Trump's Tehran evacuation warning is NOT about nukes - also for Israel's bombings not US - US remains defensive - Trump put forward a ceasefire proposal to both parties - no risk of world war ever

[Intro repeated as graphic and then as text to help with social preview graphics]

Trump has put forward a ceasefire proposal to Iran and Israel - and is NOT behind whatever is the reason for asking Iranians to evacuate parts or all of Tehran

There is no risk of being bombed for anyone outside the Middle East or almost anywhere in the Middle East. The only ones who are really at some risk and need to take precautions are in Israel and Iran.

For anyone in Tehran, there are simple precuations you can take even if your house doesn’t hae a bomb shelter to be less at risk from bombs see below.

QUOTE STARTS

… the president [said] that there were ongoing discussions, which is a good thing. And so, if the United States of America can achieve a ceasefire, it is a very good thing, and France will support it and we wish for it.

Then I say it is absolutely essential that all strikes from both sides against energy, administrative, and cultural infrastructures, and even more so against the civilian population, cease. …

And then, as soon as the ceasefire is achieved—and I think the announcements made by President Trump are very positive, and the role that the United States of America will have to play is key—the French, alongside them the British and the Germans, are available to resume serious discussions, discussions that we have never stopped, so we are available.

[skip to: Short summary of why there is no risk of a world war from Iran - Iran can’t fight the world and doesn’t want to}

[skip to: Contents]

The IDF warned the Iranians to evacuate part of Tehran. 330,000 were steaming out of the capital.

Then Trump went on Truth Social and warned them to evacuate all of Tehran. That’s not practical.

So what is the evacuation order about?

It started with the IDF ordering the Iranians to evacuate part of Tehran.

That is probably because Israel wants to target mobile launchers of ballistic missiles in Tehran and other military targets that are hard to reliably discriminate from civilians even with precise missiles.

That wasn’t Trump’s idea, It surprised him. The G7 was going well.

Trump told them about his ceasefire proposal for Iran, then he suddenly announced that he had to leave the G7 and cut the meeting short.

Then a couple of hours later Trump warned the Iranians to evacuate all of Tehran.

Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114695407357588413

The IDF request for 330,000 to evacuate alerady filled all the streets with traffic and there is no way that over 10 million can evacuate in such a short timesecale.

Javed Ali, a former National Security Council Director, suggests that it might have been a psychological tactic by Trump to put pressure on the Iranian regime.

QUOTE STARTS

Trump's call for Tehran's evacuation could be "a tactic to put pressure on the regime", a former US National Security Council director says.

Javed Ali, who was on the NSC during Trump's first term, says only Trump can reveal what was meant by his comment, but evacuating a city of 10 million people "doesn't seem to be very feasible".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx23e4jz2g0t?post=asset%3Ad1844128-d04c-4e25-afc7-c3c07d1c2fd6#post

It is very clear that:

• US wants a ceasefire

• Iran wants a ceasefire and is talking to the US about it

• Israel wants to keep fighting for now

• Iran doesn’t have nukes and clearly doesn’t want them (this article goes into more detail about that)

• Iran wants to have the right to enrich uranium to 4% for civilian nuclear reactors and a small amount to 20% for its important industry of making radioisotopes for medical applications which it exports to Europe and elsewhere

• Iran points to Brazil, Japan, Germany, and other countries that are in the Non Proliferation Treaty and enrich their own uranium and doesn’t want to be dependent on importing it from other countries.

• Experts say that it is unrealistic to expect Iran to agree to zero enrichment and that it is plenty for non proliferation to require it to keep to civilian levels of enrichment.

Several reliable sources back up what Trump says, that Iran urgently wants to return to peace negotiations. This is from before this latest news:

"Tehran has conveyed to Arab representatives its willingness to reengage in negotiations, provided that the U.S. refrains from participating in the offensive... relayed messages to Israel emphasizing that it would be beneficial for both parties to limit the escalation of violence."

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/a-battered-iran-signals-it-wants-to-de-escalate-hostilities-with-israel-and-negotiate-9feab4ae

"Tehran has reached out to Qatar and Oman through diplomatic channels, asking for regional mediators to intervene in relaunching negotiations... Iran remains open to negotiating a nuclear deal."

https://www.euronews.com/2025/06/15/diplomacy-takes-shape-towards-cessation-of-israel-iran-hostilities

That enrichment issue is the main sticking point but such things can be negotiated over. Destroying Iran’s enrichment facilities won’t get a treaty across the line but negotiating can. RUSSI says that there is no way for the US to enforce zero enrichment through military action as Iran would just bury the centrifuges deeper below the range of whatever missiles it uses.

Trump wants to reach a peace deal through diplomacy.

Nothing much is happening that affects anyone except Israel and Iran - nothing there can affect you in other countries.

When I was a kid in the 1960s, this would never have got the attention it does today. Few would even know about it - not about such details as the US president or the IDF warning Iranians to evacuate Tehran. It’s only in the present day always on 24/7 news and the click bait social media that such things seem to be personally important to citizens in countries that can’t be affected in any way whatsoever.

Of course it IS personally relevant if right now you are sheltering in Tehran - I have a section for any of my readers in Tehran or with friends in Tehran see next section.

How to navigate this article - read titles of sections and look at any graphics

You can get a good idea of this article by reading the titles of each section - and look at any graphics then drill into anything you want to find out more about later.

You can also click on the column of dashes to the left to go to a contents list if you can see it on your device. I will add a contents list in the article itself later.

Iran clearly does not want nukes - is not an ally of Russia - and wants security for itself and prosperity like most countries - no risk of a world war

What to do if you are in Tehran and can’t leave your home

This is advice for civilians in Israel:

QUOTE STARTS

e. If there is no such space [DEDICATED BOMB SHELTER IN THE HOUSE], go into the building stairwell.

In the protected space, sit on the floor, below window level, against an inner wall, but not opposite a window.

2. If you are outside in a built-up area, go into the nearest building or sheltered spot. If you are out in the open country, lie down and protect your head with your hands.

3. If you are in a car, stop by the side of the road, get out of the car and go into the nearest building or sheltered spot. If you cannot reach a building or sheltered spot in the allotted time, get out the car, lie down on the ground and protect your head

with your hands.

https://il.usembassy.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/Home_Front_Command_Preparedness_Information.pdf

Iran’ says it is keeping its subway system open 24/7 as an improvised bomb shelter. That’s the same thing the Ukrainians did in Kharkiv and other cities.

Advice here to stay in mosques, schools and subway tunnels.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/15/world/iran-israel-nuclear/6fd96ed0-e572-5c9f-b207-a9583fe8d633?smid=url-share

No risk in US or Western Europe and only risk even in nearby contries like Iraq is debris from a shot down drone

US won’t enter into the conflict except defensively to defend itself and Israel - NOT to bomb Iran.

But nothing would happen in the US if, say, US was to bomb Fordov (which it has no plans to do at present).

The only risk to Americans would be to soldiers especially and their families in the Middle East

I explain later in this article, that even if the US joined in - it's nowhere near the level of the wars with Iraq which had 42 countries from every continent except Antarctica fighting Iraq in the air, sea and on land at one point. But Iraq couldn't attack them back and didn't even try.

It's just the same here. But far less potential

• Iran can barely fire its ballistic missiles as far as Israel most of its ballistic missiles can’t get that far (1000 km at the closest)

• Iran likely only has a few hundred missiles can get as far as Israel

• Iran can't actually get even its longest range missiles to Israel from the parts of Iran furthest from Israel.

• It's fighter jets and tanks and armoured vehicles can't even get across Iraq to Israel because the US would never let them advance through Iraq.

• It's diesel subs and its three frigates wouldn't be allowed through the Suez canal and would have no chance of invading the US or Western Europe.

Also many don’t know or forgot:

• Iran fought against ISIS.

• It doesn't have any aim of world domination at all.

• Its only foreign terrorism is that in the past it's assassinated Iranian political opponents of the Iranian regime in other countries plus one incident of a bomb that affected American soldiers long ago.

More later.

Meeting of Security Council is to decide what US can do and how to keep Americans in the region safe - NOT about nukes

He called a meeting of the US Security Council - this does NOT mean it is anything to do with nukes. One of their top priorities rather is likely to make sure US soldiers in the region are safe and to figure out what the US should do and NOT do to de-escalate as far as they can.

So he is there to work out what the US is going to do in a situation that is clearly precipitated by the IDF not the US.

So what is the IDF doing (Israel Defence Force)? Plans to attack military targets in a civilian area of Tehran in Iran - if in that area it’s wise to leave - and best to leave Tehran completely

IDF says it plans attacks on military targets in Tehran with collateral risk to civilians near the military targets. The IDF set out a particular region asking everyone to evacuate it:

Anyone who is in that area should leave it. It's probably wise to just evacuate Tehran if they can.

This is the IDF warning

Immediate warning to all individuals present in the area indicated on the attached map in District 3 of Tehran.

Dear citizens, for your safety, we ask that you immediately leave the aforementioned area in District 3 of Tehran.

In the coming hours, the Israeli army will take action in this area to attack the Iranian regime's military infrastructure, just as it has done in recent days around Tehran.

Your presence in this area puts your life at risk.

https://x.com/IDFFarsi/status/1934604000239767898

This is very like the way they warn the Gazans to evacuate districts before they bomb them and the Iranians took it seriously and huge traffic jams formed with the roads out of that area.

So it is very clear this is about the IDF choosing to bomb civilian areas of Tehran. They say they are aiming for military targets. But civilians should leave as they could be hit by bombs intended for the military.

Then Trump did a truth social post telling everyone to leave Tehran - this is in the middle of the night and a city of 10 million.

QUOTE Iran should have signed the “deal” I told them to sign. What a shame, and waste of human life. Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114695407357588413

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c2kqkd03xn5t?post=asset%3A92e28b0a-ec11-48eb-9700-0cc4a42961d1#post Explosions heard in Tehran as Trump tells 'everyone' to evacuate Iranian capital immediately - live updates

The traffic is very slow. One person says it took them 16 hours to travel 90 miles out of Tehran. The roads are set to one-way out of Tehran from mobile launchers.

The government isn't well-prepared to deal with the evacuation but it's likely better to evacuate even if they have to camp out in the car for a while or something given the situation.

Hegseth: US keeps a defensive posture in pursuit of a peace deal - and is NOT attaching Iran

No explanation yet of why Trump said to evacuate all of Tehran.

However, we know it is not because of anything the US is doing. Pete Hegseth says the US is defensive not attacking Tehran

QUOTE STARTS

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told Fox News on Monday that President Donald Trump was still aiming for a nuclear deal with Iran even as hostilities have escalated between US ally Israel and Tehran, while a White House aide said separately that Washington was not attacking Iran.

…

"We are postured defensively in the region to be strong in pursuit of a peace deal. And we certainly hope that's what happens here," Hegseth said.

https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20250617-%F0%9F%94%B4-live-trump-urges-everyone-to-evacuate-tehran-iran-israel

So why would the civilians have to evacuate? Maybe because of mobile ballistic missile launchers launching at Israel from the streets of Tehran??

One of the strikes in another city in Kermanshah city was on a hospital but a report from within Iran on the BBC (not their own journalists as they can't report from Iran) says it was probably aimed at an Iranian missile launcher that was nearby at the time. That might be part of it, if the Iranian military is launching missiles from within Tehran.

Nothing to do with nukes.

The news is very clear that Trump didn't know about it and didn't plan it and that the US remains defensive in the Middle East.

He had to leave the G7 summit early having said to them that he'd been talking to Iranians recently.

So - it is NOT about US attacking in any way.

It is surely about conventional bombs, the IDF have dropped many on Tehran already and this is very similar to what they say to Gaza Strip when they warn people to evacuate a few hours before bombing an civilian area.

Trump couldn't use nukes, his generals would refuse. Very illegal under the international law of armed conduct. And clearly not his idea.

The IDF have nukes but their generals would likely refuse too, despite the gray area things they do in Gaza Strip but this again is so very illegal. And also if they used a nuke it would be the end of US support for Israel.

Iran is in the Non Proliferation Treaty and doesn’t have nukes

There’s a lot of confusion in the stories. None of the sources are saying Iran has WMDs. Israel claims to be acting pre-emptively to degrade its nuclear program so it can't develop a nuke quickly. Even Israel doesn't say that Iran is trying to make a nuke but it claims it is developing the ability to be able to make one quickly if it chooses to do so.

Iran is NOT keen on developing nukes either. Few in the media explain it properly.

• Iran ALREADY has ratified the Non Proliferation Treaty and has atomic inspectors.

• The problems recently with the IAEA are likely becaues of Iran wanting to protect some of its enriched uranium and centrifuges from Israeli strikes - not to hide them from the IAEA (except as far as Iran thinks the IAEA is not secure enough to keep some of its most highly classified secrets)

• It's the other way around. It is Israel that refuses to even disclose to the IAEA that it has nukes, the only nuclear weapon state to refuse to disclose nukes.

Second, Iran would only have them for deterrence if it did develop them.

Third, however

• Iran’s long standing position is that it wants all countries to give up nukes as fast as possible. Every year it calls on the UN General Assembly to arrange this.
  [add cite]

In particular, Iran wants Israel to declare its nukes and give them up to establish a Middle East nuclear free zone.

https://geneva.mfa.gov.ir/portal/newsview/709290

In a world where Israel has nukes, Iran feels safer if it still has uranium enrichment capabilities to civilian levels - which it also sees as its right under the Non Proliferation Treaty since many other NPT countriers do civilian enrichment

HOWEVER, since that is not happening, it's getting no success so far, Iran wants to maintain the ability to enrich uranium because the Iranian regime sees losing that ability as the reason that a US led coalition destabilized the Libyan government leading to the horrible death of Gaddafi by a lynch mob.

That is the background that few seem to know. I explain in my latest debunk and need to expand that section in my next time period I have for working on it.

Iran has many politicians with differing views and some want it to develop nukes but this is their official position and the Ayatollah has the last word on everything and he clearly doesn't want to develop nukes with this background.

And they could also have got as far as the first demo nuke by now if they had wanted to and haven't. The US and IAEA are confident that it hasn't started work on a nuke yet. The concerns about transparency are about the future if it continues to hide its secret facilities from IAEA inspectors then in the future it will be impossible for them to continue to verify what it's doing.

If you understand that then Iran's apparently contradictory stances make more sense, of enriching uranium to 60% while simultaneously every year calling on the UN General Assembly to organize a conference to start the process to rapidly eliminate all nukes.

The largest country that won't sign the Non Proliferation Treaty is India but India for different reasons from Israel.

India declares its nuke and complies with all the provisions of the NPT for nuclear weapons states, and it wants to rapidly eliminate all nukes.

But the NPT only recognizes 5 countries as nuclear states. China, UK, Russia, France and the US. India can't sign it because it would have to join as a non nuclear weapon holding state which it obviously isn't. I.e. it's objection is to the arbitrariness that it only recognizes the five states that tested nuclear weapons before 1967.

Israel is the only nuclear power that won't even officially tell the IAEA whether it has nukes or not. Presumably if it did disclose it would still not ratify the NPT for the same reasons as India but it goes further and won't disclose that it has them.

North Korea is similar to India, it was in the NPT until it developed its nukes. Now it can't sign it. It doesn't let in weapons inspectors.

All the other states with the ability to develop nukes quickly, e.g. Germany, or Brazil or Taiwan, have no interest in developing nukes. They comply with the NPT and allow in IAEA inspectors.

Iran is believed to have hidden secret facilities it's not yet disclosed to the IAEA but the reason for that is because it suspects the IAEA of leaking its disclosures to Israel. It's not likely to be actually making nukes at present but may have more enriched uranium than disclosed. It may well keep some in a secret stash hidden from bombers along with some centrifuges.

Russia is neutral on Iran and Israel

Russia’s official response:

"no matter what explanations those who planned, developed and carried out the attack on Iran may use to justify it, the crisis around the Iranian nuclear program cannot be resolved by military force and can be settled exclusively through peaceful, political and diplomatic means.

… We hope that this is the approach that will ultimately prevail. We call on the parties to exercise restraint in order to prevent further escalation of tensions and the region's slide into full-scale war. In this regard, we recall the US readiness to hold another round of talks with Iran on its nuclear program in Oman,

. Russia strongly condemns Israel’s attack against Iran — Foreign Ministry

No possibility of carpet bombing or of Israel attacking on the ground - too far away

It's not like Gaza Strip - it's far too far from Israel for anything like carpet bombing to be practical at that distance even if they wanted to.

But anyone in that area would be wise to leave it - then 2 hours after Trump left the G7 he did this tweet telling everyone to leave Tehran - a city of 10 million.

This is sure to get picked up by social media as a claim that Israel or the US will use nukes but it's not at all.

But the only risk is to civilians in Tehran.

And in other areas of Iran also.

From the experience of the IDF in Gaza Strip they would only issue a warning like that if they did plan to do bombing in the region of significant risk to civilians.

The BBC say Israel has air control of Tehran.

This can't become a ground war it is far too far from Israel for that.

Let's hope Israel stops its strikes soon.

And this is backed up by Pete Hegseth United States Secretary of Defense and by Alex Pfeiffer Deputy Assistant to the President and Principal Deputy Communications Director

Both say the US remains defensive

And Macron says US has put forward a ceasefire offer between Israel and Iran

QUOTE Macron tells reporters that there “is indeed an offer to meet and exchange. An offer was made especially to get a ceasefire and to then kickstart broader discussions,” he says. “We have to see now whether the sides will follow.”

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/macron-says-us-has-put-forward-a-ceasefire-offer-between-israel-and-iran/

This is a risk for civilians in Tehran and is NOT ABOUT NUKES and it is NOT TRUMP'S IDEA.

He was talking to the G7 just two hours earlier about how Iran was talking to him about peace ideas. Then he said he had to leave the G7 urgently and did the truth social post warning civilians to leave Tehran.

QUOTE STARTS

Less than two hours before his Truth Social post, Trump said at the G7 summit in Canada that the U.S. was talking to the Iranians by phone and even suggested it will be "better to talk in person."

French President Emmanuel Macron said Monday evening that Trump had told his fellow G7 leaders that the U.S. had been involved in discussions to get an Israel-Iran ceasefire, and had offered to meet with the Iranians.

https://www.axios.com/2025/06/16/trump-evacuate-tehran-warning-israel

Meanwhile the Israelis warned Iranians to evacuate a district home to 330,000 people in Tehran.

Not a risk to US or Western Europe or Americas or indeed the Middle East outside of Iran or Israel

It is not a risk for the US or Western Europe.

It is a risk for the Iranians in Tehran.

It isn’t even a significant risk for Iraq, although the fighter jets flew over Iraq and Iranian drones fly back ove rit, the only risk would be from shot down drones. The ballistic missiles fly far too high above the atmosphere to be relevant when they are over Iraq.

This leads to a very confusing situation for everyone. Trump didn't plan this, it surprised him and he had to leave the G7 short.

Iran doesn't have nukes. It wants to keep the ability to enrich uranium to 4%. It is willing to give up enrichment to 60% it wants to be able to enrich a small amount to 20% for the medical isotopes which it exports for instance to Europe, an important industry in Iran.

Trump told G7 that he has proposed a ceasefire plan to Iran and Israel

In context. Macron talking about what Trump told the G7:

• Trump is talking to the Iranians

• Trump has put forward a ceasefire proposal to both Iran and Israel

• It is now up to them

• France supports and wishes for a ceasefire.

• The French and Germans are available for serious discussions.

QUOTE STARTS

Listen, there are two things. First, the president spoke a few minutes ago to say that there were ongoing discussions, which is a good thing. And so, if the United States of America can achieve a ceasefire, it is a very good thing, and France will support it and we wish for it.

Then I say it is absolutely essential that all strikes from both sides against energy, administrative, and cultural infrastructures, and even more so against the civilian population, cease. Nothing justifies this, and they are absolutely intolerable.

And then, as soon as the ceasefire is achieved—and I think the announcements made by President Trump are very positive, and the role that the United States of America will have to play is key—the French, alongside them the British and the Germans, are available to resume serious discussions, discussions that we have never stopped, so we are available.

...

How do you interpret Donald Trump's apparent sudden departure from the G7, precisely because of the situation between Israel and Iran? Is there a new American negotiation offer? Does it include—

Listen, this is what I am saying. Listen, there is an offer that has been made indeed of meetings and exchanges. There is an offer that has been made especially to have a ceasefire and to initiate broader discussions, and I think this is a very good thing.

So now we need to see what the stakeholders will do. I believe that peoples are sovereign. They change their leaders by themselves, and that all those who have tried to change regimes through strikes or military operations in the past have made strategic errors. That's what experience teaches us, and I don't think it's up to foreign powers to change current political regimes.

Trump is the opposite of a hawk - never follows through on his outlandish military hyperbole and is very cautious - in 26 military actions he ordered so far in his first and second term only the very first action had a US casualty - the other 25 had no US casualties - and max of 100 non US casualties

Trump has frequently made outlandish threats. He never follows through. The clear pattern is that he only follows through when there is a very low risk of escalation

He has done 26 military actions so far. Only 1 American casualty in his first ever ordered military action in January 2017. No Trump ordered action since then has ever involved US casualties. [This wouldn't include on going conflicts in his first term, like the war in Afghanistan that he didn't start]

Maximum of 100 non US casualties.

His most outlandish threats didn't lead to any military action.

https://ecfr.eu/article/the-bullys-pulpit-finding-patterns-in-trumps-use-of-military-force/

So far from being a hawk, historically he is extremely reluctant to do anything unless he is sure there will be zero US casualties. And low non US casualties.

Israel can’t destroy Iran’senrichment capabilities and even the US couldn’t do it for long

US says it "Could" get involved - IN THE FUTURE. The detailed story is that US says this is not the time to do it and it's not actively planning such an operation. But in the future the US could strike the Fordov underground enrichment facility to stop Iran getting a nuke.

However looking at more reliable sources such as RUSI, even the US couldn't stop the Iranian enrichment program with even its biggest bombs. It could only delay it slightly.

So it would be far more useful as a threat to force Iran to negotiations than as something to actually do which would achieve nothing except a short delay, likely not even as much as a year - didn't see any estimate of timescale but seems unlikely to do much, maybe a few months to a year or two from what I read. The longer timescales would need US help.

Israel can cause short delays by collapsing entrances to tunnels

Israel can do short delays by collapsing all the tunnels that lead into underground facilities but Iran likely starts digging the tunnels out again almost immediately.

I can't find estimates but based on other examples of collapsed tunnels that Perplexity AI found e.g. rescue operations after a collapsed mine entrance, if it is just the entrances blocked it's likely a delay of days to a week or two. Longer delays if it is partially collapsed of months to potentially years for a long tunnel fully collapsed.

Fordov is very hard to damage - only US has a chance and likely many strikes with its biggest conventional bomb with 15 metric ton of explosives - hitting the same spot over and over for days or weeks

It's far harder to destroy the facilities themselves.

Especially Fordov which has the 60% enriched Uranium. The issue is that it's buried by 80 to 100 meters likely hardened concrete. The biggest US bomb can penetrate 60 meters of hardened concrete (which is likely why it is 80 to 100 meters).

The US would need many strikes on the exact same spot with its largest 30,000 lbs, or 15 metric ton GBU-57/B bomb to get down to the facility.

The US could do it using its largest B-2 Spirit stealth bomber which can carry two of these bombs. Each in theory can penetrate 60 meters of hardened concrete. But though the depth of the Fordow facility at 80 to 90 meters might seem to suggest that two of them fired on the exact same spot might get through to it and a third to follow on, in reality it's not as easy as that.

In reality the first bomb crater back fills in a fraction of a second, and it would require impossibly precise timing to do that.

Experts say that even the US with a bomb able to penetrate 60 meters would need repeat attacks on the same spot over days to weeks to get through to a depth of 80 to 100 meters with its largest bomber and largest bombs.

None of the Israeli bombs can do it. Their heaviest bunker busters at 4,000 lbs or 2 metric tons go 6 meters through hardened concrete. Because they aren't additive, they could fire large numbers of them and never get to 80 to 100 meters.

Iran likely already has some secret deeper facilities for a stash of uranium / centrifuges

Iran knows that it's Fordov facility is potentially vulnerable to repeated strikes by the largest US bomb and has likely already constructed secret facilities even more deeply buried. It wouldn't be difficult to build a facility hundreds of meters deep under a mountain - like building the underground railway tunnels through the Alps. Iran is very mountainous, many places it could do it. Mount Damavand, it's highest mountain, is around 5,600 meters high.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Damavand

Also Iran doesn't depend on foreign expertise any more to restart enrichment. It's got all the knowledge it needs now, so the most could be done with even the US doing a bombing campaign is to force it deeper underground, after assessing how deep the US bombs were able to penetrate and then do a new campaign in secret facilities.

Darya Dolzikova from UK military thinktank RUSSI says the US can usefully THREATEN to destroy Iranian facilities to encourage negotation - but it can’t accomplish much by destroying them

With that background - Darya Dolzikova from the UK military expertise think tank RUSSI says that

• threatening to destroy the nuclear facilities could be a useful bargaining tool,

• to actually do it would likely not achieve the US goal to stop the Iranian nuclear enrichment program

• would just force it deeper underground

The threats of strikes so far have probably already pushed some of it deeper underground in undisclosed secret sites to protect it from precisely this scenario as a result of the build up of threats over the last several weeks. .

The worst case here is to force Iran to leave the Non Proliferation Treaty. Then the IAEA would no longer have atomic inspectors and so wouldn't have any insight into what it's doing.

Summary of what Darya Dolzikova said:

QUOTE STARTS

Iran's other main enrichment site, Fordow, is buried even deeper in the side of a mountain and is the country's most "hardened" facility, said Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow for proliferation and nuclear policy at the UK-based Royal United Services Institute think tank.

In comments shared with Business Insider, Dolzikova said Fordow has not been affected by the Israeli strikes, nor have other locations. "Should Iran make a decision to produce a nuclear weapon, it would likely do that at hardened and potentially still secret sites," she said.

The likely best weapon for the job is the US military's GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, one of the most powerful non-nuclear bombs and the largest bunker buster in America's arsenal at 15 tons. These munitions can only be carried by the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber and the B-21 Raider in development.

Israel doesn't have bomber aircraft capable of carrying the largest bunker-buster munitions. The IDF shared footage showing its fighter jets — F-35s, F-16s, and F-15s — taking off and landing during the strikes. Weapons experts pointed out that some of the aircraft appear to be carrying 2,000-pound guided bombs. Israel's F-15I, though, can carry 4,000-pound anti-bunker bombs.

...

Military analysts with RUSI estimated in March that the Fordow site could be as deep as 260 feet underground, likely beyond the reach of even America's MOP. Damaging it would almost certainly require repeated strikes, likely over days or weeks.

https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-trying-to-destroy-iran-nuclear-program-wont-be-easy-2025-6

Israel does have bunker busting bombs. It killed Lebanese Hezbollah leader Hassan Nassrallah with 80 of their GBU-31(v)3, 2,000 lb or 1 metric ton approx with a special fuse that lets it penetrate deep underground and equipped with JDAM glide bomb kits.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2024/october/closer-look-israels-use-80-bunker-buster-jdams-beirut

But as you see, these are nowhere near capable enough for Iran. That was attacking shallow underground facilities covered in dirt not rock or concrete.

RUSSI Analysis from before the strikes about the difficulty of attacking the facility:

First you can see how deep underground Fordov is, estimated 80 to 100 meters of hardened concrete:

Only the biggest US bomb carried on the biggest US bomber has a chance with Fordov

QUOTE STARTS

Table II: Summary of Penetrating Weapons Capabilities Available to the US and Israel

GBU-57/B US ~60 meters 30,000 lbs Two on a B-2 Spirit stealth bomber (US), one on a B-21 Raider stealth bomber (US, under development

To reach even the FEP, assuming that the site is located roughly 8 meters underground and that the covering is predominantly reinforced concrete and/or hard rock, all the weapons available to the Israeli Air Force, and all except the 30,000 lbs GBU-57/B and the 5,000 lbs GBU 72/B available to the United States, would likely require several impacts into the same crater to ‘burrow’ down to the facility and get a weapon through to explode within it successfully. For the FFEP and new facility at Natanz at an estimated 80-100 meters, possibly with layers of reinforced concrete, even the GBU-57/B would likely require multiple impacts at the same aiming point to have a good chance of penetrating the facility. Strikes with lesser penetrating weapons could still collapse entry and exit tunnels given good intelligence about their exact layout and location (with some information already available in open-source satellite imagery analysis). However, unless a longer-term campaign were mounted with regular follow-up strikes, efforts to dig down to the facilities to re-establish access and supplies would likely begin almost immediately.

...

For this reason, any comparisons with Israeli attacks against Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 and Syria’s Al-Kibar facility in 2007 are highly misplaced. In both instances, the attacked countries’ programmes were highly concentrated and at a nascent stage, relying extensively on foreign assistance for their development. Following any military strike on its nuclear sites, Iran not only has the requisite indigenous expertise but will also have increased incentive to rebuild, and to rebuild deeper and more hardened facilities.

...

While destruction of Iran’s nuclear programme by military means is not feasible and even limited strikes carry significant escalatory risks, this does not negate the value of issuing credible military threats as part of a broader effort to roll back the Iranian nuclear programme. Should Iran’s nuclear programme reach a stage where it poses a threat beyond what is acceptable to Israel or the US – for instance, if intelligence was obtained on an Iranian decision to rush towards a nuclear weapon, or even if Tehran decided to begin uranium enrichment to 90% – military attacks could be used to set the programme back to a more acceptable state and may be assessed as being worth the escalatory risks. Making clear the willingness to carry out such attacks – but only as an option of last resort – could help exert the necessary pressure to convince Tehran to cooperate with expectations not to cross certain thresholds or to reverse course on particularly destabilising activity. A thorough consideration of the challenges and risks that following through on any such threats would entail should serve as a sobering reminder that they should not be issued lightly.

https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/challenges-involved-military-strikes-against-irans-nuclear-programme

Darya Dolzikova commenting in more detail on what happened just now:

QUOTE STARTS

Israel's targeting of Iran's main enrichment facility and a number of senior Iranian scientists suggests an intent to inflict serious damage on the programme and to roll back Iran's ability to push towards weaponisation, not just a signalling exercise or a way of generating additional leverage US-Iran negotiations.

It is too early to tell how successful Israel may have been this regard. Natanz is not Iran's only enrichment facility; its most hardened site - at Fordow - has not been affected, nor have a number of other key nuclear sites across the country.

Should Iran make a decision to produce a nuclear weapon, it would likely do that at hardened and potentially still secret sites. The concern, then, is whether these attacks finally convince Iran that it has no choice but to develop a nuclear weapon as the ultimate deterrent and whether Israel has done sufficient damage to prevent Iran from being able to act on such a decision.

These attacks have greatly exacerbated the risk that Iran follows through on previous threats and announces an intention to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Should they do that, Iran’s nuclear programme will become a much more challenging threat to deal with than it is now, with a withdrawal from the NPT likely leading to a full loss of IAEA visibility on the programme.

https://www.rusi.org/in-the-news/darya-dolzikova-comments-israeli-strikes-iran

Likely why Iran failed the NPR inspection for the first time in 20 years - because it wants to hide its materials from bombing raids

It's based on a technical report - the vote to take it up to the UN though is from the IAEA board which has country by country representatives. Three countries opposed, Russia, China and Burkina Faso . The 11 countries from the global south all abstained as they often do and the 19 in favour were Western aligned. But it's the first time in 20 years that they made this decision.

First time in 20 years it's been found non compliant with the NPR. Enriching to 60% was only non compliant with the JCPOA not with NPR.

There are two elements to the non compliance, historical and also present day.

The present day concern is that until recently IAEA has had full access but recently it's not getting the level of access it needs. IAEA does NOT say that Iran is trying to make nukes. But what it does say is it is currently unable to verify any more that it is complying with the Non Proliferation Treaty.

Historically it's about the secret program that Iran was engaged in through to the early 2000s. The IAEA have been denied access to investigate it thoroughly as Iran demolished the sites and removed the rubble and won't give the IAEA access to the rubble it removed.

In more detail:

First, Iran hasn't properly answered questions about the origins of radioactive particles found that seem to be the result of its secret program through to the early 21st century. Instead it sanitized the sites making investigation impossible and wouldn't let the IAEA access the rubble it removed.

That is just about historical work.

But also right now, the IAEA say that Iran is not giving it full access as it should. As a result it says that until Iran restores access it won't be able to continue to say that Iran is fully complying with the Non Proliferation treaty. It urges Iran to come back into compliance swiftly.

This doesn't mean that Iran is making a nuke. But it means that the IAEA can no longer be sure it hasn't started on the months long path to making a nuke.

From the head of the IAEA.

QUOTE STARTS

As you know, the Agency found man-made uranium particles at each of three undeclared locations in Iran – at Varamin, Marivan and Turquzabad – at which we conducted complementary access in 2019 and 2020. Since then, we have been seeking explanations and clarifications from Iran for the presence of these uranium particles, including through a number of high-level meetings and consultations in which I have been personally involved.

Unfortunately, Iran has repeatedly either not answered, or not provided technically credible answers to, the Agency’s questions. It has also sought to sanitize the locations, which has impeded Agency verification activities.

The Agency’s comprehensive assessment of what took place – based on our technical evaluation of all available safeguards-relevant information – has led us to conclude that these three locations, and other possible related locations, were part of an undeclared structured nuclear programme carried out by Iran until the early 2000s and that some activities used undeclared nuclear material.

...

In addition, Iran’s unilateral decision to stop implementation of modified Code 3.1 has led to a significant reduction in the Agency’s ability to verify whether Iran’s nuclear programme is entirely peaceful and is also contrary to its legal obligations set out in Article 39 of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement and in the Subsidiary Arrangements.

I call upon Iran urgently to cooperate fully and effectively with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Unless and until Iran assists the Agency in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful. I am convinced that the only way forward goes through a diplomatic solution, strongly backed by an IAEA verification arrangement. I will continue to support and encourage the US and Iran to spare no effort and exercise wisdom and political courage to bring this to a successful conclusion. The effect of a stabilized situation in Iran with regards to its nuclear programme will be immediate and bring the Middle East one big step closer to peace and prosperity.

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/iaea-director-generals-introductory-statement-to-the-board-of-governors-9-june-2025

QUOTE STARTS

As an NPT state party, the IAEA notes in its report, Iran is required to refrain from developing nuclear weapons (NPT Article II) and to disclose and permit the IAEA to apply safeguards over nuclear materials, activities, and facilities (NPT Article III). Pursuant to these obligations and under its comprehensive safeguards agreement (CSA), in light of potential violations, Iran must also cooperate with IAEA investigations, such as by permitting full access to sites, providing accurate technical explanations, and making available documentation, all with the aim of ensuring Iran’s nuclear material is devoted exclusively to peaceful uses.

Since 2019, the IAEA has made numerous efforts to engage Iran, including in high-level meetings and technical consultations. Yet what the IAEA describes in its latest report is an egregious failure by Iran to fulfill its obligations, as well as an elaborate, ongoing cover-up. The latter included Iran’s false explanations, denials, sanitization of sites, relocation of equipment and material, refusals to cooperate, and retributive actions such as de-designation of IAEA inspectors, among other tactics. In the new information, the IAEA obtained conclusive evidence that Iran had acquired its highly confidential documents, including the questions intended to be asked by the IAEA in upcoming inspections, which according to the IAEA report, “raises serious concerns regarding Iran’s spirit of cooperation and may undermine the effective application of safeguards in Iran.” How Iran obtained the safeguards confidential report was not discussed in the report.

Overall, the level of non-compliance raised in this report warrants an IAEA Board of Governors censure resolution and referral of Iran’s case to the UN Security Council.

...

Whether or not the resolution contains an explicit referral to the UN Security Council, the E3 should trigger the reimposition of UN Iran sanctions via the snapback procedure outlined in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and associated UN Resolution 2231. This action would also cause the return of the UN Security Council demand that Iran end its uranium enrichment program.

https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/analysis-of-the-iaeas-comprehensive-iran-npt-safeguards-report-may-2025

This doesn't mean that Iran is trying to make a nuke. Indeed it's far more likely to just mean that Iran is trying to hide an element of what it is doing from Israel to protect it from sabotage and air strikes etc. Iran has frequently alleged that its reports to the IAEA which should be confidential get leaked and eventually reach Israel. Whether this is true or not - Israel could have found the information directly through infiltration of the Iranian intelligence - there are instances of leaks from IAEA despite the confidentiality mechanisms - and it is a reasonable concern for Iran to have.

So it might just be that Iran has stashed away some enriched uranium and some centrifuges in a location that isn't known to the IAEA not to try to violate the NPT but rather to protect it from Israeli / US air strikes and sabotage.

Given the context of Iran's long term support of rapid elimination of all nukes in resolutions in the UN every year - that seems more plausible to me.

No risk of a world war from any country

We do NOT risk a world war from Iran / Israel or Pakistan / India or Russia / Ukraine or any of those conflicts

None of them have ANY possibility of starting a world war. The conditions that made WW2 possible no longer exist today. Only NATO countries even have the capability to move soldiers in place and sustain them to fight a world war (force projection). China and Russia can't do that with almost no foreign ports or bases they could use. Also the UN came into place after WW2 with the UN Charter and many mechanisms and precautions to prevent another world war.

Iran doesn't have the ability even to do a ground invasion of Israel. It can fire missiles as far as Israel from most of Iran and can reach most of the Middle East with its missiles. But it doesn't have the technology of ICBMs and can't reach Western Europe never mind the Americas and has no interest in that either.

Nobody else would come in on Iran's side. Worst, and not going to happen, would be like the two wars with Iraq. The first one involved 42 countries fighting Iraq from every continent except Antarctica. But it wasn't a world war because Iraq couldn't fight back to reach any of those countries only its neighbours.

It's the same here. Iran can only fight back in the Middle East and with the extra complication that it has only one adversary Israel and can't reach it on the ground. If the US got involved it could also fire missiles at US bases in the Middle East but again couldn't reach them on the ground. Plus most of its missiles get shot down.

That is NOT a country that could fight a world war.

Short summary of why there is no risk of a world war from Iran - Iran can’t fight the world and doesn’t want to

Perhaps I can help explain why there is no risk of a world war by sharing three graphics. I will assume you can see the graphics and read in English. Don’t worry if you can’t as I go through the graphics again with text later. I’ll do a short summary for each one.

This is the conflict (not really a war) that everyone is tweeting about etc today:

It’s Israel v. Iran, they can’t drive up to each other’s borders so the most can happen is that they fire missiles at each other from a distance until they decide to stop. Israel started it and Iran will stop responding when Israel stops.

This is the Gulf war in 1991.

42 countries from every continent except Antarctica fought Iraq on the ground, in the air and in the sea

And this explains why there can’t be any world war from Iran.

Iran simply doesn’t have the capability to attack Western Europe or the Americas even if that was its wish which it is not. There is no way for its planes, or its diesel subs or its missiles or its three small frigates to get to Western Europe or the Americas and it’s not even interested.

And Russia and China won’t get involved.

None of this is in any way to support the Iranian regime. It is just about accurately understanding its point of view on the topic.

In Ukraine, Russia has very limited objectives and Putin only bluffs to try to reduce the supplies of weapons to Ukraine. He has no other objective and he had to give up even on Syria with its bases on the Med and even on its Russian outpost in a Russia sympathetic region within Azerbaijan. Putin is far more concerned about Ukrainian drones than anything to do with NATO which he is not going to attack.

Pakistan and India just focus on each other in the Kashmir region and there is no way it could become a conflict involving other countries, no other country cares who has which square kilometer of territory there.

Also

Also

Also

Contents

• How to navigate this article - read titles of sections and look at any graphics

  • What to do if you are in Tehran and can’t leave your home

  • No risk in US or Western Europe and only risk even in nearby contries like Iraq is debris from a shot down drone

• Meeting of Security Council is to decide what US can do and how to keep Americans in the region safe - NOT about nukes

  • So what is the IDF doing (Israel Defence Force)? Plans to attack military targets in a civilian area of Tehran in Iran - if in that area it’s wise to leave - and best to leave Tehran completely

• Hegseth: US keeps a defensive posture in pursuit of a peace deal - and is NOT attaching Iran

  • So why would the civilians have to evacuate? Maybe because of mobile ballistic missile launchers launching at Israel from the streets of Tehran??

• Nothing to do with nukes.

  • Iran is in the Non Proliferation Treaty and doesn’t have nukes

  • In a world where Israel has nukes, Iran feels safer if it still has uranium enrichment capabilities to civilian levels - which it also sees as its right under the Non Proliferation Treaty since many other NPT countriers do civilian enrichment

• Russia is neutral in Iran and Israel

• No possibility of carpet bombing or of Israel attacking on the ground - too far away

• Not a risk to US or Western Europe or Americas or indeed the Middle East outside of Iran or Israel

• Trump told G7 that he has proposed a ceasefire plan to Iran and Israel

  • Trump is the opposite of a hawk - never follows through on his outlandish military hyperbole and is very cautious - in 26 military actions he ordered so far in his first and second term only the very first action had a US casualty - the other 25 had no US casualties - and max of 100 non US casualties

• Israel can’t destroy Iran’senrichment capabilities and even the US couldn’t do it for long

  • Israel can cause short delays by collapsing entrances to tunnels

  • Fordov is very hard to damage - only US has a chance and likely many strikes with its biggest conventional bomb with 15 metric ton of explosives - hitting the same spot over and over for days or weeks

  • Iran likely already has some secret deeper facilities for a stash of uranium / centrifuges

  • Darya Dolzikova from UK military thinktank RUSSI says the US can usefully THREATEN to destroy Iranian facilities to encourage negotation - but it can’t accomplish much by destroying them

  • Likely why Iran failed the NPR inspection for the first time in 20 years - because it wants to hide its materials from bombing raids

• No risk of a world war from any country

• Short summary of why there is no risk of a world war from Iran - Iran can’t fight the world and doesn’t want to

CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL

You can Direct Message me on Substack - but I check this rarely. Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com

Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:. Robert Walker I usually get Facebook messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.

FOR MORE HELP

To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date See also my Short debunks

Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly

• Facebook group Doomsday Debunked

Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking or to help scared people who are panicking.

SEARCH LIST OF DEBUNKS

You can search by title and there’s also an option to search the content of the blog using a google search.

CLICK HERE TO SEARCH: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date

NEW SHORT DEBUNKS

I do many more fact checks and debunks on our facebook group than I could ever write up as blog posts. They are shorter and less polished but there is a good chance you may find a short debunk for some recent concern.

I often write them up as “short debunks”

See Latest short debunks for new short debunks

I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:

. doomsdaydebunks.bsky.social

I do the short debunks more often but they are less polished - they are copies of my longer replies to scared people in the Facebook group.

I go through phases when I do lots of short debunks. Recently I’ve taken to converting comments in the group into posts in the group that resemble short debunks and most of those haven’t yet been copied over to the wiki.

TIPS FOR DEALING WITH DOOMSDAY FEARS

If suicidal or helping someone suicidal see my:

BLOG: Supporting someone who is suicidal

If you have got scared by any of this, health professionals can help. Many of those affected do get help and find it makes a big difference.

They can’t do fact checking, don’t expect that of them. But they can do a huge amount to help with the panic, anxiety, maladaptive responses to fear and so on.

Also do remember that therapy is not like physical medicine. The only way a therapist can diagnose or indeed treat you is by talking to you and listening to you. If this dialogue isn’t working for whatever reason do remember you can always ask to change to another therapist and it doesn’t reflect badly on your current therapist to do this.

Also check out my Seven tips for dealing with doomsday fears based on things that help those scared, including a section about ways that health professionals can help you.

I know that sadly many of the people we help can’t access therapy for one reason or another - usually long waiting lists or the costs.

There is much you can do to help yourself. As well as those seven tips, see my:

BLOG: Doing what matters at times of stress
— new WHO booklet to help with mental health during COVID19 pandemic

BLOG: Breathe in and out slowly and deeply and other ways to calm a panic attack

BLOG: Tips from CBT
— might help some of you to deal with doomsday anxieties

PLEASE DON’T COMMENT HERE WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER TOPICS - INSTEAD COMMENT ON POST SET UP FOR IT

PLEASE DON'T COMMENT ON THIS POST WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OTHER TOPIC:

INSTEAD PLEASE COMMENT HERE:

Post to comment on, with off topic potentially scary comments - or send me a private message - or use our group on Facebook

The reason is I often can’t respond to comments for some time. The unanswered comment can scare people who come to this post for help on something else

Also even an answered comment may scare them because they see the comment before my reply.

It works much better to put comments on other topics on a special post for them.

It is absolutely fine to digress and go off topic in conversations here.

This is specifically about anything that might scare people on a different topic.

PLEASE DON’T TELL A SCARED PERSON THAT THE THING THEY ARE SCARED OF IS TRUE WITHOUT A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE OR IF YOU ARE A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE YOURSELF - AND RESPOND WITH CARE

This is not like a typical post on substack. It is specifically to help people who are very scared with voluntary fact checking. Please no politically motivated exaggerations here. And please be careful, be aware of the context.

We have a rule in the Facebook group and it is the same here.

If you are scared and need help it is absolutely fine to comment about anything to do with the topic of the post that scares you.

But if you are not scared or don’t want help with my voluntary fact checking please don’t comment with any scary material.

If you respond to scared people here please be careful with your sources. Don’t tell them that something they are scared of is true without excellent reliable sources, or if you are a reliable source yourself.

It also matters a lot exactly HOW you respond. E.g. if someone is in an area with a potential for earthquakes there’s a big difference between a reply that talks about the largest earthquake that’s possible there even when based on reliable sources, and says nothing about how to protect themselves and the same reply with a summary and link to measures to take to protect yourself in an earthquake.