**Assessments of U.S.-led strikes on Iran's Fordo nuclear facility reveal that, while seriously damaged, the site remains intact and operational, contradicting claims of complete destruction.**
**U.S. Airstrikes Leave Iran's Fordo Nuclear Facility Damaged but Operational**
**U.S. Airstrikes Leave Iran's Fordo Nuclear Facility Damaged but Operational**
**Military sources report mixed outcomes following U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites.**
Following recent airstrikes on Iran's Fordo nuclear facility, assessments from military sources indicate that while serious damage has been inflicted, the site has not been completely destroyed, contrary to official statements made by President Trump declaring the operation a “success.” Satellite images, examined by Maxar Technologies, show the extent of the destruction at Fordo—one of Iran’s most critical nuclear sites—after the use of 30,000-pound bunker-busting bombs.
Israeli military experts have conveyed that although the facility has experienced severe damage, it has not been rendered inoperable. According to anonymous officials, it was noted that Iran had likely relocated some of its equipment, including uranium, prior to the strikes. Similarly, a senior U.S. official affirmed that despite the significant damage from the attacks, the facilities’ foundational capabilities remain intact, suggesting that it is still poised for operational use.
During a Pentagon briefing, General Dan Caine, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered cautious optimism amid the assertions of success. He indicated that while the airstrikes resulted in destructive outcomes for all targeted sites, it’s premature to conclude the complete erosion of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. As ongoing assessments continue, military officials emphasize the complexity of fully understanding the implications of the strike.
The U.S. strikes targeted three nuclear installations, aiming to cripple Iran's ambitions in nuclear enrichment and production. However, the nuanced evaluations highlight a gap between political rhetoric and military reality, raising questions about the efficacy and long-term results of such aggressive military interventions in the conflict-ridden area.
