Following the U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, analyses have emerged regarding the potential long-term impact of this military action on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. President Donald Trump celebrated the operation, asserting that the damage inflicted was monumental, a sentiment echoed by Gen. Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He reported significant destruction across all targeted sites, though cautioned that full assessments would take time and the extent of remaining capabilities is still unclear. A senior Israeli security official noted preliminary observations suggest serious damage, acknowledging the operation as a potential turning point in curbing the Iranian nuclear threat.
Reserve Brig. Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser emphasized the profound implications of the strikes in weakening Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. While asserting that the program is not entirely destroyed, he remarked that military action has proven far more effective than previous strategies like sabotage or diplomacy. Kuperwasser underscored the importance of the operations as a demonstration of the military resolve of both Israel and the U.S., which could deter Iran from attempting to restart its nuclear program without facing potential retaliation.
Experts, including former Mossad official Sima Shein, noted that while critical sites such as Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow had been targeted, Iran’s capability to produce nuclear materials remains partially intact. She acknowledged that Iran has dispersed its enriched uranium to various undisclosed locations, which complicates any attempts to eliminate nuclear capabilities entirely. Should diplomatic negotiations arise in the future, Shein asserted that they should necessitate complete transparency regarding Iran’s remaining fissile materials.
Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, argues that to ensure a comprehensive cessation of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, all remaining facilities must be dismantled. His proposed framework includes the destruction of enrichment sites, seizure of enriched uranium, and complete eradication of advanced centrifuges, with strict inspections and enforcement mechanisms to prevent any resurgence of the nuclear program. Dubowitz warned that anything short of these measures risks allowing Iran the ability to rebuild its capabilities.
Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, described the U.S. assault as a game-changer in the geopolitical landscape. He noted potential responses from Iran, ranging from retaliatory acts, possibly through terrorist channels, to adjustments in nuclear policy. Yadlin speculated that a likely reaction might involve Iran withdrawing from international agreements such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) if their nuclear strategy faces untenable pressure.
In this tense environment, Kuperwasser suggested that military pressure should be paired with a rigorous diplomatic strategy to ensure lasting resolutions. He called for verification-based agreements, advocating for “anywhere, anytime” inspections to prevent Iran from rebuilding its nuclear capabilities covertly. As tensions rise and potential military engagements loom, he expressed confidence in Israeli public readiness to endure sacrifices for national security, framing this period as historically significant in the broader struggle against Iranian nuclear proliferation.
