Most of the highly enriched uranium at the Fordow facility had been moved to an undisclosed location prior to the strike

 

Analytical Article – Center for Truth and Knowledge
The U.S. Strike on Iran's Three Nuclear Reactors: Disappointment and the Joy of IRGC Commanders

By Alkrty

At dawn on Sunday, the United States launched an unprecedented airstrike targeting three of Iran's most significant nuclear facilities: Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. The operation, dubbed "Midnight Hammer", marks a dramatic escalation in the ongoing war between Iran and Israel, which began on June 13 when Israel carried out a wide-scale attack on Iranian military and nuclear sites, resulting in the deaths of senior Iranian military commanders.

In a televised speech, U.S. President Donald Trump proudly declared that the strikes had “completely wiped out” Iran's nuclear facilities, stating that bunker-busting bombs were used to penetrate deep underground fortifications. Trump justified the operation as a step to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment capability and called it a “remarkable military success,” warning that any retaliation would be met with "larger and easier" future attacks.

Critical Questions Arise:

Despite the U.S. claim of success, Iranian sources — particularly within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) — revealed a different side of the story. A senior Iranian official told Reuters that most of the highly enriched uranium at the Fordow facility had been moved to an undisclosed location prior to the strike, and that staff had been reduced to a minimum at the site. This raises a crucial question:

Were the bombed sites truly operational nuclear facilities — or merely empty shells and outdated equipment?

IRGC's Delight and America’s Strategic Disappointment

Ironically, the strikes — while materially destructive — sparked a sense of satisfaction among some in the IRGC, who described them as a “belated attack on empty buildings,” and saw the incident as proof of Iran's ability to outmaneuver Western intelligence.

On the American side, strategic and media circles began to question the real value of the attack and whether it would actually lead to a long-term weakening of Iran’s nuclear ambitions — or instead give Iran a new sense of legitimacy, portraying itself as a victim of foreign aggression.

Winners and Losers:

• Israel may view this as a tactical gain, but its long-term security remains uncertain. Iran's ballistic capabilities and regional proxy network remain intact.

• Gulf States are not direct targets, but the escalation raises regional tensions and heightens the risk of a broader war that could destabilize the region politically and economically.

• Iran appears to have minimized its material losses and is likely to exploit the attack diplomatically and propagandistically, both domestically and abroad.

Is the Region Any Safer Now?

The answer is unequivocally: No.
This was a sharp escalation that risks unleashing open confrontation — or at the very least, igniting an arms race and accelerating Iran’s pursuit of deterrent capabilities.

A Final Word from the Author:

The author, Al-Krty, asserts that the real danger lies not merely in Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but in the continued existence of its tyrannical, corrupt, and repressive regime. Merely bombing nuclear sites changes little if the political ideology and aggressive ambitions of the Iranian leadership remain unchanged. Thus, the only true path to security for Israel, the Gulf States, the Middle East, and the wider world is the complete removal of this obsolete and oppressive regime — not negotiations, nor symbolic strikes from the sky.

Center for Truth and Knowledge Blog