Iran’s n-program, surgical strike illusion

• Israel and the US have targeted Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, causing tensions in West Asia.

• Iran’s nuclear facilities, including its top nuclear scientists, are buried underground and reinforced with steel and concrete.

• Conventional airdropped bombs or missiles are insufficient to destroy these facilities, which are hardened with intent.

• The U.S.-developed GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) is a specialized bomb designed to penetrate up to 60 m of earth or 18 m of reinforced concrete.

• Israel lacks the GBU-57 and aircraft capable of carrying such an enormous bomb, which requires a B-2 Spirit or B-52 Stratofortress bomber.

• Israel has upgraded its F-35I stealth fighters for long-range missions and bunker-busting capabilities, but these cannot guarantee success against the most fortified Iranian sites.

• Iran could rebuild key Iranian nuclear facilities even if Natanz and Fordow were destroyed, learning from earlier disruptions.

• Iran’s nuclear programme is decades old, technologically mature, and deeply embedded into its military and scientific infrastructure.

• Recent Israeli strikes likely failed to destroy the repository of Iran’s near-bomb-grade nuclear fuel.

• Israel’s attempt at a unilateral strike on Iran’s nuclear programme would struggle to dismantle it fully or delay it, and that too only temporarily.

Conflict Escalation and Diplomacy in Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions

• Israeli leaders have sought U.S. backing for military action against Iran, with potential access to advanced American technology.

• The logistical and political costs of providing operational assistance for Israel’s military action in Iran are significant.

• Launching such an operation would require access to regional airspace, potentially violating the sovereignty of nations like Iraq or Saudi Arabia.

• Iran has signaled that any military action against its nuclear facilities would be met with a “crushing” response, signaling its readiness to retaliate with equal fire.

• A full-scale regional war would disrupt global oil supplies, destabilize fragile states, and drag the U.S. and its allies into a protracted conflict.

• Diplomacy remains the only viable long-term solution to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

• Iran has violated the terms of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) by lifting the cap on its uranium stockpile, expanding enrichment activities, and reducing cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

• A new nuclear deal is more feasible than launching a war that cannot guarantee a decisive outcome.

• Calls for “bombing Iran” often ignore the technical and tactical realities of Iran’s nuclear programme.

• A clean, surgical strike on Iran’s nuclear programme is a dangerous illusion.

• Iran’s nuclear programme is architecturally resilient and designed to withstand military strikes.