Following the US attacks on three Iranian nuclear installations, including Fordo’s Uranus Enrichment Unit, which marked Washington’s direct involvement in the war between Israel and Tehran, two questions arise: What was the effectiveness of these bombings?

Excited for the “spectacular war success”, Donald Trump gave the assurance that “the basic Iranian nuclear enrichment plants have been completely and universal”.

Few evidence has been made known for the extent of the damage. But some nuclear experts estimate that the nuclear material had been moved before the attack.

“Normally, such blows are effective, but satellite images have been released that show mobility before the attack on Fordo’s installation,” says Héloise Fayet, specially nuclear in the Institut Français des Relations Internationales (IFRI). “So part of the enriched uranium was able to be transferred to installations that are not monitored” by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) “.

Héloise Fayet recalls that before the war, IAEA inspections allowed the formation of a picture of the Iranian nuclear program.

“No more inspection is possible,” he says, noting that Iran’s know -how can be destroyed because “thousands of people have participated in the Iranian nuclear program.”

King’s College’s Andreas Krieg describes American energy as “high -risk business with unpredictable results”.

“To say that Fordo is over, Mr Trump is based on Osint – Open -Source Intelligence”, in open sources on the Internet, reminds the expert “while the Iranians declare that there have been no disasters but on the surface.”

For Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group, Fordo’s destruction will not end the Iranian nuclear program.

“In recent years, Tehran has developed hundreds of advanced centrifugal devices located in unknown locations,” he points out.

Opposite Washington, Andreas Krieg predicts “a calculated answer, strong enough to have an impact, but also measured enough” to contain the conflict within limits.

Israeli specialist in Geopolitical Michael Horowitz lists the possibilities of attacking US interests: closing the straits of chromuz, critical navigation channel for oil worldwide, attacking the energy infrastructure of the gulf countries.

“None of these options are truly effective. It will be mainly to save the pretexts, “he writes in X.” The dangers, on the contrary, are important. “

Michael Horowitz does not exclude limited retaliation against the US and then more strikes against Israel before returning, in the end, in the negotiations process.

For the Think-Tank Chatham House Renad Mansour, the Iranian leadership has entered the survival phase against Israel and Washington, a situation reminiscent of the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988).

Without excluding the possibility of a “prolonged and very bloody conflict”, it refers to the possibility of “a controlled de -deficit”, like the one that Donald Trump hopes to negotiate. “But the Islamic Republic feels humiliated again and does not think that the US is negotiating good faith,” he says.

Hamidreza Azizi, of the German Institute of International Affairs and Security, does not exclude the option of granting Trump a “symbolic victory” for Iran and to direct all the rage against Israel.

“This keeps Washington outside the conflict while enhancing the pressure on Tel Aviv. Then the risk of further US involvement would burn Mr Trump »writes in X.

So if the US president continues his attacks on Iran, “without a new challenge”, it would look more like “war in favor of Israel,” he explains. “Something that will have great political costs,” because of the opposition to the US issue.

As for Iran, he could say that he ignores what happened in his enriched celestial, avoid IAEA inspections and abandon the Nuclear Non -spreading Treaty.

If Trump can enjoy a “regular victory”, there is a risk of taking a “political grenade” from Iran, writes Hamidreza Azizi “moving the nuclear game to a more problematic and dangerous field.”