Israeli airstrikes rocked Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but experts question the timing—and the proof.
London and Jerusalem |In a dramatic escalation of Middle East tensions, Israeli warplanes struck deep inside Iran late Thursday, damaging key nuclear sites and killing several top military and scientific figures. It was one of the boldest Israeli operations in years and, by all accounts, a gamble with global consequences.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed the strikes were necessary to “roll back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival.” Iran, meanwhile, denounced the attacks as reckless and retaliated within hours, launching missiles into central Israel.
At the heart of this confrontation lies a thorny question: Was Iran really just months away from building a nuclear weapon?
A Risky Operation
Among the targets hit was the Natanz nuclear facility, a sprawling complex at the centre of Iran’s uranium enrichment efforts. Israel also struck laboratories in Isfahan and the underground Fordo plant locations long suspected by Western governments of playing roles in Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
“Iran has been enriching uranium under the eye of the IAEA,” said Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in a televised address. “This aggression risks unleashing a radiological disaster.”
Iran maintains that its nuclear programme is strictly for peaceful energy purposes, pointing to international inspections and decades of denial of any weapons plans.
But Netanyahu disagrees.
“If not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time,” he warned on Friday. “It could be a year, it could be within months.”
But Where’s the Proof?
The Israeli military claims to have uncovered new intelligence showing “concrete progress” by Iran, including work on a uranium metal core and a neutron initiator two key components of a nuclear device.
Yet experts say this isn’t new.
“Iran has been at near-zero breakout for months,” said Kelsey Davenport, director for non-proliferation policy at the Washington-based Arms Control Association. “That means it could quickly produce enough fuel for a bomb, but there’s no strong evidence it’s actually doing so.”
The term “breakout time” refers to how long it would take Iran to make the fissile material needed for one bomb, if it chose to. The problem, according to U.S. and European intelligence, is that Iran’s programme has grown in capability but not necessarily in intent.
Speaking before Congress in March, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said Iran’s uranium stockpile was at “unprecedented levels for a state without nuclear weapons,” but she stopped short of saying the country had restarted a weapons programme.
“We continue to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon,” she said, adding that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has not reversed a 2003 decision to halt weapons development.
A History of Shadow Games
Iran’s nuclear ambitions have always been cloaked in ambiguity. A decade-long investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found that Tehran pursued weapons-relevant activities until 2003 under a secret initiative known as Project Amad.
While some of those activities may have continued until 2009, inspectors found no credible evidence of work on actual bomb-making after that. The 2015 nuclear deal with strict limits and inspections put further distance between Iran and the bomb. But the U.S. withdrawal from that agreement in 2018 under President Donald Trump unraveled much of that progress.
Since then, Iran has steadily ramped up its enrichment levels first to 20%, then to 60%. Weapons-grade is considered 90%. According to the IAEA’s latest report, Iran now has enough enriched material to potentially make nine bombs, if further refined.
That, the agency said, is “a matter of serious concern”.
Still, the IAEA noted it cannot confirm the peaceful nature of the programme, due in part to Iran’s refusal to cooperate with probes into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.
Damage on the Ground
Israel’s airstrikes reportedly destroyed above-ground facilities at Natanz, including the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant and power infrastructure. While the underground centrifuge halls may have survived intact, the loss of electricity could have damaged sensitive equipment.
“We won’t know the full impact until inspectors gain access,” said Davenport. “It could delay Iran’s progress but it won’t erase it.”
Later on Friday, Iran informed the IAEA that Israel had also targeted Fordo and the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Centre. Israeli military officials said they had dismantled labs and a facility that produced metallic uranium another possible step toward weaponisation.
“So long as Fordo remains operational, the risk remains,” said Davenport. “Iran could escalate its enrichment there or move material to a hidden site.”
Knowledge Can’t Be Bombed
Experts caution that airstrikes may damage facilities and kill scientists but they can’t erase nuclear know-how. Iran’s programme today is far more advanced than it was a decade ago.
“If Israel’s goal is to eliminate the nuclear threat entirely, that’s unrealistic,” said a senior Western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Iran can rebuild. And probably faster than before.”
A Region on Edge
The international response has been cautious but anxious. The IAEA has called for restraint and re-entry into dialogue. Washington has avoided direct involvement, though officials have confirmed coordination with Israeli counterparts.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu says the operation will continue “for as many days as it takes”.
Tehran says it is preparing for more retaliation.
And the world watches, holding its breath.
