Where Does Iran Stand? Five Months After the June 2025 War

By Maceo Ouitana*

11/21/2025

In June 2025, Israel and the Iranian regime engaged in their most direct confrontation in decades. Twelve days of war of unprecedented intensity in the Middle East, marked by exchanges of missile strikes, drone attacks, and cyber offensives targeting the strategic infrastructure of both countries.

While the conflict ended without a clear victory, it profoundly altered the balance of regional deterrence. For the first time, the United States directly participated in offensive operations against two Iranian sites, Natanz and Fordow, considered the core of the country's nuclear program.

On June 28, satellite images of the Natanz facility, published by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), revealed extensive destruction: the buildings housing the IR-9 and IR-6 centrifuges were blown apart, while the underground containment structures showed signs of internal explosions. Fordow, located near Qom, suffered targeted strikes on its ventilation system and access tunnels, rendering the site inoperable for several months.

Since then, Tehran has maintained a calculated silence. The regime merely refers to "limited damage" and promises the "continuation of the peaceful program," without publishing any technical data or authorizing the full return of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Diplomats in Vienna, meanwhile, describe an unprecedented situation: the heart of the Iranian nuclear program is partially paralyzed, its scientific teams dispersed, and its supply chains severely disrupted. Five months after the war, one question is paramount: is the Iranian nuclear program still viable, or is it merely a symbolic vestige of a waning strategic ambition?

Twenty years of tension: from the dream of civilian nuclear power to the quest for the nuclear threshold

To understand the state of the program in 2025, we must go back two decades, to when the Iranian nuclear issue first entered the international arena.

Clandestine beginnings (2002-2006)

In 2002, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an opposition movement in exile, revealed the existence of two secret facilities in Natanz and Arak. These sites, dedicated respectively to uranium enrichment and heavy water production, violated the transparency obligations imposed by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Under international pressure, Tehran temporarily agreed to suspend its activities and signed an additional protocol with the IAEA in 2003. But this truce was short-lived: in 2006, Iran resumed enrichment, invoking its "inalienable right to civilian nuclear technology."

The Era of Sanctions and Negotiations (2007–2015)

The United Nations, the United States, and the European Union imposed a series of unprecedented economic and financial sanctions. In response, Tehran hardened its stance and increased the number of centrifuges.

Between 2009 and 2012, cyberattacks, including the infamous Stuxnet operation, jointly attributed to Israel and the United States, damaged more than a thousand centrifuges at Natanz.

Despite these setbacks, the mullahs' regime stayed the course, strengthened by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which had become the true architect of the program.

In 2013, the election of Hassan Rouhani, presented as a moderate, reopened dialogue with the West. Two years later, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was signed in Vienna between Iran, the five permanent members of the Security Council, and Germany (the P5+1).

The agreement limited uranium enrichment to 3.67%, reduced the uranium stockpile, and provided for enhanced IAEA inspections, in exchange for a gradual lifting of sanctions.

The Trump Turning Point and the End of Trust (2018–2020)

In May 2018, Donald Trump announced the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the JCPOA, calling the agreement a "historic disaster." Economic sanctions were reinstated, targeting the Iranian oil and financial sectors. Tehran reacted gradually: first by exceeding enrichment limits, then by restricting access for IAEA inspectors.

From Ambiguity to the Nuclear Threshold (2021–2024)

The following years saw a continuous rise in tension. Under the presidency of Ebrahim Raisi, Iran enriched uranium to 60%, a level technically close to weapons-grade (90%). The IAEA repeatedly warned of the lack of Iranian cooperation and the discovery of new, more powerful IR-9 centrifuges. In 2024, several confidential reports indicated that Iran had amassed a stockpile of uranium sufficient to produce three Hiroshima-sized bombs should the regime cross the military threshold.

It was in this climate of mistrust and crisis that the June 2025 war erupted, following ballistic missile tests perceived by Israel as preparation for the militarization of the program.

June 2025: The Twelve-Day War and Targeted Strikes

On June 13, 2025, at dawn, Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, a campaign of surprise strikes against several strategic Iranian installations. The first attacks targeted Natanz, Isfahan, and Parchin, sending shockwaves through Tehran through both political and military operations.

For the first 24 hours, the regime remained stunned and disorganized: no coordinated response was recorded, and Iranian defense systems struggled to react. It was only the following evening that a few surface-to-surface missiles were fired toward southern Israel, without any major effect.

For the first time since 1979, a direct and prolonged confrontation pitted Israel against the Iranian regime, sparking global concern.

The immediate origins of the conflict

It all began a few days earlier, with the release by Israeli media of satellite images showing "abnormal" activity at Natanz and Fordow. According to Israeli intelligence services (Mossad and Amman), Iran had crossed a critical threshold: the commissioning of new IR-9 centrifuges capable of enriching uranium to 90%, or weapons-grade.

The Israeli government believed that a nuclear test could be imminent. In a speech delivered to the Knesset, the Prime Minister stated that "the world is on the brink of a nuclear Iran," and that it "will not remain inactive in the face of an existential threat." Israeli doctrine, based on preemptive deterrence, leaves little room for waiting.

The American Intervention

The United States intervened only on the ninth day of the conflict, when tensions reached their peak. On June 22, 2025, the American administration launched Operation Midnight Hammer, a coordinated campaign of airstrikes against Iranian nuclear infrastructure.

B-2 and B-52 bombers, supported by Tomahawk missiles, targeted Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, inflicting the heaviest damage ever recorded at these sites.

The operation, conducted under the direct authorization of President Donald Trump, aimed to "permanently neutralize the Islamic Republic's nuclear enrichment capabilities."

Satellite reports published in the following days confirmed the near-total destruction of the underground facilities at Natanz and Fordow. According to military sources, these strikes, coordinated with Israel, used GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs capable of penetrating up to 60 meters underground.

Destruction and shock

Initial satellite analyses confirm the extent of the damage. At Natanz, the main enrichment facility was completely destroyed. Images show a large excavation in place of the central complex. Electrical systems and UF6 gas supply lines were blown out.

At Fordow, the tunnels dug into the mountain have partially collapsed. Several hundred technicians are reported to have been killed or are missing, according to leaks from within the IAEA. The shock is immense. Never before has the heart of the Iranian nuclear program been subjected to such a coordinated attack.

In a terse statement, the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs denounced "an act of war" but refrained from announcing an immediate response. Observers note a significant shift in the regime's stance: after several days of escalating rhetoric, the tone has become more measured.

An imposed ceasefire

After twelve days of unprecedentedly intense conflict, a bilateral ceasefire was concluded on June 24, 2025, under US-Qatari mediation. The agreement ended Operation Rising Lion, launched by Israel on June 13, and Operation Midnight Hammer, conducted by the United States on June 22.

Contrary to somereports in the press, this ceasefire was not imposed by Russia or China, but by direct pressure from Washington on both sides.

President Donald Trump personally spoke with Qatari authorities to guarantee the suspension of hostilities.

On the ground, the consequences are severe: Iranian nuclear infrastructure is badly damaged, several high-ranking military officials have been killed or are missing, and the enriched uranium production chain is completely disrupted.

While Tehran proclaims a "victory of resistance," the reality is quite different: the regime emerges weakened, surprised, and forced into strategic silence.

Political and scientific consequences after the war (July–November 2025)

The repercussions of the twelve-day war are felt far beyond the battlefield. Iran emerges weakened, both militarily and diplomatically, while Israel and the United States consolidate an unprecedented position of strength in the Middle East. 1. A Strategic Shock for Tehran

The near-total destruction of the Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan sites marked the end of a two-decade-long cycle of nuclear expansion pursued by the regime. Satellite images published by Maxar Technologies and the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in July 2025 confirmed that these facilities were inoperable: the underground halls of Natanz had been blasted open, the tunnels of Fordow had collapsed, and the reactors of Isfahan had been rendered unusable.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) attempted to disperse the scientific teams to secondary sites in Yazd and Kerman, but the local infrastructure is insufficient to ensure stable production. This relocation reflects a forced retreat rather than a strategic adaptation.

2. The Cessation of Attacks by Pro-Iranian Militias

One of the most significant effects of the conflict has been the complete suspension of attacks by Iraqi and Syrian militias against American bases.

Following the deaths of three American soldiers in Jordan, the massive American airstrikes of June 22 destroyed part of the logistical command linking Tehran to its regional proxies. Since July, no direct attacks have been claimed against American targets in the Middle East; a major change compared to previous years.

This subjugation of the Shiite militias reflects a recalibration of Iranian policy: under the combined pressure of military losses and American deterrence, the regime has chosen to temporarily slow its regional power projection.

3. A Structural Weakening of the Scientific Program

Iran retains highly valuable human capital, but the human and technical losses are considerable. Several engineers and scientists affiliated with the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) have been killed in the bombings or have fled to Russia, China, and Oman.

According to the IAEA, nearly 180 scientists left the country between July and September 2025. This brain drain jeopardizes the rebuilding of the country's nuclear expertise.

The University of Tehran, the Karaj Institute, and the Arak research center are now operating with reduced staff, while research budgets have fallen under the exclusive control of the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), which prioritizes short-term military applications.

4. Increased Diplomatic Isolation

On the international stage, Tehran finds itself isolated as rarely before in its recent history. Russia and China, while opposed to the American strategy, have adopted a cautious stance: they call for regional stability but refuse any logistical support that could violate Security Council sanctions. China, keen to protect its oil routes, even supported the Qatari mediation that led to the June 24 ceasefire.

As for the European powers, they are content with calls for calm. The European Union, weakened by its divisions, no longer has any real influence on the Iranian nuclear issue.

5. The Collapse of the Myth of "Resistance"

Regime propaganda continues to portray the June war as a "moral victory," but the Iranian people are not fooled. The loss of life, soaring prices, and the cessation of numerous subsidies have exacerbated popular discontent. In several cities, demonstrations denounce "a pointless war" and the "regime's nuclear madness."

The nuclear program, long brandished as a symbol of sovereignty, is now perceived by a large segment of society as a cause of national ruin. This shift in public sentiment weakens the power of the Revolutionary Guard, which is increasingly accused of having led the country into this impasse.

The Current State of the Nuclear Program (November 2025)

Five months after the Israeli-American strikes, the Iranian nuclear program still exists, but in a fragmented form. The industrial apparatus has been severely damaged, supply chains disrupted, and the majority of underground infrastructure unusable. 1. A Program Reduced to a Residual State

Four months after the June 2025 war, Iran's nuclear program is operating at minimal capacity. The Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan sites, once the heart of enrichment, are out of service.

Structural damage, including the collapse of tunnels and the destruction of UF6 gas supply lines, makes any industrial resumption impossible in the short term. The new underground facilities under construction in Khorasan and around Yazd are only at an embryonic stage.

According to a confidential IAEA report dated October 2, 2025, Iran retains nearly 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, compared to approximately 274 kg in February. This increase, despite targeted strikes and disruptions related to the conflict, demonstrates the resilience and continuity of Iran's nuclear program. Far from indicating a weakening, these figures reflect an intact technical capacity and a deliberate strategy to maintain a high enrichment level.

Current activities are limited to academic research and maintenance work on IR-4 centrifuges, with no industrial production.

2. Militarization of Control and the End of Scientific Autonomy

Since July, oversight of the program has been completely militarized. The Special Projects Department (SPND) of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) now controls all budgets, personnel allocations, and clandestine imports. Civilians from the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) are relegated to purely symbolic roles.

Several arrests have been reported in Tehran and Qom, particularly among researchers accused of "negligence" or "foreign collaboration." According to testimonies gathered by Radio Farda, scientists are now under constant surveillance by IRGC agents, stifling any academic initiative. This security drift reflects a deep-seated fear: that of Western infiltration and a new wave of targeted assassinations similar to those of the 2010s.

3. A Loss of International Credibility

On the world stage, Iran's diplomatic capital is at its lowest level since 2015. The regime's traditional allies are adopting a cautious tone:

• China, anxious to protect its oil routes, maintains a strategic distance and encourages de-escalation.
• Russia, preoccupied with its own isolation, limits its support to symbolic gestures.
• The Gulf Arab states, reassured by the Israeli-American show of force, are strengthening their security alliances with Washington.

In this context, Iran finds itself isolated, economically strangled, and diplomatically marginalized.

The IAEA, although tolerated at some secondary sites, no longer has full access to the territory, and its Director General, Rafael Grossi, admits to "a critical loss of visibility into the country's actual activities."

4. Four possible scenarios

a) The scenario of strategic withdrawal

The most likely scenario remains that of a prolonged withdrawal. Tehran would maintain a minimal scientific base, without significant expansion, in the hope of obtaining a later easing of sanctions. This choice would preserve the appearance of sovereignty while avoiding a new military confrontation.

But this "strategic patience" rests on one condition: that the regime maintains sufficient internal stability to finance the survival of its laboratories.

b) The scenario of clandestine reconstruction

Factions affiliated with the Revolutionary Guard advocate for a discreet reconstruction of the program, based on the dispersal of sites and the miniaturization of equipment.

This model is inspired by the North Korean system, where activities are fragmented into microstructures invisible to satellites. Suspicious transfers of equipment from the port of Bandar Abbas have already been observed by Israeli intelligence.

However, smuggling logistics networks are currently weakened: sanctions on rare metals, ball bearings, and semiconductors have cut Iran off from its Chinese and Malaysian suppliers. A clandestine resumption of production therefore remains highly risky and technically limited.

c) The diplomatic scenario

Some Iranian diplomats advocate for renewed negotiations under Qatari or Omani auspices, with a "tacit suspension agreement." The idea would be to freeze enrichment above 20% in exchange for a partial easing of sanctions on oil exports.

But this option is met with the regime's mistrust: since the US withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, Khamenei has refused any concessions, which he sees as a sign of weakness. The American position remains firm: according to the official White House website (June 22, 2025), Donald Trump stated: "We do not want war with Iran. We actually want peace, but peace in the context of not having a nuclear weapons program."

This negotiating framework excludes any legitimacy for the military nuclear program, even under international supervision.

d) The scenario of internal collapse

The most uncertain, but also the most decisive, scenario is that of a major internal crisis. If the regime were to be shaken by new social unrest, a weakening of the Supreme Leader, or divisions within the Revolutionary Guard, the nuclear program could collapse with it. As Sanam Vakil pointed out (Chatham House, October 2025), "The fate of Iran's nuclear program depends less on centrifuges than on the regime's stability. If Tehran falters, the nuclear program will follow."

5. Between Survival and Resignation

Today, the Iranian nuclear program is no longer a project of power, but an instrument of political survival. The June 2025 war shattered its technical framework, and regional deterrence has shifted sides.

Nuclear ambitions have not been abandoned, but rather put on hold, suspended on the decisions of an aging and isolated government. As long as the regime remains founded on distrust and fear, no lasting recovery will be possible.

Iran's nuclear program, once a symbol of resistance, risks becoming a relic of an era when Tehran still believed it could defy the world.

Conclusion

Five months after the June 2025 war, Iran faces a strategic paradox. Its nuclear program has not disappeared, but it has lost the essentials: its industrial capacity, its diplomatic credibility, and its deterrent value. The Israeli-American strikes have reduced in a matter of days what two decades of development had built, relegating Iran's nuclear program to the status of a symbolic tool serving a weakened regime.

The now isolated regime is torn between two choices: maintain a facade of resistance or accept a tactical pause to preserve its domestic authority. The first risks leading it to a dead end; the second, to a slow erosion of its regional influence. The Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guards still retain decision-making power, but their room for maneuver is shrinking under the pressure of sanctions, social tensions, and military setbacks.

Beyond the destroyed facilities, it is the myth of Iranian nuclear power that is crumbling. The country retains the know-how, but not the political stability necessary to make it a strategic lever.

The survival of the program will depend less on science than on politics: on the degree of cohesion within the regime, its ability to negotiate, and the attitude of the major powers toward its weakening. In this new landscape, Iran's nuclear program no longer embodies the rise of a nation, but rather the vestige of a declining system, still seeking in nuclear power a legitimacy it no longer possesses domestically. The future of this issue hinges on the answer to a single question: Will Tehran choose survival or confrontation?

* Maceo Ouitana is a journalist and contributor to FEMO