​Reckless wreckers: on threats to nuclear facilites

Nuclear facilities have faced unprecedented threats of late. Since its capture by Russian forces in 2022, Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant has faced repeated shelling and drone strikes. While Russia wished to be the sole nuclear-armed successor to the Soviet Union, Israel has viewed Iran’s nuclear programme as an existential threat and has attacked its weapons sites since 2024. In 2025, the U.S. launched targeted strikes against Fordow and Natanz, which enrich uranium, and Isfahan, a fuel cycle complex. U.S. President Donald Trump claimed they were “obliterated” but the IAEA found that the enriched uranium stockpile was largely intact at Isfahan. On March 2, the IAEA had said that the Bushehr and Tehran reactors had not been hit or damaged until then, although strikes on March 3 surfaced reports of damage to the Bushehr airport (according to Iran’s state media) and again in Natanz. The broader pattern of attacking nuclear facilities is worrisome. Aside from overt attempts, at least one hacking attempt has breached the National Nuclear Security Administration, which manages the U.S.’s nuclear stockpile, while ransomware groups have targeted global energy firms and Brazil’s state nuclear operator. The Geneva Conventions prohibit states from endangering nuclear facilities if they release “dangerous forces” but neither the U.S. nor Israel seems mindful of the risks. Iran has also accused the IAEA of spying for Israel.

Physically destroying a facility only removes one layer of risk; the humanitarian and environmental effects are often intractable. A damaged reactor core or spent fuel pool could release caesium-137, a long-lived isotope that causes acute radiation sickness and contaminates land for decades. Radioactive particles can be carried by winds, affecting global food security. Damaging nuclear facilities overseen by an unstable regime also risks loss of custody of enriched uranium. Such strikes do not achieve a strategic resolution and could in fact accelerate Iran’s resolve, marked by its shift of assets to deeper, more clandestine facilities. Military force also destroyed the diplomatic and verification frameworks required for long-term safety, leaving negotiations as the safest way to restore stability in the region. Iran is already facing 60% inflation and the U.S. can trade sanctions relief for IAEA monitoring. Iran has also finalised long-term deals with Russia and China, in return securing air defences and navigation systems to negate western advantages, and bringing Tehran back to the table could also reduce its dependence on these burgeoning partnerships. Conversely, military action risks refugee exodus from a population of 93 million, asymmetric retaliation against the U.S.’s Gulf bases, and the inalienable threat of nuclear disaster.