The choice of location is widely interpreted as an attempt to create a "religious shield"—a belief that any strike near such a sacred site would be deemed a grave provocation and that divine protection would guard the site. Qassem Soleimani, Khamenei’s favored commander of the Quds Force, who was assassinated by the U.S. in 2020, reportedly played a role in the covert decision to construct the site. Fordow marked a significant leap in Iran’s nuclear development.
The facility was exposed in September 2009 during a G20 summit by then-U.S. President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The revelation—based on Western, including Israeli, intelligence—was considered a turning point in the campaign against Iran’s nuclear program. It was viewed as a blatant violation of Iran’s obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its Additional Protocol. Following the exposure, Iran admitted to the site’s existence and eventually allowed limited inspections by the IAEA. In recent years, Fordow has become one of the regime’s primary sites for high-level uranium enrichment.
Since the start of Israel’s preemptive military campaign, the component of Iran’s nuclear program hit hardest has been SPND, Iran’s weaponization group, once led by Fereydoon Abbasi and before him, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, who were both assassinated. Most SPND scientists and key facilities have reportedly been eliminated. However, despite attacks on sites like Natanz, Iran’s enrichment infrastructure remains largely intact—especially at Fordow, which has not suffered major damage.
Former President Donald Trump has been quick to credit Israel’s strike campaign, calling it “an excellent attack,” and framing Israel’s military prowess as a major asset in U.S. regional strategy. This marks a departure from the long-standing U.S. policy—endorsed by generations of presidents and Washington’s security establishment—that has generally opposed direct military strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites. Trump now portrays Israeli military action and American diplomacy as “interconnected tools,” a shift that could spark a reassessment within the U.S. intelligence community, which has traditionally favored diplomatic containment over kinetic disruption.
2 View gallery
Former President Donald Trump has been quick to credit Israel’s strike campaign
(Photo: Alex Brandon/AP)
A successful strike on Fordow would neutralize Iran’s ability to execute a rapid breakout toward nuclear weapons from a hardened facility, especially in a scenario where it expels IAEA inspectors and accelerates enrichment beyond verification. Much like Trump’s decision to eliminate Soleimani—against the advice of U.S. defense officials—a targeted strike on Fordow could be framed as both logical and timely.
Such a move could be positioned to satisfy Trump’s isolationist base, which increasingly supports military action, while drawing quiet support from Sunni Arab states like Saudi Arabia. It could also serve broader geopolitical optics, reinforcing Trump’s image as a forceful leader capable of resolving international crises. Tehran’s recent threat to withdraw from the NPT underscores the urgency for a calculated American show of force.
For a president seeking legacy-defining moments, a decisive action on Fordow might offer the opportunity to champion non-proliferation—an issue close to the hearts of the Nobel Peace Prize committee in Stockholm—and to assert U.S. leadership on a global security challenge with historic implications.
