President Donald Trump has termed the US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities as a “spectacular military success”, but security experts said on Sunday that Tehran’s atomic energy infrastructure is far from being decimated. 

US B52 stealth bombers dropped bunker-buster bombs, and Tomahawk missiles were fired at three Iranian nuclear sites in one of the most blatant escalations of the Israel-Iran conflict, potentially dragging the Middle East to the brink of a broader regional war. 

President Trump’s attack on Iran also went against his long pledge to get the US out of Middle Eastern conflicts, and was in direct conflict with his two-week timeframe for Tehran to reconsider its nuclear programme. 

After the strikes, Trump resorted to his now-familiar script, claiming that Iran’s nuclear capabilities have been “completely and totally obliterated”. 

The three nuclear sites targeted by the US include Natanz, Iran’s largest uranium enrichment facility and the Isfahan centre, a lab and research institute which contained a very small amount of nuclear material, according to Mohammed Eslami, a professor of international relations at the University of Minho.

The most important of all Iranian nuclear facilities struck by the US is the Fordow plant, an underground nuclear facility buried 80 to 90 metres underground in a mountain range close to Qom, a holy city and a centre of Iran’s clerical establishment.

The Fordow complex was targeted by GBU 57 bombs, which only the US has. 

What is the damage? 

Despite Trump’s assertion, experts express doubt whether the US actually managed to reach Iran’s nuclear core.

“The maximum penetration power of GBU 57 is only 60 metres, so it is safe to say that Fordow’s centrifuge cascades are not damaged at all,” Eslami tells TRT World, referring to the machines used to purify uranium to different levels.

“What has happened so far is just an attack on the entrance tunnels. So, all attacks on nuclear facilities have not eliminated Iran’s nuclear capability and its potential capacity to develop the bomb,” says the professor who specialises in the proliferation of conventional and unconventional weapons in the Middle East. 

Iran also said shortly after the US attack that it had managed to empty the three nuclear sites of men and material before the bombs dropped.

A Tehran-based journalist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told TRT World that they have “footage showing Iran pulling out the nuclear materials from Fordow two days ago”.

She, however, acknowledged that Natanz and the Khondab experiment facilities located in Arak are out of service, while the Bushehr nuclear plant is still running. Overall, it would not be an inaccurate statement to say that Iran lost a significant portion of its nuclear capabilities, she adds. 

A former top Iranian diplomat involved in past nuclear negotiations with Western nations looked at the issue from a different perspective. 

“Technology and know-how on enrichment can not be destroyed by bombardment,” the retired diplomat tells TRT World, speaking on the condition of anonymity.  

Western experts also draw attention to the indestructible character of Iranian nuclear know-how. 

“Bombing Fordow — and whatever might come after — might not set back Iran’s enrichment efforts by nearly as long,” warned James M. Acton, a director of the nuclear policy programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 

While Israel has consistently targeted Iranian nuclear scientists, “hundreds or more likely thousands of scientists and technicians” were employed in the country’s enrichment programme, according to Acton.

Doreen Horschig at Center for Strategic and International Studies also feels that even if US military strikes effectively destroy key Iranian facilities, “the knowledge base surrounding uranium enrichment, reactor technology, and the fuel cycle necessary for sustaining nuclear fission would remain intact”. 

And Yousry Abushady, a former chief inspector of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, had dismissed US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities as a "media stunt" during a recent interview. 

As Iran vowed legal action against the US, experts also pointed out the UN charter, which prohibits any military strike on peaceful nuclear programmes.

The IAEA has publicly indicated that there is no evidence demonstrating that Iran’s nuclear program aims to build an atomic bomb. 

The former Iranian diplomat, who was involved in the adoption process of an IAEA resolution in 1990, says that the US attacks violated “the UN charter, IAEA statute and eventually international law”. 

The UN Security Council must “immediately act and member states must help the attacked country”, which is Iran, he adds. 

The former Iranian diplomat is not alone in holding this view. 

Mohamed ElBaradei, a former director general of the IAEA, also pointed out that the strikes on Iran were carried out by two nuclear weapon states, the US and Israel. Israel does not acknowledge its nuclear status and has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). 

How will Iran respond? 

Shortly after the US strikes, Tehran vowed to retaliate with full force and promised to “write the end of the story”.  

Esmaili, the academic, feels that Iran will respond “100 percent” to US strikes on different fronts. 

At the military level, Tehran will “attack” the US bases and naval forces in the region while geopolitically blocking the strategic Strait of Hormuz to stop oil flow, he says. Tehran will also probably withdraw from the NPT and begin developing a nuclear bomb, adds Esmaiili. 

He also warns that an Iranian military response “will take place soon”. 

But to what extent? “We don’t know,” he says, pointing out that “the volume of retaliation is more important than the retaliation itself.” 

While some analysts say Iran can not resist this much pressure from the US and Israel, Esmaili says that “It’s not about what Iran can do, it is all about what Iran will do.” 

He emphasises that “Iranians wouldn’t surrender, for sure. At least for now!” 

He also points out that Khamenei will not submit, and even if he were killed, the next leader could potentially be even more hardline than him. 

“Khamenei is quite liberal, moderate and open-minded compared to other revolutionary mullahs. This makes the story very complex.”