Have you seen anything about how effective the attacks on the nuclear sites have been? I’m curious now after reading your post. All I’ve seen is the stuff from the IAEA about radioactivity of the sites that were hit.
I haven’t. The best I know in abstract (and it ain’t much) is that it’s awfully hard generalize about these different sites. They’re all pretty different.
But the conceptual rule of thumb I’d heard is that the 4,000 pounders might do enough damage to shutter a facility for a year until it could be effectively dug out and repaired.
By contrast the 30,000lb is enough to get in pretty deep and destroy most things to the point they need to be reconstructed pretty much from scratch. So more like pushing back the facility’s operational status four or five years. Even there though, it’s still pretty theoretical.
More importantly, no clue as to the IDF’s inventory or what follow on strikes on a site like Natanz might do. If they hit it, I’m sure they thought it would have some kind of meaningful effect.
And I’m sure people will start popping out to explain it soon. It’s a pretty critical question strategically speaking. If you see anything, pls send it my way!
The Cipher Brief is definitely going to the top of my rotation! It’s interesting to view this in the political lens that the fallout from this attack could be a regime change, and a more permanent reconfiguring of the position Iran holds in the region.
I appreciate you saying that. It's never a good feeling being right about a war coming, but I reckon at least it's in the name of stopping nuclear proliferation.
Have you seen anything about how effective the attacks on the nuclear sites have been? I’m curious now after reading your post. All I’ve seen is the stuff from the IAEA about radioactivity of the sites that were hit.
I haven’t. The best I know in abstract (and it ain’t much) is that it’s awfully hard generalize about these different sites. They’re all pretty different.
But the conceptual rule of thumb I’d heard is that the 4,000 pounders might do enough damage to shutter a facility for a year until it could be effectively dug out and repaired.
By contrast the 30,000lb is enough to get in pretty deep and destroy most things to the point they need to be reconstructed pretty much from scratch. So more like pushing back the facility’s operational status four or five years. Even there though, it’s still pretty theoretical.
More importantly, no clue as to the IDF’s inventory or what follow on strikes on a site like Natanz might do. If they hit it, I’m sure they thought it would have some kind of meaningful effect.
And I’m sure people will start popping out to explain it soon. It’s a pretty critical question strategically speaking. If you see anything, pls send it my way!
I’m definitely going to be keeping my eyes open for that sort of thing and will be sure to pass it along. Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply.
I haven’t even listened to this yet, but Norm Roule is for sure a must-listen interview for me on this kind of stuff:
https://youtu.be/mZ47y480TKM?si=RjT4FZpsXV1_A5wy
Oh Thank you!! Watching it now!
This is a good one too:
https://youtu.be/DCvaBFVW5ek?si=28haQJljoidbrYgv
The Cipher Brief is definitely going to the top of my rotation! It’s interesting to view this in the political lens that the fallout from this attack could be a regime change, and a more permanent reconfiguring of the position Iran holds in the region.
Thanks for reading the piece! Have a great weekend.
No damage at Fordow or Khondab…
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iaea-says-iran-finds-no-radiation-increase-isfahan-2025-06-14/
Thanks for sending!
Roule seemed to think they might have something creative up their sleeve for Fordow. I’ve got my popcorn handy.
this aged brilliantly well
I appreciate you saying that. It's never a good feeling being right about a war coming, but I reckon at least it's in the name of stopping nuclear proliferation.
the one guaranteed consequence from this war will be that iran will become a nuclear state