Qantara: Israel recently bombed Iranian nuclear facilities in reaction to Iran’s uranium enrichment, which has been the subject of international criticism for years. How serious is the threat—is Iran really on the verge of building a nuclear bomb?

Behrooz Bayat: No, the Islamic Republic is not that far along. It has made significant progress, enriching uranium to a level of 60 per cent—weapons-grade material. But it is still a long way from actually building a bomb. I like to compare it to gunpowder: just because you have it doesn't mean you have a weapon.

There are many steps between obtaining highly enriched uranium and an operational nuclear bomb: converting the material into metal, developing metallurgical processes, designing bomb components, building conventional and nuclear triggering systems, then conducting tests and building a delivery system.

I would say that even under optimal conditions, Iran is at least one year—and more like two or three years—away from building a bomb. That assessment is also consistent with what Israeli and American intelligence agencies believe, for all the hysterical rhetoric we have heard at points over the last 20 years.

So why this attack now? What is currently driving Israel to take such extreme military action?

Israel does not want nuclear competition in the Middle East. The possession of nuclear weapons gives Israel a certain hegemony in the region. If a declared enemy like the Islamic Republic has even the possibility of building a bomb, Israel's position of power is called into question.

In my view, the claim that an Iranian bomb represents an existential threat to Israel is not tenable. A nuclear attack on Israel would impact the Islamic regime's own allies, like Hezbollah in Lebanon or Palestinian groups. Not to mention, it would trigger the certain destruction of Iran by nuclear retaliation. Israel has what’s known as a second strike capability, and the U.S. would also respond.

The regime in Tehran is power hungry and brutal, but not suicidal. It is corrupt, pragmatic and focused on maintaining power. Even within Israel, many experts see the alleged "existential threat" as exaggerated.

Could Israel now seek to destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities?

That seems to be the intention: to set Iran back militarily so that it no longer has the capacity to build a nuclear bomb. Legally, this is highly problematic because nuclear facilities, especially civilian ones, are protected under international agreements monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. Attacking these facilities is a clear violation of international law.

But Israel, as we know, has not always acted with regard for such conventions. And we must not forget this is a war of extremisms. Netanyahu's policies are just as fundamentalist as those of the Islamic Republic—only in a different guise. 

One particularly secure target is the underground facility at Fordow, about 25km from Tehran. Is it possible to destroy this site militarily?

Fordow lies deep beneath the mountains, around 90 metres underground. It is extremely well protected. Such facilities cannot be destroyed with conventional weapons—"bunker buster" bombs are required, which only the U.S. military has.

There are indications that Israel has obtained such weapons from the U.S., including those used to destroy underground Hezbollah command centres in Lebanon. Whether those weapons would be able to destroy Fordow is unclear. In the past, there was even discussion of using so-called "mini-nukes"—tactical nuclear weapons. A study by the U.S. National Science Board concluded that these would be required to hit certain targets, causing up to a million potential deaths.

What would be the consequences for civilians if bunker busters were used?

First, we need to differentiate: the Natanz facility, as mentioned, lies about 60 metres underground and, like Fordow, is far from densely populated areas. These facilities are in remote areas. The risk to civilians from the explosions themselves would likely be lower, since the surroundings are not heavily populated.

The greater problem is the release of radioactive material, like uranium, during such attacks. Uranium is a heavy metal and an alpha emitter, making it especially dangerous when inhaled or ingested. It accumulates in the body and can cause serious health damage. The environment would be contaminated—water, soil, plants and animals would be affected.

The Isfahan facility, however, is above ground and located near a major urban area. Had an explosion occurred there, the immediate and radioactive fallout would have been catastrophic.

That said, we're not talking about a Chernobyl or Fukushima scenario here. Those accidents released large amounts of highly radioactive fission products from reactor operation, which is a very different issue. In the case of the Iranian facilities, the main concern is uranium. The radiation risk is real, but significantly more limited.

How do you assess this current conflict in historical and political terms?

Wars never happen in a vacuum—there is always context. But responsibility always lies with the one who starts the war. That's true of Putin in the war on Ukraine. It's true of Hamas on 7 October. And it's true of Israel now. The Islamic Republic of Iran, with its aggressive and regressive policies and its hostility toward Israel, of course, bears some responsibility. But war is not a solution. The party that starts it bears the main guilt, despite all justified criticism of the other side.

This is an edited translation of the original German article, first published by Iran Journal.