The recent coordinated attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities by Israel and the United States have dramatically escalated tensions in the Middle East and reignited global debate over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
The strikes targeted key sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—facilities central to Iran’s uranium enrichment and nuclear research programs. However, the aftermath has been marked by sharply conflicting narratives from Washington, Jerusalem, and Tehran, each offering a different assessment of the operation’s effectiveness and its implications.
The Attacks: What Happened?
The escalation between Israel, Iran, and the United States in June 2025 unfolded through a series of major military operations, each with its own codename and strategic objectives.
Israel “Operation Rising Lion”
On June 13, 2025, Israel launched “Operation Rising Lion,” a meticulously coordinated air and missile campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and military command. Israeli forces struck deep inside Iran, involved precision airstrikes, drone swarms, and special forces targeting key nuclear infrastructure and military command.
In the first 24 hours of Operation, over 200 Israeli combat aircrafts, including F-15I, F-16I, and F-35I jets struck more than 100 targets across Iran, focusing on nuclear and military sites like Natanz and Isfahan.
The following two days saw additional waves of about 50 aircraft each, with repeated strikes on Natanz and other nuclear facilities. By June 15, Israel had hit over 250 targets and expanded attacks to Iranian oil, gas, and government infrastructure, reportedly including the Ministry of Intelligence in Tehran.
Prime Minister Netanyahu described the operation as a pre-emptive move to neutralize Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, citing existential threats to Israel.
Also Read: Israel ‘Operation Rising Lion’ means “Regime Change” in Iran
Iran “Operation True Promise 3”
In response to the Israeli assault, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched “Operation True Promise 3,” firing retaliatory missile and drone strikes at Israeli targets. These attacks aimed to demonstrate Iran’s capacity for rapid retaliation and to signal that it could strike back at both military and civilian infrastructure.
The codename “True Promise” was first used for Iran’s direct attack on Israel in April 2024, and six months later, Iran launched “Operation True Promise 2,” firing around 200 ballistic missiles at Israeli targets.
These targeted assaults, now known to have reached 22 distinct operational waves, dismantled key Israeli military, intelligence, and technological infrastructure, leading to a pressured halt in hostilities.
U.S. “Operation Midnight Hammer”
In the early hours of June 22, 2025, U.S. forces launched Operation Midnight Hammer, a major airstrike targeting Iran’s critical nuclear infrastructure. The operation aimed to significantly degrade Tehran’s uranium enrichment capabilities and delay any progress toward nuclear weaponization.
It marked the first combat use of the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), the U.S. military’s largest bunker-busting bomb, designed to penetrate deep underground facilities.
The strikes focused on three key nuclear sites in Iran:
Fordow Uranium Enrichment Plant: Situated about 260 feet underground inside a mountain near Qom, Fordow is one of Iran’s most fortified uranium enrichment facilities. The U.S. dropped twelve GBU-57 MOP bombs sequentially on two ventilation shafts to penetrate the mountain and damage the underground centrifuge halls.
Natanz Nuclear Facility: Iran’s primary uranium enrichment site, Natanz had already been damaged by Israeli strikes earlier in June. The U.S. dropped two MOP bombs on Natanz and launched Tomahawk cruise missiles to further degrade its enrichment infrastructure.
Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center: This complex includes uranium conversion plants, a chemical laboratory, centrifuge manufacturing, and fuel production facilities. Tomahawk missiles targeted Isfahan’s infrastructure to disrupt Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle and related activities.
Conflicting Claims and Confusion?
United States’s Claim: President Donald Trump declared the strikes “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities, asserting that the operation significantly set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Pentagon officials described the damage as “extremely severe,” emphasizing the unprecedented use of the MOP bombs.
On June 22, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated in a Pentagon press conference that it was “an incredible and overwhelming success.” General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the attacks were designed “to severely degrade Iran’s nuclear weapons capability” but declined to comment on what nuclear capability remained at the sites.
General Caine noted that battle damage assessments were still pending. The Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Tulsi Gabbard, has stated that Operation Midnight Hammer successfully destroyed Iran’s nuclear facilities, specifically referencing the Natanz, Fordow, and Esfahan sites. She criticized media reports suggesting the damage was less severe, claiming they were based on leaked classified assessments with “low confidence”. Gabbard also emphasized that rebuilding these facilities would take years.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe in a statement said that a “body of credible intelligence” indicates Iran’s nuclear program was severely damaged by US strikes. He stated that “This includes new intelligence from a historically reliable and accurate source/method that several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years,”.
Also Read: Did Israel, U.S. Airstrikes Push Iran Toward Nuclear Weapons?
Iran’s Claim: Iranian authorities denied significant damage, claiming that sensitive materials and personnel had been evacuated beforehand. Tehran asserted that the attacks caused only superficial damage and vowed to rebuild and accelerate its nuclear program. Iran also launched retaliatory missile strikes against U.S. bases in the region.
On June 22, Israeli military officials told the New York Times that the Fordow nuclear site was heavily damaged but not destroyed. They also suggested Iran may have moved uranium stockpiles from the site before the attack. Regardless, it is unlikely that uranium enrichment will resume at Fordow in the near future.
Israel’s Claim: Israel welcomed the U.S. strikes as complementary to its own earlier Operation Rising Lion, which had targeted many of the same sites. However, Israeli experts expressed caution, noting that while the attacks damaged infrastructure, Iran’s deeply buried facilities and dispersed nuclear assets might limit the long-term impact.
Iran likely moved nuclear material out of Fordow before the attack, but June 19 Maxar satellite images show heavy activity consistent with defensive measures not material transport. Sixteen dump trucks were parked outside tunnel entrances, which were sealed with rock and sand before the U.S. strike.
IAEA’s Assessments
The IAEA recently reported that Iran had accumulated 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60%, enough for several nuclear weapons if further refined. This stockpile was last confirmed at Isfahan, likely in an underground facility, but its current location is unknown after the recent US and Israeli strikes. US Vice President JD Vance acknowledged that Iran still controls the uranium and said the administration will address the issue in the coming weeks.
The missing uranium poses a major proliferation risk, as Iran could potentially move it to covert sites for further enrichment, despite damage to its main facilities. International efforts are underway to locate and secure the material, highlighting ongoing concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.
The Stakes Moving Forward
The destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities remains a contested narrative, with the U.S. administration, Israel, and Iran each advancing their own interpretations for strategic and domestic reasons. While the attacks have delayed Iran’s nuclear progress, they have not eliminated the program, and the region remains on edge as all sides prepare for the next phase of this enduring conflict.
The operation’s effectiveness is further clouded by Iran’s pre-strike preparations and the likelihood that some nuclear assets were preserved or relocated. This highlights the challenges of targeting deeply buried nuclear infrastructure and the persistent gap between political rhetoric and operational reality.
The strikes have further polarized the region, with Iran vowing retaliation and the U.S. and Israel warning of additional military action if Iran resumes enrichment activities.
