Iran’s nuclear program only dented, regime change talks disappeared – What has the US actually gained by bombing Iran?

Twelve days of conflict between Israel and Iran, topped with the United States intervening, got the whole world on the edge of its seat. Israel had targeted nuclear facilities and military establishments in Iran to cripple its nuclear program as it was believed Iran was on the path of developing a nuclear bomb.

However, Israel’s limited munition could not penetrate Iran’s nuclear establishments located deep under the mountain. This is when the US intervened and used “bunker busters” to destroy the establishments. While the US claimed the mission was successful, experts think otherwise. Now, when Israel and Iran have agreed to a ceasefire announced by US President Trump, a stark question emerges — what did the United States really gain by getting involved in the conflict?

The US showcased dramatic airstrikes using advanced B-2 bombers and the bold statements claiming Iran’s nuclear program has been crippled appear to be far from reality. According to a Pentagon report, Iran’s nuclear program remains largely intact and has been pushed back by only a few months. Trump hinted at regime change but the idea has also been dropped. Furthermore, Iran targeted US bases in the Middle East, challenging the “invincibility” of the US military’s might. In fact, the Trump administration appears to be walking back its loftiest ambitions after the dust has settled.

Iran’s nuclear program remains largely intact

Despite multiple strikes by Israel followed by a massive strike by the US, Iran’s nuclear program remains largely intact. While satellite images show damage from above, sites like Fordow reportedly recieved repairable damage because of its depth. There is no doubt that Iran’s nuclear program is experiencing a temporary setback, but it will not take much time for the Islamic country to get back on track.

And this time, Iran may get fiercer with the enrichment of uranium, making it bomb-ready. As of now, reports suggest it has achieved 60 percent enrichment, and for a bomb, it needs over 90 percent enrichment. The enriched uranium did not get hit during the strikes, which was clear as agencies reported zero radiation leak at the attacked nuclear establishments including Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan.

The core objective of the US strikes was to cripple Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon. However, the results have been underwhelming. Critical components like uranium centrifuges survived the strikes or can be repaired quickly, which means Iran could restart enrichment within months of the attack.

American intelligence also determined that Iran had safeguarded its most sensitive nuclear materials. In fact, Tehran reportedly moved much of its 60 percent enriched uranium stockpile out of the targeted facilities much before the strikes. Iran currently has around 480 kg of highly enriched uranium kept at an unknown location.

Little surprise, then, that international inspectors like the IAEA reported they could “no longer account” for this stock of uranium in the aftermath. In short, Iran’s nuclear program lives on, and any damage inflicted was minimal and reversible. Iranian engineers have most likely already started restoring the bombed sites.

Tehran kept its uranium and its defiance

Iran achieved two goals. It preserved the enriched uranium and also maintained an attitude of defiance. Its leadership rapidly signalled that they will not bow down to the strikes and abandon the nuclear program. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, pointedly remained silent on the strikes, projecting an image of resolve.

According to media reports, people of Iran took to the streets and raised anti-US and anti-Israel slogans in a show of nationalist fervour after the attack. While the US was hoping for a regime change following the attack, it seems that the result was completely opposite to what the US expected, and it sparked rally-round-the-flag sentiment.

Iran has consistently insisted that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and vowed to rebuild any lost capability. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian declared Iran would rebuild and continue its nuclear project once the conflict is over. Iran believes that it has the right to nuclear technology and that it is non-negotiable.

On the other hand, Israel partnered with Washington in the campaign. Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, has boasted of a “historic victory” against Iran. However, in the same breath, he vowed that Israel would strike again if Iran rebuilds its nuclear project. This admission shows that even Israel realises Iran’s nuclear infrastructure could be restored.

Iran’s retaliation shattered the US aura of invincibility

The outcome of the conflict is not limited to the nuclear program of Iran. It is widely believed that American forces in the region are untouchable. However, Iran demonstrated a willingness and capability to hit back directly at US targets, something that once was almost unthinkable. In retaliation for the US actions, Iran launched ballistic missiles at US bases in the Middle East.

Not to forget, this is not the first time Iran has challenged the US’s might in the region. In January 2020, during a peak in US-Iran tensions, Iran fired 16 ballistic missiles at the Ain al-Asad airbase in Iraq that housed US troops. Around 30 US soldiers were wounded in that attack. While the attack occurred five years ago, it set a precedent. Iran proved it could directly strike US military installations and inflict real harm, and it repeated the same following the US strikes on its nuclear establishments. Notably, during the recent flare-up, the US embassies and bases were on high alert.

Iran also defied the ceasefire announcement by the US President as it fired missiles at Israel following Trump saying that both the countries have agreed to a ceasefire. It shows Iran is willing to test red lines. If anything, the conflict exposed American troops to harm and chipped away at US deterrence, as Iran demonstrated it can retaliate and challenge US power directly.

Washington drops talk of regime change in Tehran

Following the announcement of strikes by the US on Iran’s nuclear facilities, President Trump suggested regime change in Iran. In a post on Truth Social, he said, “It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change,’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!” The remark was a clear sign that the US desired the end of Iran’s ruling system. This was not a statement that could be ignored. It implied US involvement in Iran had a goal beyond destroying its nuclear program.

However, the talks of regime change were quickly buried under the ground. Notably, hours before Trump’s desire for a change in regime in Iran, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth had publicly stressed that it was not about regime change but to neutralise Iran’s nuclear facilities. The talks of regime change have faded away quietly since the announcement of ceasefire.

No clear strategic benefit for the United States

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the US gained little of tangible value from this entanglement. Iran’s nuclear capability is bruised, there is no doubt. However, claiming that it has been destroyed would be exaggerating. It has only been delayed by a few months. Tehran still holds the enriched uranium and can resume its program. The issue is, it is no longer traceable by international agencies.

The Iranian regime remains as strong as ever, having survived the confrontation without conceding its core positions. Washington’s brief flirtation with regime change rhetoric has been shelved, and the US now finds itself effectively reverting to containment and negotiation rather than revolution in Iran.

The US has gained no new support. If anything, European powers are now warning they may reimpose UN sanctions on Iran if a new nuclear agreement is not reached. In other words, despite the military fireworks, the solution still points back to negotiations and sanctions, the same toolkit used before the bombs fell.

Moreover, the US has come down to compromise mode. Trump recently said in a Truth Social post that China can continue buying Iranian oil and hoped it will buy from the US too. The gesture suggests Washington felt pressure to stabilise oil markets and placate Beijing amid the Iran crisis. It appears that the confrontation produced economic and geopolitical headaches for the US.

In conclusion, while Washington’s high-profile intervention in Iran yielded no decisive victory, Iran’s nuclear ambitions are only dented, not destroyed. The lofty goal of a safer, non-nuclear Iran governed by different leaders has not materialised. The situation will remain tense in the region even if Israel and Iran have agreed to a ceasefire, as Iran may resume its nuclear program in a matter of months and may even start working on developing an actual nuclear bomb in the coming months.

The question is, was it worth it? The evidence so far suggests the answer is a resounding no.

News