The Hindu Editorial Analysis-24th June 2025 | Current Affairs & Hindu Analysis: Daily, Weekly & Monthly - UPSC PDF Download

Iran’s n-programme, the illusion of a surgical strike

Why in News?

 Amid escalating tensions in West Asia, Israel and the United States have targeted Iran's nuclear sites and top scientists. Iran, in turn, has retaliated with drone and missile strikes, some of which have evaded Israel's Iron Dome defense system. As this conflict intensifies, a critical question emerges: Can military force effectively halt Iran's nuclear program? The straightforward answer appears to be no, or at least not easily. Despite years of attempts, using military action against Iran's nuclear ambitions proves to be complex, limited, and fraught with risks. 

Nuclear Infrastructure and Military Strike Challenges

• Nuclear facilities designed for attack resistance: Uranium enrichment sites like Fordow and Natanz are deep underground, with Fordow located 80 to 100 meters beneath a mountain near Qom. These sites are fortified with reinforced concrete and steel (RCC) and are specifically hardened to withstand air strikes. 
• Limitations of conventional weapons: Standard bombs or missiles are insufficient to destroy these underground bunkers. Only specialized bunker-busting bombs with extreme penetration capabilities can damage such facilities. 
• U.S. bunker-busting capabilities: The GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a 30,000-pound bomb, can penetrate up to 60 meters of earth or 18 meters of reinforced concrete. However, its effectiveness requires precise, repeated hits over several days and delivery by specialized aircraft such as the B-2 Spirit or B-52 Stratofortress bombers, which are exclusive to the U.S. 
• Israel’s current strike capabilities: Israel lacks the GBU-57 and the bombers capable of delivering it. Instead, Israel uses GBU-28 bombs that can penetrate 5-6 meters of concrete (approximately 30 meters of earth). While upgraded F-35I stealth fighters have enhanced bunker-busting capabilities, these are still limited against deeply buried targets like Fordow, making U.S. assistance crucial for significant damage. 
• Rebuilding potential: Even if key sites such as Natanz and Fordow are damaged, Iran has the capacity to rebuild quickly. For instance, after the 2010 Stuxnet cyberattack, Iran was able to repair and expand the Natanz facility. 
• Comparison with past Israeli strikes: Previous successful strikes on Iraq’s Osirak (1981) and Syria’s Al-Kibar (2007) involved targets that were above ground, isolated, and at early stages of development. In contrast, Iran’s nuclear program is mature, widely distributed, duplicated, and heavily fortified. 
• Overall assessment: An Israeli unilateral strike would likely only delay Iran’s nuclear program rather than dismantle it completely. 

Comparison of Key Nuclear Sites and Strike Capabilities

Why Israel Seeks U.S. Support Against Iran

•  Israeli leaders have a history of relying on U.S. support for significant military actions against Iran. 
•  Former U.S. President Donald Trump indicated that Israel might gain access to advanced U.S. weapons, such as MOP-class bunker busters, for operations against Iran. 
•  In 2020, discussions about selling MOP-class bombs to Israel resurfaced, but no official transfer has occurred. 
•  Even with U.S. assistance, the logistical and political costs for both Israel and the United States would be extremely high. 

Challenges of a Military Operation Against Iran

•  Conducting a military operation against Iran would require access to regional airspace, potentially violating the sovereignty of countries like Iraq or Saudi Arabia. This could escalate into a broader regional conflict. 
• Iran could respond to an attack by leveraging its network of proxies, including: 
  •  Hezbollah in Lebanon 
  •  Militias in Iraq and Syria 
  •  Houthi rebels in Yemen 
•  Direct attacks on Israeli and American assets in the Gulf region would also be a possibility for Iranian retaliation. 

Iran’s Warning and Retaliation Capability

•  Iran has issued warnings of a "crushing" response to any attacks on its nuclear facilities, backed by its ballistic missile capabilities and regional alliances. 
•  In April 2024, Iran demonstrated its retaliatory capabilities by launching over 300 drones and missiles in response to an Israeli strike in Damascus. While many were intercepted, the incident highlighted Iran's ability to challenge Israeli air defenses. 
•  This serves as a clear indication that Iran is prepared to respond forcefully to any Israeli military actions against its nuclear sites. 

Why Diplomacy Is the Only Real Solution for Iran’s Nuclear Issue

•  Engaging in a full-scale regional war would have severe consequences, including disrupting global oil supplies, destabilizing fragile states, and dragging the United States and its allies into a prolonged and uncertain conflict. Moreover, there is a high likelihood that the primary goals of such a war would not be achieved. 
•  Although diplomacy is not without its flaws, it remains the only viable long-term option for addressing Iran's nuclear issue. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) successfully limited Iran's nuclear program and allowed for international inspections. However, since the United States withdrew from the agreement in 2018, Iran has significantly increased its uranium stockpile, raised enrichment levels, and reduced cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 
•  Negotiating a new nuclear deal has become more challenging due to regional instability and deep-seated mistrust. Nonetheless, it is still more achievable than embarking on a costly war with uncertain outcomes. The ongoing cycle of attacks and retaliations only exacerbates regional instability and escalates human and economic costs. Iran's nuclear program, being extensive, resilient, and redundant, cannot be addressed as a singular target. The notion of a "clean" surgical strike by Israel or the United States is a perilous misconception. Moving forward necessitates a focus on diplomatic strategies, multilateral pressure, careful verification, and robust deterrence measures. 

Conclusion

 Iran's nuclear program is not only advanced but also built to withstand military strikes. The past two decades of Middle East policy teach us that while starting wars is easy, finishing them is incredibly difficult. If the current situation escalates into a full-blown war, the consequences of failure would be catastrophic.