The United States’ military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities have been framed as a definitive step in curbing Tehran’s atomic ambitions, with President Donald Trump crediting the operation as a ‘monumental’ success. However, analysts caution that while the attacks have significantly damaged Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, the ultimate impact of the strikes remains uncertain. The targeted sites — Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow — are central to Iran’s nuclear program, and while officials describe the damage as ‘extremely severe,’ questions persist about whether the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions have been permanently crippled.
The operation, which occurred in the early hours of Saturday, has drawn mixed reactions from experts and intelligence officials. General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that the initial damage assessments indicated that all three sites were heavily impacted. Nevertheless, he emphasized that the final evaluation of the damage remains pending. Israeli security sources also voiced cautious optimism, suggesting that the attacks may have dealt a serious blow to Iran’s nuclear capabilities but that the country may still retain some of its enriched uranium and centrifuge production facilities.
Experts like Yossi Kuperwasser from the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security argue that the strikes mark a pivotal moment in the geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East. ‘This is a powerful development that significantly weakens the Iranian threat and highlights the deep cooperation between Israel and the United States,’ he stated. However, he also warned that the situation remains fluid, and Iran may yet respond with strategic shifts or retaliatory actions.
Sima Shein, a former senior Mossad official, noted that while the strikes have degraded Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, the country has dispersed its enriched uranium and may have hidden advanced centrifuges in undisclosed locations. This raises concerns about the long-term viability of the attacks in permanently dismantling Iran’s nuclear program. According to Shein, any future diplomatic agreement must ensure the complete removal or seizure of all fissile material from Iran.
Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, proposed a comprehensive strategy for the permanent dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program, emphasizing the necessity of unrestricted inspections and strict enforcement of international sanctions. Meanwhile, Amos Yadlin of the Mind Israel think tank described the action as a ‘game-changer’ in global geopolitics, suggesting that it has sent a strong message to countries such as China and Russia. However, he also cautioned that Iran may seek alternative strategies, such as withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty or a shift in its nuclear posture, to avoid escalating conflict.
As the situation remains tense, analysts stress that the U.S. and Israel must prepare for potential cycles of response and counter-response. Kuperwasser added that unless paired with either a diplomatic agreement or a credible threat of continued strikes, the current military pressure may not lead to a lasting resolution. ‘If there’s an agreement, it must be based on verification — not trust,’ he said, highlighting the importance of continued surveillance and diplomatic cooperation in ensuring long-term stability in the region.