Impact of U.S. and Israeli Strikes on Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions

The recent military actions by the U.S. and Israel targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities have raised critical questions about their effectiveness. Jeffrey Lewis, a prominent expert in nuclear nonproliferation and a professor at the James Martin Center, expressed serious doubts over the strikes. In a post on X, he claimed that the attacks failed to hit key components of Iran’s nuclear program, particularly its highly enriched uranium, which is primarily stored in underground tunnels.

Despite extensive assaults on sites like the Fordo facility, key infrastructures remain untouched. Lewis noted that there was no attempt to destroy the underground tunnels or the significant facility adjacent to Natanz—a site crucial for centrifuge production. Satellite imagery released just days before the strikes indicated that significant activity was ongoing at these locations, with trucks seen near the access roads to the complex. Following the attacks, visual evidence showed those trucks had departed, underscoring a potential warning that operational readiness remains intact.

Continued Defiance from Tehran

The Iranian leadership is signaling that their intent to advance a nuclear arsenal remains unwavering. Ali Shamkhani, a close adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, commented that even successful military strikes wouldn’t signify the end of their ambitions. He wrote that the destruction of nuclear sites would not eliminate Iran’s enriched materials, technical know-how, or strong political resolve.

Moreover, an assessment by FilterLabs highlights a growing sentiment among Iranians who believe that possessing a nuclear weapon could provide a deterrent against external threats. Jonathan Teubner, the company’s founder, noted that recent shifts in public opinion may lead many in Iran to advocate for nuclear armament as a means of protection.

Military analysis suggests that these strikes may delay, but not eliminate, Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Darya Dolzikova from the Royal United Services Institute asserts that while some damage may have been inflicted, the long-standing nature of Iran’s nuclear program allows for relatively quick recovery. The deep expertise cultivated over decades in Iran means that even major military actions are unlikely to thoroughly dismantle its nuclear infrastructure.

As the international community closely monitors developments, the question remains: How will Tehran respond to these aggressive tactics? Experts caution that simplistic military solutions risk over-simplifying a complex geopolitical puzzle. While the U.S. and its allies grapple with strategies to impede Iran’s nuclear advancements, the underlying reality is that knowledge and willpower often prevail where physical destruction falls short.