By: Ricardo Abud
In recent days, reports have circulated about U.S. attacks on nuclear facilities in Iran, particularly the Fordow, Natanz, and Natanz complexes.
Official US sources described them as "surgical operations" designed to damage specific targets without causing collateral effects. They also used the slogan, "The world is safer now." However, when examining the facts and comparing them with reality, serious doubts arise about the authenticity and effectiveness of these attacks.
Nuclear plants like those mentioned above are not simple military buildings. They contain enriched uranium and highly radioactive materials that, if impacted, would generate immediate, measurable, and visible consequences for the surrounding population and the international community. A successful attack would have caused a considerable release of radioactive particles, contaminating air, soil, and water. This contamination has reportedly been detected by environmental monitoring stations in Iran and neighboring countries. However, no anomalous increase in radiation levels has been reported by Iranian authorities, international organizations, or independent observers.
On June 21, 2025, the world witnessed what arguably is one of the most elaborate military propaganda exercises in modern history. US President Donald Trump grandiloquently announced that the United States had "completely destroyed" Iran's Fordow, Natanz, and Natanz nuclear facilities. From Tehran, however, this operation reveals a very different reality than the narrative Washington is trying to sell the world.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, through its Atomic Energy Organization, confirmed what international nuclear experts had already suspected: "Following the illegal US attack on the Fordow, Natanz, and Natanz nuclear sites, field surveys and radiation systems data showed no contamination . There is no danger to residents around these sites," Iranian authorities stated.
This statement is not just an official announcement, but a revelation that exposes the theatrical nature of the US operation. Iran, a nation that has developed nuclear capabilities under constant Western threat, understands better than anyone the real implications of an attack on active nuclear facilities. Iranian authorities know that the total absence of radiation after supposedly devastating attacks can only mean one thing: the United States attacked empty or nonexistent targets.
Likewise, no evacuation process has been recorded in areas surrounding the facilities. Nearby cities continue their normal pace, without sanitary cordons, exclusion zones, or any evidence of a catastrophe. Available satellite images show no structures reduced to rubble, prolonged columns of smoke, or alterations in urban dynamics. There is also no evidence of medical personnel treating cases of radiation exposure or hospital reports of compatible symptoms. This contrasts sharply with precedents such as Chernobyl or Fukushima, where the effects were immediate and devastating. What has happened now, however, seems shrouded in a fog of ambiguity.
Adding to this situation is the silence of international agencies like the IAEA. Under normal circumstances, a direct attack on nuclear facilities would be a cause for international concern. The absence of formal condemnations, emergency declarations, or technical reports adds another layer of doubt. Everything indicates that, if there was a military operation, it did not hit the heart of the facilities, but was a symbolic act , aimed more at satisfying political communication needs than at inflicting real technical damage.
The hypothesis most consistent with the observable facts is that the attacks were designed to appear forceful without provoking a devastating response from Iran or a global environmental disaster. In other words, it could have been a symbolic act of war , a public-facing display, using explosives on empty or superficial areas with no critical capacity. It cannot be ruled out that this was part of a strategy of psychological warfare or media manipulation, more interested in projecting force than exerting it.
From the Iranian perspective, this operation represents the height of American hypocrisy. For decades, Washington has justified devastating economic sanctions, military threats, and diplomatic isolation of Iran under the pretext of preventing the development of nuclear weapons. Now, when it finally executes the military action it had threatened for years, it turns out to be an empty spectacle designed more for American domestic consumption than to neutralize Iran's nuclear capabilities.
Iranian intelligence anticipated this possibility . The Islamic Republic's security services are not naive to US tactics. It is likely that the truly critical facilities of Iran's nuclear program were relocated or protected long before these attacks. Iran has learned from decades of Israeli and US threats that the survival of its nuclear program depends on dispersal, concealment, and redundancy.
Iran's strategy of allowing the United States to "attack" non-critical facilities while protecting its real capabilities demonstrates a geopolitical sophistication that the West consistently underestimates. Iran reaps several benefits: first, it can denounce US aggression without suffering real losses to its nuclear program; second, it demonstrates to the world that US military threats are more noise than substance; third, it reinforces the legitimacy of its right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
Iranian citizens near Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow continued their lives normally after the alleged attacks. There were no evacuations, no panic, and no distribution of iodine pills. The local population knew, as did the authorities, that there was no real danger because there was no radiological release. This popular calm stems not from ignorance, but from the knowledge that the attacks were directed against targets of no strategic importance.
Iran's measured response also reveals a deep understanding of the dynamic the United States was trying to create. Had Iran responded with the expected force in the face of the actual destruction of critical nuclear facilities, it would have validated the US narrative. In contrast, Tehran's controlled response sends a clear message: these attacks do not merit further escalation because they caused no real damage.
From the perspective of Iranian security analysts, this US operation reveals the fundamental limitations of Western military power in the 21st century . The United States can project force, but its ability to achieve meaningful strategic objectives has been eroded by decades of failed wars. Military theater becomes a substitute for real effectiveness when genuine options are too costly or risky.
The Iranian scientific community, far from feeling intimidated, is likely to feel strengthened in its conviction that the country's nuclear program must continue. The demonstration that US threats are largely empty may, paradoxically, accelerate the development of more advanced and better-protected nuclear capabilities.
Iran has historically demonstrated a remarkable resilience in the face of external pressure. Economic sanctions failed to halt the nuclear program, targeted assassinations of scientists failed to halt research, and cyberattacks caused temporary delays but did not halt progress. Now, even direct military attacks are more symbolic than substantive.
Iran's strategy of selective transparency also deserves recognition. By allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency to confirm the absence of radiological releases, Iran is using international institutions to refute US claims. This tactic demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of international public opinion in the information age.
For Iran's leaders, these attacks represent a strategic victory disguised as aggression . The United States has shown its hand and revealed that, even at its maximum level of force, it is unable or unwilling to cause real damage that could provoke a devastating Iranian response. This revelation strengthens Iran's negotiating position in future diplomatic encounters.
The Iranian population, which has lived under constant threat, likely perceives these theatrical attacks as confirmation that resistance has worked. Iran's ability to absorb even direct military attacks without suffering significant damage sends a message of strength both domestically and regionally.
In the absence of evacuations, radioactive contamination, medical reports, satellite evidence, or global alerts, what remains is a narrative. And when the facts don't support the story, it's worth asking whether we're dealing with a carefully choreographed military theater operation designed to maintain appearances, preserve the status quo , and avoid the real costs of open confrontation. Because when war becomes a spectacle, what's being fought isn't a battle for territory, but for public perception. And that, without a doubt, is the hardest to win with conventional weapons.
From Tehran's perspective, the June 21 operation does not represent the end of Iran's nuclear program, but rather the definitive exposure of the limitations of US power in the Middle East. The United States may claim victories, but the laws of physics don't lie. The absence of radiation after the supposed "destruction" of nuclear facilities reveals an uncomfortable truth for Washington: even its most extreme threats have become political theater, and the whole world can see it.
THERE IS NOTHING MORE EXCLUSIVE THAN BEING POOR.
0 Comentarios