The U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites (Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan) occurred early June 22, 2025, using B-2 stealth bombers with Massive Ordnance Penetrators along with Tomahawk missiles fire from Navy submarines. President Trump described the damage as “monumental.”
According to the Washington Post, satellite imagery confirms tunnel entrances and shelters were damaged or filled with debris (dirt, rubble), indicating Iran likely preemptively sealed or collapsed them—possibly to shield nuclear assets from the American bunker-busting assault.
According to Business Insider, Iran evacuated enriched uranium ahead of the strike. IAEA monitoring shows no rise in radiation levels, and no civilians were harmed near the sites.
Impact assessment remains ongoing, Reuters reported, citing U.S. military officials who say the strikes severely damaged key underground infrastructure. However, analysts caution Iran may still retain the ability to rebuild covert enrichment capabilities elsewhere.
Verdict: Yes, credible evidence from multiple satellite analyses supports that Iran filled or deliberately damaged tunnel entrances at its underground Fordow facility—likely in anticipation of U.S. strikes. They also removed nuclear materials beforehand, minimizing immediate material loss and radiation risk.
Jonathan Panikoff, director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, wondered: “Is Iran’s nuclear program truly destroyed? If it has been, then no further strikes will be required against sites related to that program, as the president seems to prefer. But if it turns out the strikes were not completely effective, that Iran moved portions of its nuclear weapons program, or that it has secret nuclear sites, then it is unlikely this will be the end of these strikes as Trump has sought.”
My, and my @AtlanticCouncil colleagues’, early reaction to Trump’s strike on Iran and what comes next…. One important note not in my piece: anyone who tells you they *know* what happens next or how this ends is someone you should promptly ignore . https://t.co/u0nRaPv14p
— Jonathan Panikoff (@jpanikoff) June 22, 2025
Panikoff, who served as the deputy national intelligence officer for the Near East at the National Intelligence Council (NIC), bridging U.S. intelligence agencies with government officials, from 2015 to 2020, noted: “The president made a decision this weekend that will create a new Middle East and potentially a better one—but it all depends on how Iran responds.”
He continued: “It’s now Iran’s move, and Tehran has two pathways. It can choose to undertake a strike in which it attacks US bases in the region but with the intention of having a limited impact. Doing so would enable the Iranian regime to claim that it retaliated, defended its country, and stood up to the United States, which in turn might prompt the resumption of diplomatic engagement.”
“The other possible pathway is that the Iranian regime determines the US strikes—and continued threats Trump levied at Iran during his speech—compel the regime to undertake a significant attack against US personnel and interests. That would potentially prompt an escalating spiral of attacks and counterattacks, which could lead to a regional war,” he concluded and added:
“Iran’s military capabilities are degraded but far from extinguished. And if Iran worries that the regime is at risk either from the United States or Israel—or that if it doesn’t respond strongly enough, then it will lose the backing of those who generally support it—it could take this latter path. In doing so, it could seek to not only leverage proxies in the Middle East to attack US interests and personnel, but also potentially undertake asymmetric attacks and terrorist attacks against global Israeli, Jewish, or US targets.”
