The United States has conducted airstrikes against Iranian facilities suspected of enriching uranium for nuclear weapons, a move that has drawn mixed reactions from experts about its effectiveness.
Stephen Mull, the vice provost for global affairs at the University of Virginia and former senior director for implementation of the Iranian nuclear deal, provided insights into the current state of Iran’s nuclear capabilities following the bombings.
Mull pointed out that while the airstrikes likely inflicted damage on Iran’s enrichment capabilities, the fundamental knowledge required to sustain a nuclear program remains intact. “You can’t bomb an idea. You can’t bomb the expertise that Iranians have developed on mastering the nuclear fuel cycle,” he remarked.
Recent assessments indicate that Iran had amassed about 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, just shy of the 90% threshold needed for a nuclear weapon. Importantly, Mull noted that the U.S. attack came as no surprise to Iran, with indications suggesting the country was preparing for such military action.
“There were reports of Iran moving material away from the three sites that President Donald Trump ultimately attacked,” Mull stated, emphasizing the foresight displayed by the Iranian government.
In light of the recent military escalations, Mull advocated for renewed diplomatic negotiations with Iran concerning its nuclear program. He believes such diplomatic efforts could lead to better monitoring of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, potential international inspections, and help avert the diversion of materials towards covert nuclear weapon development.
Mull cautioned that continued military pressure without diplomatic engagement could backfire, potentially empowering factions within Iran advocating for a swift path to develop a nuclear weapon as a deterrent against perceived threats.
The immediate Iranian response to the airstrikes included missile attacks on a U.S. base in Qatar, which reportedly resulted in no casualties and minimal damage. Mull characterized this retaliation as proportionate, noting that Iran is reluctant to escalate the situation further.
“The Iranians warned Qatar of the attack, which enabled Qatar to engage its air defenses and shoot down all but one of the missiles,” he explained.
Mull elaborated on the delicate position of the Iranian government, which is under pressure to respond to U.S. aggression without inciting further retaliation from the United States. He drew parallels to past events, particularly the U.S. drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, emphasizing the nuanced nature of Iranian responses, which tend to balance direct action with caution.
Historically, after the killing of Soleimani, Iran engaged in retaliatory strikes but did so in a manner that minimized American casualties, thus avoiding a direct escalation of conflict.
Given the heightened tensions, Mull discounted the likelihood of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime route for oil shipments. He pointed out that such an action would not only harm their own exports but also jeopardize Iran’s relations with other Persian Gulf states with which it has been working to improve ties.
Although there have been calls from the Iranian parliament to take such drastic measures, Mull expressed doubt regarding the government’s willingness to act on these suggestions, citing the self-destructive nature of such an option.
International involvement in the crisis appears limited, with countries like China preferring stability over conflict, particularly as they rely on a steady oil supply from Iran and the Gulf region.
“They just want the fighting to stop. The Russians, while vocal against U.S. escalation, have not offered substantial support to Iran and prefer balancing relations with all players involved,” Mull noted regarding the positions of these global powers.
Iran’s neighboring countries, having a mix of U.S. military presence and regional interests, are concerned about any potential fallout from conflict between the U.S. and Iran. Despite the recent Iranian setback, Mull suggested that these nations might be quietly relieved yet remain wary of potential spillover effects on their stability and economic situations.
Notably, Mull pointed out the difficulty in assessing the Iranian public’s reaction to recent events, acknowledging widespread discontent with the government. He remarked that external attacks could foster a sense of national unity temporarily but cautioned that this does not indicate a softening of the populace’s views towards the regime.
With both immediate and longer-term implications for the Iranian government now in play, the actions taken in response to these military developments will be pivotal. Mull concluded, “The Iranian government is at a crossroads; how it navigates these challenges will impact its legitimacy and survival in the long term.”
image source from：news
