Most recently, the United States and Israel have been coordinating military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Analysts remain split on whether these moves will truly be enough to stop Iran’s nuclear program once and for all. Many experts think such attacks might significantly set back Iran’s nuclear program. Yet the rest are dubious, indicating the regime could continue its atomic aspirations largely unchecked.
James Acton, a local expert on nuclear policy, for one, said he had his doubts. He raised the prospects that recent military activities have positively rolled back Iran’s goals. When asked, he said they likely did not really affect Iran’s nuclear development timeline all that much. Iranian state media reported Iran has started repairing damages incurred by an attack on its Natanz nuclear facility. Such a development would greatly weaken any claim that Iran’s nuclear program is strong and resilient.
Jason Brodsky, a columnist on Middle Eastern affairs, explains that the most recent assaults may have temporarily set back Iran’s nuclear aspirations. He thinks this delay will last for “years.” For that, he blames the Islamic Republic’s delusions and failure to grasp the repercussions of their actions. Brodsky noted, “The Islamic Republic thought it could get away with murder — with everything,” highlighting the regime’s prior confidence in its nuclear pursuits.
Potential Setbacks and Strategic Moves
According to UIG startup reports, Iran abruptly had more than 400 kilograms of enriched uranium. In fact, the enrichment levels had already gotten much higher, up to 60 percent, long before military attacks started. U.S. intelligence analysts wrongly projected Iran was only three months away from acquiring the capability to build a bomb. This evaluation was produced a number of years prior to the attacks started. Subsequent to the bombings, Iranian leaders announced they had moved about 400 kilograms of enriched uranium. This strategic move was intended to minimize trade disruption and potential losses resulting from the strikes.
Brodsky remarked on the broader implications of the strikes, stating, “The United States sent a very loud message that we are not going to be deterring ourselves any more with respect to your nuclear program and your proxy activities.” Robert Pape, a University of Chicago political science professor, cautions that actions that are visible will appear more effective. Out there, big threats are waiting under the radar. He warned, “We’re not going to be able to see it coming,” should Iran’s nuclear program accelerate covertly.
Alain Bauer, an expert on security and intelligence, sounded the alarm. He revealed that Iran’s twenty highest level nuclear scientists were relocated to Russia just prior to the attacks. This strategic move raises critical questions. It seeks to contest the coherence of Iran’s nuclear research and development activity, including if not especially against military strikes that cause foreseeable disruption.
Future Implications and International Relations
Given these new realities, experts are right to be worried about Iran’s disregard for its obligations to international agreements. Iran appears set to leave the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Further, per the new law, the country can withdraw from its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This move would ramp up hostilities between the US and Iran. They are especially alarmed by nuclear proliferation.
Acton is high on whether these moves will prove or lead to any meaningful delay in Iran’s hopes. He warns that such military strikes will only offer a short respite. Yet they will not undo developments like the destruction of historic or ongoing projects, expunging central expertise from Iran’s scientific community.
As geopolitical tensions escalate, Pape cautions that “that’s the real danger zone we’re moving into.” He believes that a failure to monitor and understand the shifts in Iran’s nuclear strategy could lead to unforeseen consequences for regional and global security.
