Has Israel's attack on Iran failed? Fordow nuclear fuel enrichment plant untouched
Israel strikes Iranian nuclear facilities but misses Fordow site
Live Events
Fordow's fortified structure makes it Iran's most secure nuclear site
Fordow's role in Iran's nuclear deterrence strategy
Israel's strategy falls short without neutralizing Fordow
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
Israel launched a large-scale military operation on June 13, 2025, against Iran, targeting nuclear facilities, military leaders, and scientists in an attempt to degrade Tehran's nuclear program. Dubbed Operation Rising Lion , the strikes hit the Natanz enrichment plant and killed high-profile figures, including former Atomic Energy Organization head Fereydoun Abbasi and physicist Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi.Hossein Salami, Commander in Chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who was a target in the Stuxnet virus attack in 2007 by Israel and US was killed in the June 13 attack, with confirmation from Iranian TV updates.Also read: Stocks sell off, oil surges as Israel strikes Iran However, Israel's most critical objective, the destruction of the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP), was missed, leaving Iran's nuclear capabilities largely intact.Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed the operation aimed to 'roll back the Iranian threat' by targeting enrichment facilities, scientists, and missile programs. Yet, Fordow's survival means Iran retains a hardened, underground site capable of producing highly enriched uranium (HEU), a key hurdle in dismantling its nuclear ambitions.Buried deep inside a mountain near Qom, the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant has long been a focal point of Western concerns over Iran's nuclear program. Designed to hold 3,000 centrifuges, Fordow's small scale, just 6 per cent of Natanz's capacity, makes it ill-suited for civilian fuel production but ideal for covert HEU enrichment.Under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran repurposed Fordow as a research center. However, in 2023, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) discovered undeclared modifications for HEU production. By March 2023, inspectors found uranium enriched to 83.7 per cent purity, close to weapons-grade levels.Also read: Trump had warned of 'something big' in the Middle East hours before Israel's strikes on Iran Despite Israel's recent strikes, Fordow's untouched status means Iran can quickly resume high-level enrichment if needed.While Israel successfully struck Natanz, the damage may be temporary. Natanz, Iran's largest enrichment site, has faced multiple attacks in the past, including sabotage and cyber operations, yet Tehran has consistently rebuilt its capabilities. The IAEA confirmed the June 13 strike but reported no radiation leaks, suggesting swift recoverability.Experts argue that without disabling Fordow, Iran's nuclear program faces no existential threat. 'Fordow's mountain-shielded infrastructure makes it nearly invulnerable to airstrikes,' said a former US nonproliferation official. 'As long as it operates, Iran maintains a breakout option.'Tehran has long framed Fordow as a "deterrent" against attacks on its nuclear program. The facility's location on an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) base and its fortified design underscore its strategic role. Analysts suggest Fordow's existence complicates military calculations, as destroying Natanz alone would not cripple enrichment capabilities.Also read: Israel strikes Iran's nuclear sites as hinted by Trump, declares state of 'emergency' Iran's foreign ministry condemned Israel's strikes as "adventurism" and warned of retaliation. However, with Fordow still operational, Tehran retains leverage in any future negotiations or conflicts.Israel's operation highlights a recurring flaw in efforts to halt Iran's nuclear progress: Fordow's immunity. Past attacks on Natanz and assassinations of scientists have delayed but not stopped enrichment. Until Fordow is neutralized, Iran's path to a bomb remains viable.Also read: Trump to attend security meeting on Friday after Israeli strikes on Iran Netanyahu's claim that Iran was 'months away' from a weapon underscores the urgency, but without targeting Fordow, Israel's strike may only buy time rather than deliver a decisive blow. As the IAEA monitors Fordow's ongoing activity, the world watches whether Israel or its allies will risk a more direct confrontation with Iran's most secure facility.1. Why is Iran's Fordow nuclear facility considered so important?The Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant is Iran's most fortified nuclear site, located deep within a mountain near Qom. It is capable of enriching uranium to near-weapons-grade levels and is heavily shielded against airstrikes, making it central to Iran's nuclear breakout potential.2. Did Israel's June 13, 2025, airstrike on Iran damage the Fordow nuclear plant?No, Israel's June 13, 2025, attack did not hit the Fordow nuclear facility. While the strike targeted other sites such as Natanz and resulted in the deaths of top Iranian nuclear scientists, Fordow remained operational, limiting the strike's long-term effectiveness.3. What nuclear sites in Iran were targeted by Israel in 2025?In the 2025 attack, Israel reportedly targeted the Natanz uranium enrichment facility and struck military and scientific personnel involved in Iran's nuclear program. However, the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, Iran's most secure site, was not hit.4. Can Iran still build a nuclear weapon with Fordow intact?Yes, experts believe that as long as the Fordow plant remains active, Iran retains a critical path to developing highly enriched uranium. Its underground design and resistance to military strikes make it a persistent challenge for nuclear nonproliferation efforts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
'US strikes caused significant physical damage but ... ': Iran's nuclear program wiped out? What nuclear watchdog chief said
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi said that US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites would have caused "significant physical damage" but it would be "too much" to say that their nuke program has been "wiped out". Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Centrifuges, which are spinning machines used to enrich uranium, require a high-degree of precision and are vulnerable to intense vibrations, the New York Times cited Grossi saying. "There was no escaping significant physical damage," he said, adding, "So we can come to a fairly accurate technical conclusion." He was cited saying that it would be an exaggeration to claim Iran's nuclear program had been completely 'wiped out' by the Israeli and American airstrikes, given US President Donald Trump's claims that it had been "obliterated". Grossi pointed out that several nuclear facilities remained untouched and that Iranian authorities had informed him of plans to implement 'protective measures' for their existing stockpile of enriched uranium. Moreover, speaking to a French radio station, he said that US strikes "reduced" Iran's nuclear capacities but "it will be much more difficult for Iran to continue at the same pace as before." The comments come in as the effectiveness of US strikes came under question with reports claiming that Iran moved uranium stock pile from the nuclear sites ahead of the attack. The US has, however, dismissed such claims with Trump saying, "The cars and small trucks at the site were those of concrete workers trying to cover up the top of the shafts. Nothing was taken out of facility. Would take too long, too dangerous, and very heavy and hard to move!"
NDTV
33 minutes ago
- NDTV
Explained: What Have The US And Israel Really Achieved In Iran?
As the dust settles over bombed-out Iranian nuclear sites and ceasefire agreements fray at the edges, Washington and Tel Aviv are left to confront a sobering reality. Even after precision strikes and months of planning, Iran's nuclear ambitions may not be dismantled, only delayed and driven further into the shadows. Forty-eight hours after US President Donald Trump ordered strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, he announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel. But even as he spoke, missiles were being exchanged, and both sides accused each other of breaking the truce. Earlier that day, Iran fired missiles at a US airbase in Qatar after advance warning and caused no casualties. In an off-the-cuff moment, Trump told reporters Tuesday morning, "We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the f**k they're doing." What has been visibly achieved appears to be significant. A series of surgical strikes have damaged uranium enrichment and weaponisation infrastructure. "Some of the uranium metal facilities have been destroyed," said Nicole Grajewski, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, as per The New Yorker. "That's actually a pretty good stopgap for some of the weaponisation work." Yet these gains are, at best, partial and temporary. Nicole Grajewski says Iran's uranium stockpile is unaccounted for, and key centrifuge parts haven't been inspected since 2021, keeping fears of a hidden nuclear programme alive. Iran has also shown its resistance to targeted assassinations. After Israeli strikes killed top nuclear scientists, Tehran responded by building a "robust community" of nuclear experts. The threat, therefore, has not been eradicated. It has merely been driven deeper underground. The ceasefire remains tenuous. "In the short term, I think my primary concern is accidental escalation," says Grajewski. Whether from Iranian proxies in Iraq or errant Israeli retaliation, the potential for another spiral into open conflict remains high. In the longer term, the conflict is more paused than resolved. "This ceasefire is not going to eradicate years of shadow war," Grajewski adds. The fundamental issues, chief among them Iran's pursuit of nuclear capability, remain unresolved. Iran's internal political climate is also complicating matters. As the conflict erupted, Iran's parliament was advancing a bill to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). If passed, this would further curtail global oversight of Iran's nuclear ambitions and set the stage for even greater opacity. Iran's regime, deeply bureaucratised and factionalised, is now attempting to project stability both to its domestic population and the international community. At home, the leadership aims to maintain its grip by invoking strength and sovereignty. Abroad, the missile strike on Qatar, telegraphed in advance, functioned more as a signal than an attack. Still, Tehran's fear of regime change is palpable, even though Trump said he "didn't want" one. Israel's strikes hit not just nuclear sites, but also parts of Iran's internal security forces, like the Basij militia. This suggests a clear attempt to weaken the regime's tools of control. If the conflict drags on, it could put serious pressure on Iran's government and threaten its hold on power. "One problem with the discussion of Iranian regime change in the United States," warns Grajewski, "is that it's a goal within itself, but there is nothing with what happens after." Drawing on the chaos that followed American invasion of Iraq, she warned that any vacuum left behind in Iran could invite even harsher repression. Iran's strategy of supporting groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and backing Syria's Bashar al-Assad is starting to weaken. This approach, known as "forward defence", was meant to give Iran power across the region by relying on loyal allies. Now, those efforts are bringing fewer results. With Hezbollah weakened and Syria unstable, Iran has fewer ways to strike back. At the same time, more Iranians, especially reform-minded leaders, are asking why the government keeps spending on wars abroad while the economy and public services at home continue to fall apart. In the end, the US-Israel campaign has managed to contain, not defeat, Iran. Nuclear sites were hit. Military leadership was shaken. But Iran's regime, and its nuclear ambition, remain intact.
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
Despite supplying 90% of its oil exports to China, Iran is weakened now: Helen Thompson
Helen Thompson is Professor of Political Economy at Cambridge University . Speaking to Srijana Mitra Das, she discusses Iran — and why the Tehran conflict is occuing. Q. What is the core of your research? A. Over the last 10 years, my work has primarily focused on the geopolitics and political economy of energy, which includes both fossil fuels and the energy transition . I'm also interested in the historical impact energy has had on economic life around the world and democratic politics, particularly in Western countries. Q. Where does Iran earn its resources from, despite decades of sanctions? A. Since 2018, when Donald Trump withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, Tehran has been principally exporting oil to China — around 90% of Iranian oil exports go there. The fact that the United States being unable to deter Beijing from importing from Tehran is central to the Iranian regime's ability to have some sort of an economic foundation. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo Before that, the sanctions regime on Tehran, although in place since the 1980s, wasn't particularly harsh on oil exports. It took quite a lot of persuasion for the European Union to sign up to the sanctions Barack Obama pushed in 2011-2012 because European governments were too concerned about oil prices to contemplate serious restrictions on Iran — Obama convinced them the US shale oil boom meant despite sanctions, oil prices wouldn't get too hard. Live Events Q. Is this conflict now basically a scramble for Iran's oil? A. I don't think there is fundamentally a scramble for Iran's oil resources going on — although Iran's position as an oil exporter and a state on the Persian Gulf is of immense geopolitical significance. Two current factors are key here. First, Iran's strategic position has deteriorated greatly since the Hezbollah pager attacks — that was the turning point. Tehran had problems post the October 7, 2023 attack. But what changed things was this threat from Hezbollah — which constrained not just Israel but other actors in the region and the US — was eliminated in 2024. There was also the end of the Assad regime in Syria then — and the Russians didn't come to the rescue then. That was another defeat before Israel's air attacks began. There is the Trump factor too — although Donald Trump has an aversion to America actually going to war, he's consistently said Iran can't have nuclear weapons. I think when he stated there were '60 days to negotiate', he meant it. It seems Tehran thought it could drag out negotiations like before — that turned out to not be the case. Iranian leadership made an error of judgement — that gave Benjamin Netanyahu an opportunity to start serious attacks. Q. What are the implications for oil prices now? A. There's been some market responsiveness — it hasn't always been prices going up. It's also been prices coming down when tensions seem lowered or there appears less likelihood of the US becoming very seriously involved. Threats by the Iranian government around closing the Strait of Hormuz also raise oil prices, although there's some bluffing because the Iranians are actually quite dependent on Oman to impact anything effectively there. Despite many threats made over the years, Iran has never actually closed the Strait. Regime change would have a more deleterious effect on oil prices. Q. How would that impact China and Russia? A. They're in a very difficult position — Vladimir Putin has apparently made a strategic judgement that Russia won't go to Iran's aid. The Chinese have been relatively quiet, compared to what could have been said. Given that Iran is a very significant partner for China on energy and Beijing has tried to invest a lot in Iran, regime change in Tehran would be worrying, including for the 'China-Russia-Iran axis'. The last 18 months reflected the China-Russia part of that is quite firm — in many ways, the Ukraine war deepened it. However, the Iran part has become a lot more complicated because Iran is declining while Turkey is the rising power in the Middle East. How Ankara fits into all this will be important for China. Q. How will the energy transition now proceed? A. That is really hard. If it were to succeed — and that's the language used in Britain because it's a legal commitment to net zero by 2050 — that would mean effectively reconfiguring the entire material basis of our like this has ever been tried in human history. The Industrial Revolution only added coal to existing energy sources. There are countries in the Global South where the transition to coal hasn't even happened at scale. So, the immensity of this must be understood. In practice, this means decarbonising electricity rather than electrifying parts of the economy that run on fossil fuels. There's been some success but observing how, say, solar power is generating electricity in China, it's nothing like the capacity China actually has — hydropower does more there. Northern Europe depends climatically on wind but offshore wind is more expensive than solar and the technology for adequate storage isn't here yet. So, the energy transition will take time — while producing economic, political and geopolitical difficulties. Views expressed are personal
