The extent of damage from recent US strikes on Iran’s Fordow centrifuges remains uncertain, The New York Times reported on Wednesday, with experts questioning President Donald Trump’s assertion that the site was completely obliterated.
US aircraft dropped two cascades of six GBU-57 “bunker buster” bombs on Fordow’s ventilation shafts on June 22.
A Defense Department official told the Times the bombs likely did not penetrate into the underground centrifuge chambers, and that the plan instead relied on shockwaves, pressure, and fire to disable equipment.
The report stressed that only the Pentagon—with access to classified data and advanced computer simulations—can assess the actual scale of destruction.
Experts offered three main scenarios, depending on the shafts’ design, the surrounding geology, and the reinforcement of the concrete.
If the shafts were built in a straight line, the bombs could have penetrated more deeply, transmitting destructive force downward. But if constructed in zig-zag formations, the underground halls may not lie directly beneath the shafts, shielding them from the blasts.
For the attack to fully succeed, shockwaves would have needed to reach depths of 260 to 360 feet underground.
Shafts, rocks, concrete
Geologists cited by the Times said academic studies suggest the presence of ignimbrite, a rock formation that could have absorbed much of the explosive energy. Another expert said volcanic tuff, if present, would have had a similar shock-absorbing effect.
The report also examined Iran’s use of construction materials, noting that if steel fibers were mixed into the concrete, they would have significantly strengthened the bunkers.
That could have reduced the effectiveness of the bombs, though experts agreed the ventilation shafts were natural weak points in Fordow’s design.
Trump vs. experts
Several experts doubted the strikes amounted to a “complete obliteration.”
One mechanical engineer said if the attack was based on precise geological surveys and ventilation mapping, the damage could still be significant. Another noted that if intense fires followed the blasts, Iran might be left with little recoverable equipment.
Trump, who ordered the operation, has continued to describe the attack in absolute terms.
On Tuesday, he said both he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should be considered “war heroes” for their roles.
“We wiped out Iran’s entire nuclear capability overnight,” Trump said. “Iran was four weeks from a nuclear bomb — and we took it out.”
Fada-Hossein Maleki, a member of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, told Didban Iran that “if the Europeans want to activate the snapback mechanism, we will also continue the war with the Zionist regime.”
Maleki argued that such a step would destabilize global and regional equations. “Triggering this mechanism will entangle many players,” he warned.
He also accused Israel of undermining diplomacy by attacking Iran during ongoing nuclear negotiations, saying: “With that aggression, we practically saw the death of diplomacy.”
"Now, the activation of the snapback mechanism would once again mean abandoning diplomacy, and if the Europeans choose this path, this time we will put forward the tools of war and continue the 12-day conflict.”
He added, “The next war will not be one that ends in 12 days, or even one or two months. Dangerous events will inevitably unfold for all countries in the region.”
Maleki said Iran’s “first step” in response to a European move would be withdrawal from the NPT. “This issue has long been on the agenda of the commission and parliament,” he said.
Britain, France and Germany — the so-called E3 — have warned Iran that unless it returns to nuclear talks by the end of August, they will trigger the mechanism that could reimpose all UN sanctions lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal.
The lawmaker said Iran had now rebuilt its military readiness after the 12-day conflict and was “prepared for offensive operations in case of any new confrontation.”
In a lengthy analysis, Tasnim News Agency said proposals by reformists amounted to “a Gorbachev moment” in which politicians, under the influence of foreign narratives, accept solutions that weaken their own national interests.
“The ‘Gorbachev moment’ refers to a situation in which a leader, fearing crisis, adopts the enemy’s prescription for survival. Out of fear of death, he commits political suicide,” wrote Jafar Hassankhani, from Tasnim’s Strategic Studies Center.
Tasnim said recent reformist statements – including open letters, an essay by former foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Foreign Policy, and demands by the Reform Front coalition to suspend uranium enrichment and free political prisoners – reflected a “coordinated program” that risked undermining Iran’s resilience.
“Trusting the enemy’s smiles and imagining that the solution to all of the nation’s problems lies in the hands of foreign powers is precisely what led to the disintegration of the Soviet Union,” the agency argued.
“The Supreme Leader of Iran has repeatedly stressed that diplomatic engagement and negotiations must never be interpreted as trust in the enemy. The historical experience of Gorbachev showed that trusting the enemy’s smile is nothing but an illusion, and even gestures such as the West’s open arms and friendly smiles can be part of a deception project. One of Gorbachev’s weaknesses in this regard was his tendency to seek approval,” read the article.
A separate Tasnim article on Monday accused reformist groups of “passing the ball to the enemy” by issuing a statement that, it said, paralleled Western criticism of Iran.
That piece, titled "Reformist old children helping Israel,” argued that a new Reform Front declaration calling for reconciliation and sanctions relief was reminiscent of the Freedom Movement’s 1980s calls to halt the war with Iraq after Iran recaptured Khorramshahr.
"At critical moments, both groups have tended to resort to internal blame-casting and one-sided proposals instead of supporting national interests and territorial integrity — effectively handing the other side the ammunition to justify aggression against Iran,” read the article.
Moderate and reformist figures, including Zarif, former president Hassan Rouhani and Green Movement leaders Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, have in recent weeks pressed for what they call a “paradigm shift” in Iran’s governance.
The Reform Front on Sunday called for a voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief, broader engagement with the West, and domestic reforms including the release of political prisoners. “Iran’s social fabric was deeply wounded, with public life overshadowed by despair and anxiety,” the group said.
Rouhani argued last week that “there is no way to save the country except for all of us to become servants of the people — to recognize that sovereignty belongs to the people.”
Conservative outlets close to Khamenei have condemned the proposals as dangerous and aligned with Western agendas.
Kayhan newspaper called them “capitulation” to foreign powers, while the IRGC-linked Fars News Agency described the reformist roadmap as a “charter of submission.”
“The unfinished plan of Israel and the United States to eliminate the Islamic system continues with the assistance of those claiming to be reformists,” Kayhan wrote last week.