Iran Bombing: "Obliterated"? Experts Say No After Viewng Satellite Images

Trump and Hegseth Claim "Obliterated" but Satellite Imagery Makes. Clear This is an Exaggeration

Hours after the bombing, President Trump claimed in a televised address that= the strike on Iran’s nuclear facility at Fordow had “obliterated” the facility. This morning Pete Hegseth echoed that, using the same word: “obliterated.” It fell to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Dan Caine to inject a note of reality into the proceedings, noting that it was too soon to know for sure how damaged the facilities are.

Meanwhile, indeed, several new findings have surfaced making it clear that—just as military analysts had predicted beforehand—the strike has not left the facilities “obliterated” or “completely destroyed.”

1. Satellite Imagery: Visible Surface Damage, But No Subsurface Collapse

Commercial satellite imagery (from Maxar Technologies, published in outlets like Reuters, Business Insider, and Times of India) shows:

• Craters and rubble near entrance tunnels, ventilation shafts, and administrative outbuildings at Fordow and Natanz.

• Burn scars and collapsed structures on the surface.

• No signs of ground deformation or subsidence that would indicate full cave-ins or destruction of underground halls.

This suggests penetration but not collapse. Fordow, in particular, is believed to lie 80–100 meters beneath rock, making it one of the most hardened facilities in the world. A few bomb strikes—even with GBU-57 bunker busters—may block access points but not reach the core.

2. Expert Testimony and Historical Context

Multiple analysts familiar with U.S. strike capabilities and Iranian site architecture have weighed in:

• A former U.S. Air Force targeting officer told Reuters that it’s "the difference between denting a safe and blowing it open."

• Military strategist Michael Knights noted that while “structural damage to entries is clear,” underground centrifuge halls “appear intact based on thermal and geometric cues.”

• A former IAEA inspector told The Guardian: “Unless you see distortion in the landscape or cave-in patterns, it’s unlikely the deeply buried halls were neutralized.”

This assessment builds on the fact that Iran deliberately engineered Fordow to withstand an aerial assault, anticipating this exact scenario. The uranium enrichment halls are positioned behind multiple blast doors and layers of shielding.

3. No Secondary Effects Detected

As of now, there are no signs of radiological release—a potential indicator that stored uranium or centrifuge systems were destroyed. The IAEA reported no uptick in gamma readings, and open-source nuclear monitoring tools show no anomalies.

This lack of disruption suggests the strike hit infrastructure, not enriched materials or core processing systems.

4. No Evidence Yet of Structural Tunnel Collapse

Engineers note that massive underground halls like those at Fordow and Natanz would produce visible surface effects (e.g., slumping, cracks, collapse pits) if structurally compromised.

To date, none of the Maxar or Planet Labs images—analyzed by groups such as CSIS, ISW, or Janes Defence—show those telltale signs. That supports the “intact” assessment.Furthermore, the International Atomic Energy Agency has reported no detectable radiation release, reinforcing the notion that the attack was confined to surface and peripheral infrastructure This is echoed by Iranian medical authorities who claim that none of those injured show signs of radiation

---

Additional Finding: Enriched Uranium Relocated in Advance

In what appears to be strategic foresight, Iran reportedly moved a significant portion of its enriched uranium stockpile—potentially including materials enriched to 60% U‑235—before the strike A senior Iranian source told Reuters that “most of the highly enriched uranium stored at the Fordow facility was moved to an unknown location” .Iran’s state-linked media also confirmed the evacuation of materials and personnel from key sites.

While Secretary Rubio has questioned the extent of these relocations, independent and Iranian sources strongly support the conclusion that material losses were minimal .

Bottom Line Assessment

Taken together, these emerging facts challenge the administration’s narrative. Surface destruction and cratered tunnel entrances may create impactful photo-ops—but they don’t necessarily dismantle a deeply embedded nuclear infrastructure. And with enriched uranium already relocated, the strategic blow lands weaker than the rhetoric suggested.

What to Look for Going Forward

As the situation evolves, here are key developments to monitor:

1. IAEA & UN Access
   Will inspectors regain access to Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan? New on-site inspections could confirm the state of equipment and materials.

2. Subsurface Damage Analysis
   Seismic data, thermal readings, and underground imaging could provide insight into how deeply the blasts penetrated—and whether centrifuges were disabled.

3. New Uranium Stockpile Estimates
   Updates from intelligence agencies and IAEA reports on uranium quantities and enrichment levels will indicate whether Iran’s nuclear potential was actually curtailed.

4. Signs of Repair or Duplication Efforts
   Any satellite imagery showing reconstruction work, reopening of entrances, or deployment of new centrifuges will show how quickly—and how substantially—Iran rebounds.