Doubts remain about the success of US bunker buster attacks on Iran

US Airstrike on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Raises Questions on Effectiveness

President Donald Trump recently claimed that a military strike against Iran effectively dismantled its capability to develop nuclear weapons. However, there are lingering doubts about whether the ground-based “bunkerbuster” bombs employed in the attack were truly adequate for the task at hand.

Last week, a report from the Centre for Strategic International Studies (CSIS) highlighted that the powerful GBU-57 bunkerbuster, often referred to as the massive ordnance penetrator (MOP), may not completely obliterate the Fordow nuclear facility, which was labeled by Trump as having “disappeared” after the strike. Fordow is seen as central to Iran’s nuclear arms production.

Meanwhile, experts analyzing satellite images informed Reuters that, due to the deep burial of many centrifuges at Fordow, it was challenging to determine the extent of any underground damage based solely on photographs.

Andrea Stricker, deputy director of the Democratic Defense Foundation’s Non-Proliferation and Biological Fence Program, noted her cautious view on the situation. She mentioned that while it’s reasonable to assume that significant shock waves from MOPs would damage the centrifuges, it’s unclear how many might still be operational. Stricker emphasized that even if some centrifuges survive, Iranian authorities might struggle to access them for an extended period.

Wes Rumbaugh from the CSIS missile defense project elaborated that underground targets pose unique challenges not only for destruction but also for post-strike damage assessments. He indicated that more resources might be necessary to fully understand the extent of the damage and its impact on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

The US targeted not just Fordow, but also the Natanz enrichment facility, where there are approximately 1,000 centrifuges and additional labs for uranium processing. Previous Israeli airstrikes had already compromised Natanz’s electrical systems. Following the US’s use of MOPs at Natanz, satellite imagery revealed craters, suggesting some level of underground disruption. Still, whether this attack completely incapacitated the nuclear facilities remains uncertain.

Stricker also pointed out that damage to Natanz could create a bottleneck in Iran’s supply chain for weapon-grade uranium, significantly affecting its nuclear weapons capabilities.

At the Isfahan facility, the US employed Tomahawk Cruise Missiles instead of MOPs. While there have been reports of damage, the full extent of the impact on its underground structures is still unclear.

A major question that arises from the US’s actions is whether Iran could relocate nuclear materials from targeted sites before the strike. CSIS’s Rumbaugh suggests that even if such relocations occur, the ensuing chaos could hinder Iran’s ability to swiftly advance its nuclear weapons program.

Stricker reiterated concerns about the potential for Iran to quickly resume nuclear activities, although she expressed skepticism about their immediate capabilities due to the extensive damage reportedly inflicted by Israel on their supply chain and nuclear facilities. She believes that Iran currently needs a significant number of resources and personnel to swiftly resume bomb-making endeavors.

The Pentagon and Air Force have yet to provide new details on the strike’s outcomes. However, an Air Force representative confirmed that a total of 75 precision-guided munitions were deployed against Iran, including a notable 30,000-pound GBU-57.