https://sputnikglobe.com/20250627/did-us-really-obliterate-fordow-1122350079.html
Did US Really ‘Obliterate’ Fordow?
Did US Really ‘Obliterate’ Fordow?
Sputnik International
Pentagon and White House claims and intelligence and media reports about the US’s June 22 attack on Iran are turning into a confusing jumble of contradictory information. Sputnik asked veteran former Swedish Armed Forces officer Mikael Valtersson to sort through the falsehoods.
2025-06-27T16:19+0000
2025-06-27T16:19+0000
2025-06-27T16:32+0000
analysis
donald trump
pentagon
fordow
nuclear site
missile
bombing
attack
aggression
sputnik's fact check
https://cdn1.img.sputnikglobe.com/img/07e9/06/1b/1122351713_0:159:3078:1890_1920x0_80_0_0_ea768da0f6cef7a23a1c4750ae3fb3f6.jpg
The Pentagon’s Claim: The DoD and White House say Fordow, Iran’s main, fortress-like mountain nuclear site, was obliterated based on evidence of concrete dust rising through its ventilation shafts after the US attack.Expert Opinion: Valtersson points out that the concrete dust could be expected even with superficial damage, as the shafts themselves are made of concrete. “Even if you just hit the top of it, there will be concrete dust,” he explained.GBU-57 Bomb Details: Valtersson noted that the GBU-57 bomb is designed to penetrate up to 60 meters before exploding. But Fordow is built in rock, and buried under a mountain. The observer speculates that even if individual bombs hit the ventilation shafts, they would only penetrate 20 to 30 meters of rock before the blast occurred.Built Fordow Tough: Valtersson assumes the Iranians likely designed Fordow to withstand a US attack, with shafts potentially built with caverns to divert blasts. He compared this to his experience with underground Swedish military facilities, constructed in a zigzag pattern for similar protection.Seismic Considerations: Furthermore, Valtersson noted that Iran, mindful of potential attacks and earthquake risks, likely built Fordow on springs to absorb heavy shockwaves, ensuring its structural integrity. “They’re probably not just standing on the ground in a cavern,” he emphasized.Attacking Iran is How You Get a Nuclear IranThe debate over just how much damage US strikes did to Iran’s nuclear sites can only really be resolved on the ground, “big shovel” in hand, as frustrated DoD chief Pete Hegseth admitted to media after the leak of a preliminary intel assessment indicating that the attacks did not destroy the sites.For one thing, “we don’t know whether Iran took its enriched uranium out of [Fordow] or not, and where this enriched uranium is now. Maybe it’s in Pakistan,” Litovkin quipped.
https://sputnikglobe.com/20250625/white-house-mulls-intel-blackout-after-iran-strike-leaks-1122337186.html
https://sputnikglobe.com/20250625/trump-compares-washingtons-strikes-on-iran-to-bombings-of-hiroshima-nagasaki-1122335103.html
https://sputnikglobe.com/20250627/irans-president-us-israeli-attacks-deal-irreparable-blow-to-nuclear-non-proliferation-1122348705.html
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“
2025
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“
News
en_EN
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“
did us destroy iran's nuclear facilities, could us penetrate iranian nuclear facilities, were iranian nuclear facilities damaged
did us destroy iran's nuclear facilities, could us penetrate iranian nuclear facilities, were iranian nuclear facilities damaged
Did US Really ‘Obliterate’ Fordow?
16:19 GMT 27.06.2025 (Updated: 16:32 GMT 27.06.2025) Pentagon and White House claims and intelligence and media reports about the US’s June 22 attack on Iran are turning into a confusing jumble of contradictory information. Sputnik asked veteran former Swedish Armed Forces officer Mikael Valtersson to sort through the falsehoods.
The Pentagon’s Claim: The DoD and White House
say Fordow, Iran’s main, fortress-like mountain nuclear site, was
obliterated based on evidence of concrete dust rising through its ventilation shafts after the US attack.
Expert Opinion: Valtersson points out that the concrete dust could be expected even with superficial damage, as the shafts themselves are made of concrete. “Even if you just hit the top of it, there will be concrete dust,” he explained.
"The ventilation shaft is made in such a way that it's not just a hole down to it that you can drop a bomb into it. Exactly how they have built it, I don't know. But it will not be possible just to drop it down to the facility if you hit it. [Otherwise] the Israelis could have done it."
Mikael Valtersson
Military analyst, former Swedish Armed Forces/Air Defense officer, former defense politician and Sweden Democrats chief of staff
GBU-57 Bomb Details: Valtersson noted that the GBU-57 bomb is designed to penetrate up to 60 meters before exploding. But Fordow is built in rock, and buried under a mountain. The observer speculates that even if individual bombs hit the ventilation shafts, they would only penetrate 20 to 30 meters of rock before the blast occurred.
Built Fordow Tough: Valtersson assumes the Iranians likely designed Fordow to withstand a US attack, with shafts potentially built with caverns to divert blasts. He compared this to his experience with underground Swedish military facilities, constructed in a zigzag pattern for similar protection.
Seismic Considerations: Furthermore, Valtersson noted that Iran, mindful of potential attacks and earthquake risks, likely built Fordow on springs to absorb heavy shockwaves, ensuring its structural integrity. “They’re probably not just standing on the ground in a cavern,” he emphasized.
Attacking Iran is How You Get a Nuclear Iran
The debate over just how much damage US strikes did to Iran’s nuclear sites can only really be resolved on the ground, “big shovel” in hand, as frustrated DoD chief Pete Hegseth
admitted to media after the leak of a preliminary intel assessment indicating that the attacks did not destroy the sites.
But “it’s not about whether they did or did not do damage,” says retired Russian Army colonel and military analyst Viktor Litovkin. “It’s about Trump bragging that the US had finally ‘closed’ the issue of Iran producing nuclear material. And leaks to press show that they did not conclusively do so.”
For one thing, “we don’t know whether Iran took its enriched uranium out of [Fordow] or not, and where this enriched uranium is now. Maybe it’s in Pakistan,” Litovkin quipped.
“One thing is clear. After what the US has done, Iran, which did not want to have the bomb before, will have it now. If not today, tomorrow. They understand that the only guarantee against such bombings is an atomic bomb,” the analyst said, citing the example of North Korea, who “no one touches” thanks to its nuclear capabilities.
