U.S. Airstrike on Iran's Nuclear Facilities and International Reactions - Risk of UN Secretary-General's Retaliation Quagmire, Is There a Risk of Radiation Leakage?

U.S. Airstrike on Iran's Nuclear Facilities and International Reactions

In June 2025, the United States carried out precision airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. This operation targeted key sites in Iran's nuclear development, including Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The U.S. government stated that the aim of these airstrikes was not regime change or full-scale war, but rather a limited strike to hinder Iran's nuclear program. However, the international community has expressed concerns that this airstrike could destabilize the regional situation and trigger a vicious cycle of retaliation and escalation. Notably, there were no reports of radiation leaks following the strikes. Both Iran and neighboring countries, as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), announced that they did not detect abnormal radiation levels within Iran. This led some to critique the airstrikes as a "failed operation." However, the absence of radiation leaks does not necessarily indicate a failure of the military operation, warranting a more in-depth analysis. This essay aims to explore the implications of this incident, focusing on the relationship between radiation leaks, the success of military operations, and diplomatic responses.

The objectives of the airstrikes and the official stance of the United States

The justification for this operation was to deter Iran's nuclear development. The United States has been closely monitoring Iran's resumption of nuclear development since its withdrawal from the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). In June 2025, based on satellite information and intelligence analysis, Iran resumed the production of highly enriched uranium, and judging that it could be for military purposes, the U.S. carried out the operation unilaterally. Former President Trump stated in a press conference after the airstrike that it was 'a very successful operation' and that it would likely prevent Iran from dreaming of nuclear weapons again. The U.S. Department of Defense repeatedly emphasized that the aim of the airstrike was not regime change or to provoke full-scale war. This is a differentiated operational concept from the 'regime change' model during the Iraq War, explained as an approach that limits targets and seeks to incapacitate the physical capabilities of nuclear facilities through precise strikes. The conservative camp in the U.S. believes this could delay Iran's nuclear program by several years at least. In contrast, progressive foreign policy experts are raising questions about the strategic uncertainties and moral legitimacy of military operations.

Was there no nuclear leakage, but was there an impact?

One of the key controversies following the airstrike is the fact that there was 'no radiation leak.' The Iranian government announced immediately after the attack that 'the nuclear facilities are safe, and there is no release of radioactive materials.' Similar assessments came from neighboring countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and Egypt, while the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated that 'at this point, no abnormal radiation levels have been detected.' This announcement sparked suspicions that the airstrike may have ended in futility. However, experts explain that radiation leaks and attacks on nuclear facilities are not necessarily directly linked. Most of the facilities attacked in Iran are enrichment facilities, which have significantly lower exposure risk than reactors. In other words, striking such facilities does not directly lead to a radioactive leak. American defense industry media suggest that while the airstrike likely caused physical damage to the external walls or equipment of the facilities, this does not manifest as a form of 'explosion' or 'contamination' that the general public could recognize. Furthermore, there are indications that Iran had moved some nuclear materials in advance. U.S. intelligence has information that Iran recognized the military tension and relocated some high-enriched uranium and technical equipment to locations deep inland. In fact, it has been reported that the Iranian government had already evacuated some residents from the area. These preemptive measures seem to have successfully blocked the possibility of a radiation leak. Ultimately, the absence of a radiation leak cannot be the sole criterion for judging the success of the airstrike, and given that the operation's objective was to incapacitate nuclear facilities, evaluating how much that capability has been hindered will be key.

Call for Diplomatic Action by the UN and the International Community

The international community reacted immediately to the recent situation. The strongest message came from UN Secretary-General António Guterres. At an emergency Security Council meeting in New York, he declared, "This attack could plunge the Middle East back into the abyss of retaliation," and emphasized that "there is no military solution only diplomacy is the only way." He also urged, "We must cease hostilities immediately and return to serious and sustained negotiations." Secretary-General Guterres warned that unilateral attacks carried out under the pretext of self-defense could actually undermine regional security in a situation where international norms regarding nuclear proliferation are not being upheld. He pointed out that Iran is showing movements to block the Strait of Hormuz, indicating that an energy security crisis could become a reality. In fact, the Iranian parliament quickly passed a bill that could block the Strait of Hormuz following the U.S. airstrikes, causing instability in the international oil market. The international community emphasizes the restoration of diplomacy between the U.S. claim of self-defense and signs of retaliation from Iran. France, Germany, and China are advocating a return to multilateral negotiations through the UN and IAEA, and the possibility of reviving the JCPOA framework is being cautiously mentioned. However, it remains unclear whether substantial negotiations can resume given the conflicting interests of various countries.

A time when a balance between military power and diplomacy is necessary.

The recent airstrikes in the United States highlight the international community's dilemma between military deterrence and diplomatic legitimacy. The fact that there was no radiation leak is a fortunate outcome and suggests that civilian casualties were minimized. However, it is necessary to observe in the long term how much the physical damage to nuclear facilities can actually delay Iran's nuclear development. It is not possible to determine immediately whether the strategic objectives of the airstrikes have been achieved. Above all, these strikes have once again demonstrated that military power alone cannot maintain regional security. While armed conflict may yield short-term results, it can ultimately become the starting point of a vicious cycle that leads to greater retaliation and instability. In fact, Iran can deploy various asymmetric strategies, including nuclear retaliation, cyberattacks, maritime blockades, and mobilization of armed groups, posing direct threats to the United States and its allies. Against this backdrop, the international community is once again recognizing the necessity of restoring diplomacy and multilateral negotiations. The United Nations and IAEA must strengthen their roles as neutral mediators, and Middle Eastern countries are also urged to establish their own stability mechanisms within the region. Ultimately, this situation has implications that go beyond a mere military operation. The international community is at a crossroads in deciding what balance to strike between diplomacy and military action, deterrence and dialogue, short-term gains and long-term stability. The airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities have served as a warning signal of the dangers of military action without diplomacy. What is needed now is not precision bombing, but precision diplomacy.