Dimensions of the Failure of the U.S. Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Program
WANA (Jul 01) – The direct U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities on the tenth day of the Iran-Israel war, aimed at halting or disrupting uranium enrichment, failed to achieve its main objectives despite all the threats and propaganda. Field, intelligence, and political assessments all converge on the conclusion that the operation has effectively failed, even creating new and costly consequences for Washington. The main dimensions of this failure and the resulting concerns can be summarized in several key points:
1. Fordow and Natanz: Key Sites Left Intact
One of the main goals of the attack was to destroy Iran’s enrichment facilities, especially the primary Fordow site and the underground Natanz site. But official reports and post-strike imagery have confirmed these facilities remained completely intact. Their underground design and prior evacuation prevented the bunker-busting bombs from being effective. This failure is not only an operational defeat but also undermines the U.S. claim that these sites are “not impregnable.”
Arak nuclear facility after U.S. strike. Social media/ WANA News Agency
2. The End of the Bunker-Buster Myth
The failure to damage the main facilities carries major strategic consequences for Washington. The long-touted American “bunker-buster” bombs, once considered a powerful deterrent, have been severely discredited. Military analysts warn this failure could reduce allies’ confidence and complicate deterrence calculations not only against Iran but also against other rivals.
Fordow Nuclear facility after U.S. strike. Social media/ WANA News Agency
3. Serious Concern Over Unknown Location of 60% Enriched Material
During the operation, the U.S. hoped to target Iran’s warehouses or facilities storing 60% enriched uranium. But according to Iranian sources—and as confirmed by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi—this did not happen. As a result, concern over the unknown location of this material has actually increased after the strike, becoming an ambiguous but serious threat for the U.S. and Israel. In effect, Iran’s smart relocation of these stocks has preserved its potential nuclear breakout capability.
IAEA Chief: Iran’s Nuclear Capabilities Undeniable, Oversight Must Resume
WANA (Jun 25) – The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) acknowledged that no one can deny Iran’s nuclear expertise and industrial capability. In remarks made after technical inspections of some damaged sites, Grossi said: “We encountered rubble during these visits; there is even the possibility of unexploded ordnance. These inspections are […]
4. Intelligence Failure and Divisions in Washington
The military failure is closely tied to a serious intelligence crisis in Washington. Trump, who designed and executed this attack with backing from parts of the CIA and Pentagon, is now facing internal criticism. Sources close to U.S. intelligence agencies report that initial predictions and assessments of the operation’s success turned out to be wrong, calling the White House’s credibility into question.
5. Congressional Verdict: The Operation Failed
Politically, the failure has become a heated topic in U.S. congressional hearings. In the latest review session, lawmakers from both parties acknowledged that the operation not only failed to stop Iran’s nuclear program but actually increased the risk of direct conflict and Iranian retaliation.
Although Trump has repeatedly tried to spin the operation as a success, insisting several times that it “worked,” he has failed to change their minds.
Did Iran’s Nuclear Industry Collapse or Not?
WANA (Jun 30) – B-2 bombers took off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, flew a 37-hour round trip, refueled multiple times mid-air, and dropped their 15-ton bunker-buster bombs on nuclear sites in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. But now, a fundamental question is being asked — not just in Iran, but in the U.S., […]
This negative assessment could result in limiting Trump’s powers, shifting congressional attitudes toward Iran policy, and even sparking new debates about withdrawing from Middle Eastern conflicts altogether.
In the aftermath of the strike, Iranian officials, both military and diplomatic, adopted a unified stance: stressing that the U.S. had “officially entered the war” and declaring their readiness to respond directly and openly.
The spokesperson for Iran’s Armed Forces General Staff described the attack as a “clear violation of Iran’s sovereignty” and an attempt to “save Israel,” which he said would not only fail but also “expand the range of Iran’s legitimate targets.”
Meanwhile, Iran filed a formal complaint with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN Security Council, emphasizing violations of the UN Charter and Resolution 2231. Domestically, Iran’s parliament called the strike an “attack on Iranian territory,” warning that any aggressor must be “made to regret it.” In fact, Iran’s parliament passed a plan to suspend cooperation with the IAEA without a single dissenting vote.
Incoming Image from Qatar and Report of Missile Impact
On the military front, commanders of the army and the IRGC vowed Iran’s response would be “decisive, targeted, and punitive,” which indeed materialized in Iran’s strike on the U.S. Al Udeid military base in Qatar.
Diplomatically, it is also clear that Tehran is seeking to use this attack to demonstrate its legitimate right to defend its peaceful nuclear facilities and to win political and legal support in international forums.
The U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was meant to project power and deterrence. In practice, it resulted in operational, intelligence, and political failure. The resilience of key sites, the failure to locate the 60% enriched stocks, the erosion of confidence in bunker-buster weapons, and political divisions in Washington all show that instead of containing Iran’s nuclear program, the operation has strengthened Tehran’s position and weakened America’s strategic credibility.
