Military Action Falls Short: Iran’s Nuclear Work Resumes Within Months

A recent classified assessment by the U.S. Department of Defense, now summarized in an internal Pentagon report reviewed by policymakers, reveals that American military strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure did not succeed in permanently disabling the facilities. Instead, the operations are said to have only set back Iran’s nuclear program by a few months — reigniting debate in Washington over the effectiveness of military intervention in halting Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The revelation has stirred concern among defense strategists, diplomats, and non-proliferation experts, who now question whether the strikes were worth the geopolitical cost, and whether they may have prompted Tehran to accelerate — rather than abandon — its controversial nuclear activity.

A Tactical Success, Strategic Uncertainty

According to defense analysts who reviewed the report, the U.S. strikes were described as tactically precise and operationally successful, targeting enrichment facilities, support infrastructure, and key logistical hubs believed to be linked to Iran’s uranium processing operations.

However, despite the sophistication of the strikes, Iran’s nuclear program has proven resilient. The Pentagon report suggests that Iran's nuclear infrastructure is not only deeply embedded in fortified underground facilities, but also designed to be rapidly rebuilt or relocated.

One official familiar with the findings noted, “The airstrikes disrupted Iran’s nuclear supply chains, possibly destroyed certain centrifuges, and affected operations temporarily. But within months, Iran began reconstruction and even introduced upgraded equipment.”

Iran’s Rapid Recovery

Iran’s nuclear program has long been structured to withstand foreign attacks. Since the early 2000s, Iranian engineers have dispersed key facilities across the country — many of them hardened against air assault or buried beneath mountains. The recent strikes appear to have targeted above-ground or semi-exposed infrastructure, but core assets, such as deep underground enrichment centers, were largely unaffected.

According to the Pentagon's findings, Iran had already resumed limited-scale uranium enrichment within weeks of the strikes, using stockpiled components and backup systems. Within three to four months, the report notes, the country’s program had returned to approximately 70–80% of its previous capacity — with the potential for further acceleration.

A Warning for Policymakers

The conclusions of the Pentagon report are being closely studied by lawmakers and military planners, especially those who support a hardline stance on Iran. The implication is clear: while airstrikes can disrupt Iran’s progress, they do not eliminate the threat.

Some experts are now comparing this outcome to Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor or the 2010 Stuxnet cyberattack on Iran’s Natanz facility, both of which caused delays but not permanent cessation.

“The lesson,” said a former Pentagon strategist, “is that military action may buy time — but not victory. A nuclear program can be paused by bombs. It cannot be erased unless there’s a broader diplomatic and strategic framework in place.”

The Cost of Escalation

Critics of the strikes have also pointed out the potential long-term costs of military action. Since the attack, Iran has withdrawn further from commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), limited access for International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, and ramped up its rhetoric against the West.

Regional tensions have also spiked. Pro-Iran militias in Iraq and Syria have resumed targeting U.S. installations. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has stepped up its naval activities in the Strait of Hormuz, heightening concerns over energy security in the Gulf.

While the Biden administration has not officially acknowledged the scale or intent of the strikes, the Pentagon report’s conclusions are likely to inform future decisions about engaging Iran — and caution against relying solely on force to resolve nuclear challenges.

Israel’s Parallel Strategy

Interestingly, the report also notes that Israeli intelligence and military planners had anticipated a similar outcome, based on their own assessments. Israeli sources have long advocated for a combination of sabotage, cyber-disruption, and political pressure to contain Iran’s nuclear progress.

“Israel has historically relied on layered strategies — not just airstrikes,” the report notes. “There is a growing belief that without regime-level change or a negotiated rollback, Iran’s program cannot be stopped by military means alone.”

The report’s analysis aligns with past Israeli efforts like the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists or the cyber-attacks aimed at setting back enrichment processes.

Implications for Diplomacy

The findings also come at a time when international diplomatic efforts to revive the Iran nuclear deal have all but stalled. With Iran inching closer to weapons-grade enrichment capability, and hardliners in Tehran growing stronger, the Pentagon's conclusion adds urgency — but not necessarily clarity — to the global response.

European allies, some of whom reportedly expressed unease over the strikes, are now re-evaluating their own strategies. They fear that Iran, emboldened by its ability to recover quickly, may abandon all constraints and make a political decision to weaponize its nuclear program — something it has so far avoided officially.

The Pentagon's warning could, therefore, re-energize diplomatic calls to re-engage Iran through backchannel negotiations or a revised deal — one that addresses not just enrichment, but also missile technology and regional proxies.

Political Reactions in the U.S.

In Washington, the report has already begun to polarize opinions along party lines.

• Republican leaders have argued that the findings justify stronger, more frequent military actions to degrade Iran’s capabilities continuously.

• Democrats and progressives, meanwhile, see it as evidence that military intervention is ineffective and that only diplomacy can achieve a lasting solution.

A joint Congressional briefing is expected soon, where the Department of Defense may provide a more detailed account of the strikes’ tactical outcomes and long-term projections.

The Path Forward

As the U.S. weighs its next steps, the Pentagon report serves as a sobering reminder: technology and strategy may win battles, but they rarely win peace. Iran’s nuclear ambitions have survived decades of sanctions, sabotage, diplomacy, and military pressure. They remain fueled by a mix of nationalist sentiment, security paranoia, and geopolitical aspirations.

Whether Iran seeks a bomb or simply the capability to make one remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that short-term disruption is not a substitute for long-term solutions.