decided not to red light Netanyahu's attack on Iran, wrote Willian F. Wechsler, in a blog post for the US think tank Atlantic Council, where he is director of the Middle East program. There was no specific demand that Israel refrain from attacking, therefore, "we should assume that Israeli leaders would have interpreted the absence of an American red light as a de facto green light," wrote Wechsler. Trump stuck in the middle In May, Trump made headlines by firing his national security advisor, Michael Waltz, who had created headaches for the administration by erroneously adding a well-known journalist to a chat group discussing secret US military plans on the messenger service Signal. But research by the Washington Post newspaper found that something else had in fact led to Waltz's firing: Trump's advisor is said to have had intense discussions with Prime Minister Netanyahu about possible military options for dealing with Iran — and that, prior to Netanyahu's visit to the White House. The paper wrote that Waltz, "wanted to take US policy in a direction Trump wasn't comfortable with…" Was National Security Advisor Michael Waltz fired for pushing policies Trump wasn't comfortable with? Image: Ben Curtis/AP Photo/picture alliance So where does the US commander-in-chief stand exactly? Does he oppose military action against Iran, or does he see it as grounds for celebration? In Levy's view, the US president is tacking back and forth because his own MAGA (Make America Great Again) base is highly divided on the issue of military deployments in the Middle East. There's "a fissure in MAGA-world," says Levy. On one side, there are those who are all in on Trump's "America first" approach that puts US interests above all else. The last thing this group wants is for the US to become involved in a distant conflict that they feel does not directly affect them. On the other side are Trump's many conservative Jewish-American and evangelical Christian supporters, who believe the US must support Israel — even militarily if necessary — no matter what. Levy says the situation is risky. "There's also a question here of whether the rest of the world will see an America that can be led by the nose into a military confrontation by an ally who acts out of turn," says the political scientist. "That's not a good message to send." Israel-Iran conflict: 'Deciding factor is likely Washington' To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video This article was originally published in German and was translated by Jon Shelton. Edited by: Jess Smee


Int'l Business Times
3 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
Escalation Or Diplomacy? Outcome Of Iran-Israel Conflict Uncertain
Israel has inflicted damage on strategic sites and killed key figures within Iran's military leadership during five days of aerial attacks that showed no sign of abating Tuesday, but whose ultimate outcome is unclear, analysts say. Israel says its offensive aims to eliminate Iran's nuclear programme and ballistic missile production capabilities. The Israeli government has not ruled out triggering a wholesale removal of the clerical system set up after the 1979 Islamic Revolution that has remained implacably opposed to Israel's existence. Yet even if Israel succeeds in ousting Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or killing him, the supreme leader will not necessarily be replaced by more moderate forces and the risk exists of further escalation, analysts warn. Diplomacy, meanwhile, remains at a standstill as Israel pounds Iranian targets and Iran hits back with its own strikes on its foe, heightening fears of a wider and prolonged conflict. In television interviews, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not ruled out killing Khamenei, although a US official said President Donald Trump had vetoed assassinating the supreme leader. Israel, whose intelligence service is widely acknowledged to have deeply penetrated Iran, has killed a host of key figures including the head of the Revolutionary Guards and armed forces in a huge blow. "This is existential, the most profound of all the crises the Islamic republic has faced," said Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa programme at the London-based Chatham House think tank. "This is designed to decapitate the leadership of the Islamic republic and degrade the nuclear and broader capabilities of the regime," she said. Rather than an immediate turnaround, what could result is "an unravelling over time" with the Israeli action putting an "accelerant" on a process of change already happening within Iran due to dissatisfaction with the authorities, she said. For Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Non-proliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, Israel's military operation "is about regime change and not eliminating the nuclear programme". "If the regime falls, then it will be an enormous success," he said of the operation Israel dubbed "Rising Lion" -- a likely reference to the beast which adorned the pre-revolutionary Iranian flag. Even in the event of a change in leadership, Gregory Brew, senior analyst for Iran and energy at risk analysis firm Eurasia Group, said Khamenei could be replaced with a figure who may be even more hardline and pose a greater danger to Israel in the conflict's aftermath. "Kill Khamenei, make him a martyr to the hardliners and empower a new supreme leader who may be much less risk averse. Or leave him to die or resign in likely disgrace after the war, his credibility in ruins. Which move produces a government better suited to Israel's interests?" Brew said. Iran's ability to cause regional mayhem through its proxies Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip has been severely degraded by Israeli operations since October 2023. But Tehran still backs the Huthi rebels in Yemen who have attacked Gulf shipping, while Iran can strike energy facilities or undertake cyberattacks. "It remains to be seen if Iran will seek to engage in grey zone activities, including cyberattacks," said analysts at US-based think tank Soufan Center. Israel's air strikes have put an end, for now, to the latest track of talks seeking to end the standoff over the Iranian nuclear programme, which the West and Israel fear is aimed at making the atomic bomb. Analysts say the future of any diplomatic progress lies with the United States and Trump, who has so far resisted Israeli pressure to become directly involved in the conflict. "Netanyahu's goal is to bring Trump into the war," said David Khalfa, co-founder of the Atlantic Middle East Forum think tank. "But I think he will stand back and let Israel continue to weaken Iran to force it to negotiate" with the Islamic republic in a weaker position, Khalfa said. Israel has hit the Natanz nuclear site during its attacks, but has not been able to strike the Fordo enrichment facility, which is located deep underground. Analysts believe Israel could only damage it with the help of American bunker-busting bombs. Ali Vaez, Iran analyst at the International Crisis Group, argued in an article for Foreign Affairs that Israel would be unable to wipe out the Iranian nuclear programme even in a prolonged conflict. "A diplomatic settlement represents the best and most sustainable way for Trump to avoid both a nuclear Iran and a protracted military entanglement," Vaez said. Iran has also hit Israel AFP Israel has not ruled out seeking to kill the supreme leader AFP Key figures in the Iranian military have been killed AFP