It would be sensible to wait until the dust has settled before judging whether the US strikes on Iran were, in Donald Trump’s, words, “a spectacular military success”.

And when dropping bombs that weigh more than 13 tonnes each, there’s going to be a lot of dust.

The Pentagon says the operation against Iran’s three largest nuclear facilities involved 125 military aircraft, warships and submarines, including the largest operational strike by B2 bombers in history.

Follow latest: Iran considering ‘all options’ after US strikes

The B-2s dropped 14 of America’s most powerful GBU-57 “bunker buster” bombs on the Natanz uranium enrichment plant and Iran’s most sophisticated nuclear facility at Fordow.

The first time, according to the Pentagon, the weapons have been used in a military operation.

The Fordow complex, buried deep in a mountain, was the only site not previously damaged by Israeli strikes over the last few days.

The use of multiple GBU-57 bombs at Fordow is telling.

Despite their size, it was known that one of them would be insufficient to penetrate 80+ metres of solid rock believed to shelter Iran’s most sophisticated uranium enrichment technology deep within Fordow.

Read more:
Fordow: What we know about Iran’s secretive ‘nuclear mountain’
What we know so far about US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities

Satellite images reveal three visible holes at two different strike points on the mountainside above the complex.

The sites appear to be close to what may have been ventilation shafts – possibly chosen to maximise damage below and render the facility useless.

Using several of the bombs in the same location is likely designed to allow each to penetrate further than the first before detonating.

If nuclear facilities at Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow were destroyed – as the US claims – or even crippled, it would certainly halt Iran’s ability to enrich the Uranium needed to make a viable nuclear weapon.

But that’s not the same as preventing Iran’s ability to make a nuclear bomb. To do that, they need “weapons-grade” uranium; the necessary metal-shaping, explosives and timing technology needed to trigger nuclear fission in the bomb; and a mechanism for delivering it.

The facilities targeted in the US raid are dedicated to achieving the first objective. Taking naturally occurring uranium ore, which contains around 0.7% uranium 235 – the isotope needed for nuclear fission – and concentrating it.

The centrifuges you hear about are the tools needed to enrich U-235 to the 90% purity needed for a compact “implosion”-type warhead that can be delivered by a missile.

And the reality is Iran’s centrifuges have been spinning for a long time.

United Nations nuclear inspectors warned in May that Iran had at least 408kg of uranium “enriched” to 60%.

Getting to that level represents 90% of the time and effort to get to 90% U-235. And those 400kg would yield enough of that weapons-grade uranium to make nine nuclear weapons, the inspectors concluded.

The second element is something Iran has also been working on for two decades.

Precisely shaping uranium metal and making shaped explosive charges to crush it in the right way to achieve “criticality”, the spark for the sub-atomic chain reaction that releases the terrifying energy in a nuclear explosion.

In its recent bombing campaign, Israel is thought to have targeted facilities where Iranian nuclear scientists were doing some of that work.

Analysis on the US strikes:
Trump’s two big gambles as US enters war with Iran
For Trump, the performative presidency just got real

But unlike the industrial processes needed to enrich uranium, these later steps can be carried out in laboratory-sized facilities. Easier to pack up and move, and easier to hide from prying eyes.

Given that it’s understood Iran already moved enriched uranium out of Fordow ahead of the US strike, it’s far from certain that Iran has, in fact, lost its ability to make a bomb.

And while the strikes may have delayed the logistics, it’s possible they’ve emboldened a threatened Iran to intensify its warhead-making capability if it does still have one.

Making a more compact implosion-based warhead is not easy. There is debate among experts about how advanced Iran is along that road.

But if it felt sufficiently motivated, it does have other, less sophisticated nuclear options.

Even 60% enriched uranium, of which – remember – it has a lot, can be coaxed to criticality in a much larger, cruder nuclear device.

Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

This wouldn’t pose as much threat to its enemies, as it would be too heavy to fit on even the best of Iran’s long-range missiles.

But it would, nonetheless, elevate Iran to the status of a nuclear power.

👉Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim on your podcast app👈

In this bonus episode, Richard and Yalda get together and talk about President Trump’s decision to strike three nuclear sites in Iran.

Yalda is in Jerusalem and Richard is in Tel Aviv where both of them have been reporting all night long.

Yalda reveals what her contacts are telling her about the extent of the damage done to the sites. They then ask, what could happen next?

To get in touch or to share questions, email theworld@sky.uk

Iraq is no different to any other country in the region – anxiously waiting to see what happens next after America’s multiple bomb strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Where it differs is that Iraq, caught bang in the middle of the war between Israel and Iran, and now the United States, has to juggle its relationships with both Tehran and Washington DC.

The Shia Muslim-dominated government of Iraq is close to Iran, and Iran’s influence on Iraq cannot be underestimated.

Follow latest: US bombers strike three Iranian nuclear sites

Shia militia groups in Iraq, while nominally answering to Baghdad, take much of their guidance from Tehran, so their positions must be taken into consideration by the Iraqi government.

At the same time, Iraq needs the United States because it provides stability and support in the region, and the US military remains the most potent force in stopping terror organisations like Islamic State from rejuvenating themselves.

There are at least 2,500 American personnel stationed in Iraq, and the US has major interests here, as it does across the Middle East and Gulf states.

That US presence itself poses problems – Iran has threatened to attack American interests and personnel across the region.

Read more:
I covered the 2003 Iraq war – here’s my thoughts on US strikes on Iran

The US bases and personnel, like its airbase in Erbil in northern Iraq, could easily be attacked and are well within the distance of Iran’s short-range missiles.

Further, the home-based Iraqi Shia militias are already on record as saying they will attack bases and personnel if the United States were to join in Israel’s war with Iran, which has now happened.

Iraq is furious that its airspace has been used by Israel to attack Iran, but is powerless to do anything about it.

Equally, the Iraqi government’s writ does not run far with the militias, who could act independently, embarrassing the government, or worse, leading to attacks within Iraq itself.

Read more:
What we know about the US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities
Iran’s secretive ‘nuclear mountain’ and its protection
Analysis: If Israel breaks Iran it will end up owning the chaos

In a press conference given by the US defence secretary and US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the message to Iran and its proxies here in Iraq and in Syria was that any attack on American assets would be “a very bad idea”.

They couldn’t be clearer in their warning.

President Trump, they pointed out, wants an end to the matter, but is more than prepared to carry out attacks on all hostile entities.

If Iran follows its publicly announced course of action to retaliate not just against Israel, but against American interests, military personnel, and even civilians here in Iraq and the wider region, it runs the risk of a serious degradation of the country if America were to strike back.

Given that Iraq must play this delicate balancing act between the two powers, ultimately, it doesn’t want to be dragged into the conflict.

What it wants – and needs – is for diplomacy to resume.