Photo: Political cartoon
Washington, March 2025. Two months have passed since Donald Trump triumphantly returned to the White House, and the world is holding its breath as the new administration builds its strategy towards Iran. The doors of diplomacy are still open, but behind them is a determination to increase pressure on Tehran, including through military threats. In their recent discussions, experts Daria Dolzikova and Justin Bronk emphasise that the key issue is not moral debate, but cold efficiency. Could strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities thwart its ambitions? And if so, at what cost?
Targets in the crosshairs: where and what to hit?
Iran’s nuclear programme is a web of underground bunkers, factories and research centres scattered across the country. To deal a significant blow to it, key elements must be destroyed or disabled: enriched uranium stockpiles and production facilities. Natanz and Fordow are names that sound like spells in intelligence reports. Natanz with its Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) and Pilot Plant (PFEP), Fordow with its deeply hidden FFEP – these facilities have become symbols of Iranian nuclear resilience. A new complex under construction in the mountains south of Natanz, likely to produce centrifuges, adds another mystery.
Underground fortresses are a challenge. The FEP in Natanz is about 8 metres deep under layers of concrete and stone, while Fordow and the new facility can reach 80-100 metres into the rock. To destroy them, you need not just bombs, but real “bunker killers” – like the US GBU-57/B weighing 30,000 pounds. Even such monsters may require several hits to a single point to penetrate the defences. Above-ground targets – the Arak reactor, the Isfahan plants – seem easier, but they are also surrounded by escalation risks and air defence systems.
And what about the secret sites? Israel’s strike on Parchin in October 2024 reminded us that where Iran once experimented with weapons technology, work could resume. The US and Israeli intelligence agencies probably have a trump card up their sleeves – data on such sites, hidden from public view.
Weapons and tactics: breaking through concrete and air defences
The arsenals of the United States and Israel are full of precision weapons. Penetration bombs such as the GBU-57/B or GBU-72/B can open up fortified targets, but their effectiveness depends on the details: soil composition, concrete thickness, and facility layout. Sand is easier to penetrate than reinforced concrete, and narrow shafts with explosive doors are a nightmare for attack planners. The Israeli air force, despite its experience, has a limited arsenal: its bombs require multiple hits to a single point to “chew” their way to the target.
Iran is not sitting on its hands. Its air defences – a mix of Russian S-300s, local Hordad 15s and fast Tor M-1s – can even intercept guided munitions. An Israeli operation in October 2024 showed that it is possible to overwhelm this defence, but a large-scale campaign would require waves of attacks, coordination, and possibly casualties. The United States, with its air and naval forces, can crush Iranian systems faster, but even they will have to take into account “pop-up” threats such as mobile SAMs.
The illusion of complete control
This is where the romance of a military solution breaks down. Iran is not Iraq in 1981 or Syria in 2007. Its programme is too extensive, too deeply rooted. Tehran’s scientists have knowledge that cannot be destroyed by bombs. After a strike, Iran will not just recover – it will bury itself even deeper, literally and figuratively. Limited attacks may slow down progress, destroy centrifuges or uranium stockpiles, but there will be no complete knockout.
And yet, the military threat is not an empty sound. If Iran crosses the red line – starts enriching uranium to 90% or goes for a bomb – strikes will become not just an option, but a necessity. They will not destroy the programme, but will set it back, giving time for diplomacy or sanctions. The key is to convince Tehran that the threat is real. Experts emphasise that such steps are not toys. Each strike is a risk of war, chaos and unpredictable reactions.
Dancing on the edge
So, March 2025. Trump is at the helm, Iran is in the crosshairs. Diplomacy and military threats go hand in hand, but there are no illusions: Tehran’s nuclear programme cannot be uprooted by force. Strikes can be a stick that pushes for negotiations, but without a carrot – political and economic – they will only fuel the fire. In this dance on the brink of escalation, every step must be calibrated. Otherwise, the world risks seeing not just smoke over Natanz, but a new chapter in the global crisis.
Author: Marianna Nyzhnia
