
How Israeli strikes dealt a serious blow to Iran's nuclear ambitions
Israel's sweeping attack across Iran struck at the heart of Tehran 's nuclear program, delivering a blow to the country's ability to enrich uranium and potentially setting its nuclear ambitions back by months or years.
As well as killing key military figures and nuclear scientists, the Israeli strikes destroyed part of a plant that was enriching uranium to levels far beyond the requirements for nuclear-fueled power stations. The attacks also destroyed backup power for the underground section of the plant, potentially damaging more sensitive equipment.
Iran's nuclear program has progressed rapidly since 2018, when the U.S. withdrew from a deal to limit Tehran's capacity to enrich uranium, which is necessary to build a nuclear weapon. Iran maintains that its program is peaceful, but the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly warned that the country has enough enriched uranium to make several nuclear bombs if it chose to do so.
Nuclear regulators said the assault was unlikely to lead to increased levels of radiation, even at the site where part of the fuel-enrichment plant was destroyed.
Here's a closer look at the attack and its likely effects on Iran's nuclear efforts.
What impact will the attacks have on Iran's nuclear program?
Israel killed top military figures and nuclear scientists and destroyed part of a key enrichment site. There is 'no question' it did substantial damage, said Fabian Hinz, an expert on Iran's nuclear program at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London.
David Albright, a nuclear weapons expert, speculated that the initial wave of attacks could set back any Iranian attempt to develop a nuclear weapon by about a year.
A key question, Hinz said, is whether Israel also targeted suppliers of specialist components such as centrifuges and subcontractors.
Israel's strategy appears to be to 'destroy the brains' behind the program and 'as much equipment as possible,' said Albright, who agreed that Israel has potentially done a 'tremendous amount of damage' to the program.
Israel is widely believed to be behind a series of attacks in recent years that targeted Iranian nuclear scientists and sabotaged nuclear facilities.
What damage was done to Iran's nuclear facilities?
Hinz suggested a key Israeli goal was to undermine Iran's ability to make centrifuges, which are critical for enriching uranium. Uranium enrichment is a key component of building a nuclear weapon, but weapons also require detonators and a means of delivery, like missiles.
Iran has two uranium-enrichment sites, and the country said Wednesday that it has built and will activate a third enrichment facility.
On Thursday, Israel struck Iran's main and oldest facility in Natanz, 220 kilometers (135 miles) southeast of Tehran, which was protected by anti-aircraft batteries, fencing and Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard.
The IAEA's chief, Rafael Grossi, told an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Friday that the above-ground part of the plant where uranium was enriched up to 60% was destroyed, along with electrical infrastructure, including a substation, the main electric power supply building, the emergency power supply and backup generators.
Grossi said there were no changes to radiation levels following the attack or any indication of damage to the underground section of the plant. That part of the facility is buried to protect it from airstrikes and contains the bulk of Natanz's enrichment facilities, with 10,000 centrifuges that enrich uranium up to 5%, Albright said. However, Grossi said, the loss of power may have damaged centrifuges.
There is a good chance the strikes still caused 'massive damage," Hinz said because many of the centrifuges were probably operating at the time of the strike.
Centrifuges, Albright said, 'don't like vibration," and the shock waves or loss of power could break delicate parts when they are rotating at high speed.
What about the Fordo nuclear site?
Most of Iran's centrifuges are in Natanz, the experts said, because a lot of them are required to enrich uranium to 5% — which is the maximum level normally used for nuclear-fueled power stations.
But, buried under a huge mountain at Fordo, around 100 kilometers (60 miles) southwest of Tehran, is another nuclear facility where Iran is also enriching uranium to 60%, which is only a short step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. According to the IAEA, Tehran has the largest number of its most powerful centrifuges at Fordo.
An Iranian news outlet close to the government reported Friday that two explosions were heard near the Fordo site. But, while Israel could potentially hit the entrance to Fordo and temporarily block access, it is not believed to have the type of earth-penetrating bombs required to blow up the mountain and crack open the nuclear facility inside, Hinz said.
That capacity lies with the U.S., which has developed a massive bomb that can be dropped only from large aircraft that Israel does not have in service, he said.
The potential for more strikes loomed large. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the attacks will continue 'for as many days at it takes to remove this threat.'
Hinz said the attacks showed Israeli intelligence had 'absolutely exceptional' knowledge of Iran's nuclear program and the ability to strike at key targets 'with precision.' That could mean Israel could sabotage the plant, rather than trying to blast the mountain open. Albright suggested Israel could try to cut off electricity to Fordo, which could lead to centrifuges breaking.
Is there risk from radiation?
Although Grossi said part of the enrichment facility at Natanz was destroyed, he noted that radiation levels had not spiked.
Even if radiation did leak, experts said, the amount would be unlikely to pose a risk to people in the region or even those near the facilities that got hit.
'Very little uranium will be released in these kind of attacks,' Albright said.
Uranium itself is not especially toxic, he said, and is common in parts of the environment. A person standing near an enrichment facility with a leak would probably be exposed to no more radiation than someone who took several transatlantic flights, which receive slightly higher radiation because radiation doses are larger at high altitudes, he said.
In order to become sick, someone would have to ingest large quantities of uranium, Albright said, pointing out that the element can be found naturally in seawater and the earth's crust.
Rather than radiation, the greater risk might be from fluorine, which is used to enrich uranium and could have been deadly to those nearby if released during an attack.
Fluorine is mixed with the uranium during enrichment to turn it into a gas called uranium hexafluoride. It is extremely volatile, will quickly corrode and can burn the skin. It is especially deadly if inhaled.
___
The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
___
Additional AP coverage of the nuclear landscape: https://apnews.com/projects/the-new-nuclear-landscape/
Hashtags

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


The Guardian
24 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘We know Iran is a threat': Australia backs Israel's ‘right to self-defence' but won't play a military role in conflict
Australia has backed Israel's right to self-defence after strikes on Iranian nuclear operations and military leaders that have sparked a barrage of retaliatory fire. Iran and Israel have targeted each other with missile and airstrikes after the latter launched its biggest-ever air offensive against its long-time foe. The Australian foreign affairs minister, Penny Wong, said the situation in the Middle East was a 'very perilous, risky' situation. 'Israel has a right to self-defence,' she told ABC's Insiders program on Sunday. 'We know Iran is a threat. We know that its nuclear program poses a threat to international peace and obviously to Israel.' Wong confirmed she had spoken with her Iranian counterpart and urged his country to 'return to diplomacy and dialogue'. 'Continuing to escalate this has consequences for all peoples of the region,' she said. 'That is a position that so many countries in the world are putting to, not only the Iranians, but also to the Israelis.' Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Australia on Wednesday announced sanctions would be imposed on two Israeli government ministers over their stance on illegal West Bank settlements, a move done in conjunction with other nations including Canada and the United Kingdom. But it has widened the nation's rift with the US over Israel after the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, condemned the measure. Wong said the decision to break away from the US and sanction senior Netanyahu government ministers wasn't taken lightly. Asked if Australia had weakened its influence with both Israel and the US on a two-state solution as a result of the split, the foreign affairs minister said extremist settler violence wasn't consistent with the aspiration of Palestinian statehood. 'We're so far from that right now [two-states] but that is why the international community is trying to work together to build this pathway,' she said. The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, urged Australians in the region to leave amid the escalating conflict. 'It's obviously a very volatile situation,' he told reporters in Seattle on Saturday local time. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Albanese said officials were monitoring the situation but there had been no request for defence involvement. 'Australia does not play a role in this military conflict,' he said. 'I wouldn't expect that there would be a request for Australia to play a military role, but we will continue to play a role in terms of looking after Australian citizens.' The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is providing assistance to Australians on the ground. The US was notified about the Israeli strikes in advance but Washington officials have been quick to point out it played no part in the attacks, warning Iran not to target its personnel or interests. Albanese landed in the US on his way to the G7 summit in Canada on Sunday. He is expected to meet with a range of global leaders, including the US president Donald Trump, who had been working with Iran on a nuclear deal. Tariff discussions are expected to take the spotlight but defence talks could also feature after the US urged Australia to increase defence spending to 3.5% of GDP. Australia is already forecast to grow military spending to 2.3% of GDP and Albanese insisted his government would give 'whatever capability Australia needs to defend our national interest'.


The Guardian
24 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Iran and Israel launch fresh exchange of missiles
Iran and Israel have exchanged missile fire for the third consecutive day. In Iran, Israeli strikes left an oil depot engulfed in flames. In Israel, explosions were heard in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.


Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Trump's Iran remarks let him still play 'good cop' to Netanyahu's 'bad cop'
Why you can trust Sky News Reading between the lines of President Trump's social media posts is an art, not a science. But whether by intention or not, there is always insight in his posts. His Truth Social words reacting to the Israeli attack on Iran are intentionally ambiguous. When was he told by Israel that they would strike Iran? Did he give them a green light, or was it more amber? Israel-Iran live: Missile from Iran and Yemen 'hitting Israel' Was his insistence, as recently as 48 hours ago, that a strike would "blow" the chances of a deal with Iran actually just a ruse to afford Israel the element of surprise? That's what the Israelis are claiming. Clearly, President Trump does not want to give the impression that his 'don't strike' advice was ignored by Netanyahu. His social posts are filled with enough ambiguity to allow him to maintain his good cop stance alongside Netanyahu, the bad cop: "I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. I told them, in the strongest of words, to 'just do it'..." Trump's 'art of the deal', whether it be in real estate or nuclear weapon negotiations, requires unpredictability and ambiguity. Both of those, as it happens, are useful to hide ineptitude too. The line between diplomatic masterstroke and disastrous diplomacy is thin. The president is claiming that the Israeli attacks make a deal more, not less, likely because of the pressure Iran will now be under. Maybe, but many regional watchers are very unconvinced. An alternative path to negotiations for Iran would be to go fully down the North Korea route, comforted in the knowledge that China - as a big Iranian oil customer - and Russia - as a weapons customer - will be on side. Trump may think that the pressure of bombardment will force Iran to heel. But the other pressure the Iranian supreme leader is under is the pressure of survival. Self-preservation necessitates the Iranian response that we're now seeing before any prospect of renewed negotiations can come. 2:33 The Israelis and the Americans are calculating that Iran and its proxies are now sufficiently degraded, and so the response will be limp and containable. They might be right in terms of conventional attacks, but asymmetrical operations are another fear - against Israeli targets or more broadly, softer Western targets in the region or beyond. Step back from the chaos of the past 24 hours. The broader picture here is regime change. Netanyahu said as much in his Friday speech, calling for an internal uprising. He ignored history - which suggests people tend to rally round their flag - but more than that, that foreign air strikes alone don't work. Look at Libya in 1986, Iraq in 1991, or Yugoslavia in 1999. Netanyahu wants to go further. Will he take out the supreme leader? Trump does not want another full-scale conflict in the Middle East. Of all the things he is accused of being, a hawkish warmonger he is not. But there are plenty of politicians on Capitol Hill - on both sides of the divide - who support regime change in Iran. I was at an event in Congress in December organised by Iranian exiled opposition leaders. I was struck by the cross-party support for regime change in one form or another. Israel this weekend announced that its military had achieved total air superiority from western Iran to the capital Tehran. That's remarkable. Could Trump be persuaded to pursue regime change? Peace, eventually, through strength? His motto adapted.