The Evidence Shows More Damage Than The Atlantic Wants to Admit
A recent piece dismissed the effectiveness of the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, but the evidence we have actually suggests more damage than we knew.
War is a massive, complex thing. Even a single airstrike takes a lot of tactical planning, organization, and operational security to have any effect. This massive, complex thing can be so complicated at times that we may not know the full impact of any military action for days or even weeks.
Still, that does not excuse commentary on war or military actions that relies on old, outdated, or biased information in order to render judgment, which is exactly what a recent piece published by The Atlantic does.
The article, published this week, directly contradicts what multiple intelligence agencies are telling us about the U.S. air strikes on Iran’s nuclear. Phillips Payson O'Brien, a professor at St. Andrews in Scotland, dismisses the operation as "showy tactical attacks that fail to accomplish any strategic goals" that only "delayed the Iranian program by months."
The actual evidence tells a different story.
O'Brien's analysis falls apart when you examine subsequent intelligence assessments, satellite imagery, and expert evaluations that have emerged since the strikes. His argument relies on selective data interpretation and inappropriate historical analogies that don't match this operation's strategic context.
The Centrifuge Destruction Not Acknowledged
O'Brien's central claim, that the strikes only created a months-long delay, ignores significant facts.
The International Atomic Energy Agency assessed that roughly 15,000 centrifuges at Iran's Natanz facility were "severely damaged if not destroyed altogether" due to power infrastructure destruction.
These are sophisticated machines that spin at extremely high speeds and take years to manufacture and install. When you lose power suddenly to 15,000 centrifuges, the damage extends far beyond a quick repair job.
The Institute for Science and International Security, which has tracked Iran's nuclear program for decades, was more direct: "Israel's and U.S. attacks have effectively destroyed Iran's centrifuge enrichment program. It will be a long time before Iran comes anywhere near the capability it had before the attack."
The timeline is years, not months.
Intelligence Updates Missed (Or Ignored)
O'Brien relies on preliminary assessments to support his "months only" argument, but the Pentagon later updated its damage assessment significantly. Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh stated that strikes had "degraded Iran's nuclear program by up to two years."
Initial intelligence assessments getting revised from months to years represent a fundamental misreading of the operation's effectiveness, not a small correction.
Our Israeli allies provided even starker assessments.
The Israeli Atomic Energy Commission found that "the devastating US strike on Fordo destroyed the site's critical infrastructure and rendered the enrichment facility inoperable," setting back Iran's nuclear weapons development "by many years."
The Historical Analogies That Don't Work
O'Brien tries to lump the Iran strikes in with the Vietnam escalation and the Iraq "Mission Accomplished" fiasco. The comparison fails for a fundamental reason: those were open-ended conflicts with unclear objectives and no exit strategy.
The Iran operation had precisely defined tactical objectives achieved through overwhelming force application in a single coordinated strike. O'Brien himself acknowledges Desert Storm as America's "only one clear victory in a war," and the Iran operation followed that exact model.
Israel spent over a week systematically degrading Iran's air defenses, creating the conditions for precise American bunker-buster strikes on targets only we could reach, demonstrating sophisticated alliance warfare rather than impulsive decision-making.
The Technical Reality Downplayed
The operational details matter here. This was the first combat use of the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, specifically designed for deeply buried hard targets.
Seven B-2 bombers dropped fourteen 30,000-pound bombs on Fordow and Natanz facilities, while over 25 Tomahawk cruise missiles struck Isfahan. David Albright, a former UN nuclear inspector, noted that satellite imagery suggested "total destruction of the underground hall" at Fordow was "quite possible."
Arms control expert Spencer Faragasso assessed that "it may possibly take years for Iran to reconstitute the capabilities it lost at these facilities."
The technical evidence directly contradicts O'Brien's months-only timeline.
The Strategic Objectives Misinterpreted
O'Brien assumes the primary goal was complete nuclear program destruction, then judges partial success as failure. This misreads the actual strategic objective.
The strikes proved America could reach Iran's most protected facilities while leaving pathways for diplomatic resolution. The operation demonstrated calibrated escalation designed to show credible deterrence capability, which is exactly what successful deterrence requires.
Iran was assessed by US Central Command as having "stockpiles and available centrifuges across several enrichment plants sufficient to produce its first 25 kg of weapons-grade material in roughly one week and enough for up to ten nuclear weapons in three weeks" before the strikes.
Facing that timeline, diplomatic solutions were effectively exhausted.
The Alliance Coordination Success Story
O'Brien criticizes Trump for "short-circuiting" Israeli operations, but this misses the coordinated division of labor that made the operation effective. Israel established air superiority and degraded defensive capabilities; America delivered precision strikes on the hardest targets; both demonstrated unified resolve while maintaining escalation control.
The operation represents exactly the kind of alliance coordination and sophisticated military planning that should be praised, not dismissed as tactical improvisation.
What The Intelligence Actually Shows
Examining the comprehensive intelligence picture rather than cherry-picking preliminary assessments reveals:
Destruction of Iran's primary enrichment infrastructure at three key sites
Elimination of thousands of sophisticated centrifuges requiring years to replace
Damage to manufacturing facilities that produce centrifuge components
Demonstration of credible deterrence reaching Iran's most protected facilities
Given the evidence, it looks like systematic infrastructure degradation requiring years for reconstitution, not "showy tactical attacks."
The Bottom Line
We need a clear-eyed analysis of American military capabilities and strategic effectiveness. When prestigious publications minimize successful operations that enhance our national security, they fail to serve the public interest.
Iran moving closer to nuclear weapons destabilizes the entire Middle East, threatens our allies, and puts American interests at risk. An operation that sets back Iran's nuclear program by years while demonstrating alliance coordination and deterrence capability deserves accurate analysis, not predetermined conclusions about American military overreach.
O'Brien's Atlantic piece suffers from selective intelligence interpretation, inappropriate historical analogies, and misunderstanding of both the operation's strategic logic and its documented effectiveness. The evidence suggests the strikes achieved substantial infrastructure destruction, demonstrated credible deterrence capabilities, and represented sophisticated alliance coordination.
When multiple intelligence agencies, allied assessments, and arms control experts are telling you an operation set back Iran's nuclear program by years, not months, the evidence matters. The facts show this operation accomplished more than The Atlantic wants to give it credit for.