B1 · Intermediate
14 min
technologygeopoliticssciencehistorymilitary
El átomo y la guerra: el ataque israelí a Yazd
The Atom and the War: Israel's Strike on Yazd
Fletcher breaks down this story in English. Octavio reacts and expands in Spanish. Follow along with the live transcript, tap any word for its translation. Intermediate level — perfect for intermediate learners expanding their range.
So, yesterday something happened that I think a lot of people scrolled past without fully registering what it means.
The Israeli Air Force struck a uranium processing facility in Yazd, Iran.
No casualties, no radiation leaks, according to Iran's own atomic energy organization.
And I want to sit with that for a minute, because underneath that very calm headline is an enormous story.
Bueno, mira, es que Yazd no es un lugar cualquiera.
Look, Yazd isn't just any place.
Es una ciudad antigua, muy importante en la cultura iraní.
It's an ancient city, very important in Iranian culture.
Pero también tiene instalaciones nucleares muy importantes para el programa de Irán.
But it also has nuclear facilities that are crucial to Iran's program.
Right, and that tension is exactly what gets me.
Yazd is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities on earth.
It's a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Zoroastrian temples, wind towers, incredible architecture.
And also, apparently, a uranium processing plant.
Sí, la instalación de Yazd procesa uranio que viene de minas en esa región.
Yes, the Yazd facility processes uranium from mines in that region.
No es donde Irán enriquece el uranio, pero es una parte importante del proceso.
It's not where Iran enriches uranium, but it's an important part of the process.
Okay, so let's slow down there, because I think a lot of listeners, including me honestly, need the distinction spelled out.
Processing uranium and enriching uranium are not the same thing.
Walk me through that.
A ver, primero el uranio está en la tierra, en las minas.
First, uranium is in the ground, in mines.
Después lo procesan para hacerlo más puro.
Then it's processed to make it purer.
Eso es lo que hacen en Yazd.
That's what they do in Yazd.
Después, en otras instalaciones, lo enriquecen, que significa aumentar la concentración de uranio-235.
Then, in other facilities, they enrich it, which means increasing the concentration of uranium-235.
And uranium-235 is the version that matters, because it's the fissile isotope.
Low enrichment, around three to five percent, gives you reactor fuel.
Weapons-grade is ninety percent plus.
So Yazd is earlier in the chain, but it's still in the chain.
Exacto.
Exactly.
Y eso es importante porque si destruyes una parte del proceso, el programa entero se complica.
And that matters because if you destroy one part of the process, the entire program gets complicated.
No lo destruyes completamente, pero lo retrasas.
You don't destroy it completely, but you set it back.
Here's the thing, that word, 'retraso,' delay, is actually the central debate in nuclear strategy.
The whole argument behind strikes like this, going back decades, is not that you eliminate the program.
It's that you buy time.
You push the timeline back.
Bueno, y esa idea viene de 1981.
And that idea goes back to 1981.
Israel atacó el reactor nuclear de Osirak, en Irak.
Israel attacked Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor.
Saddam Hussein quería una bomba nuclear.
Saddam Hussein wanted a nuclear bomb.
Israel lo destruyó antes de que fuera posible.
Israel destroyed it before that was possible.
The Osirak strike.
I covered the anniversary of that once, and the historical debate around it is actually more complicated than the legend suggests.
Yes, Israel destroyed the reactor.
But some analysts argue it accelerated Iraq's weapons program because Saddam went underground, literally.
Sí, y Irán aprendió esa lección.
And Iran learned that lesson.
El programa nuclear de Irán no está en un solo lugar.
Iran's nuclear program isn't in one place.
Está distribuido en muchas instalaciones en todo el país.
It's spread across many facilities throughout the country: Natanz, Fordow, Arak, and Yazd.
Natanz, Fordow, Arak, y Yazd.
It's a smart strategy.
Es una estrategia inteligente.
Fordow is the one that always haunted me, because it's built inside a mountain.
I mean, literally carved into the rock near Qom.
It was designed specifically so that conventional bunker-buster bombs can't reach it.
That's not a civilian energy program thinking ahead.
That's a program expecting to be targeted.
Mira, Irán siempre dijo que su programa nuclear era solo para energía, para electricidad.
Iran always said its nuclear program was only for energy, for electricity.
Pero la comunidad internacional tenía dudas.
But the international community had doubts.
Por eso existió el acuerdo nuclear de 2015, el JCPOA.
That's why the 2015 nuclear deal, the JCPOA, existed.
The JCPOA.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
One of the most technically complex diplomatic agreements ever negotiated, and also one of the most politically radioactive, if you'll excuse the word.
Obama did it.
Trump pulled out in 2018.
Biden tried to revive it.
And now we're here, in a shooting war.
La verdad es que cuando Trump salió del acuerdo en 2018, Irán empezó a enriquecer más uranio.
When Trump left the deal in 2018, Iran started enriching more uranium.
En 2015, tenían uranio enriquecido al 3,67%.
In 2015, they had uranium enriched to 3.67%.
Cuando empezó esta guerra, tenían uranio enriquecido al 60%.
When this war started, they had uranium enriched to 60%.
Muy cerca de 90%.
Very close to 90%.
Sixty percent.
That's not a power plant.
Nobody builds a civilian nuclear reactor that runs on sixty percent enriched uranium.
That's the number that kept nuclear analysts up at night for years before all this started.
Exacto.
Exactly.
Y la tecnología para ir de 60% a 90% no es muy complicada si ya tienes las centrifugadoras.
And the technology to go from 60% to 90% isn't very complicated if you already have the centrifuges.
Es cuestión de tiempo, no de conocimiento nuevo.
It's a matter of time, not new knowledge.
So let's talk about the centrifuges, because this is where the technology story really lives.
Centrifuges spin uranium hexafluoride gas at incredible speeds, tens of thousands of rotations per minute, and the heavier U-238 separates from the lighter U-235.
It sounds almost mundane when you describe it that way.
Pero es una tecnología muy difícil de hacer bien.
But it's very difficult technology to get right.
Irán tardó muchos años en desarrollarla.
Iran took many years to develop it.
Y aquí es donde el ataque a Yazd es importante, porque Yazd convierte el uranio en gas, en UF6, que es lo que necesitan las centrifugadoras.
And that's where the Yazd strike matters, because Yazd converts uranium into gas, into UF6, which is what the centrifuges need.
UF6, uranium hexafluoride.
Which is also, incidentally, one of the most corrosive substances known to chemistry.
The engineering required to handle it safely is extraordinary.
And now that facility has been hit.
No radiation leak, Iran says, but the question is, what exactly was destroyed?
Bueno, eso no lo sabemos con seguridad.
We don't know for certain.
Irán no da muchos detalles.
Iran doesn't give many details.
Dijeron que no había víctimas y no había contaminación.
They said no casualties, no contamination.
Pero no explicaron qué parte de la instalación destruyeron los israelíes.
But they didn't explain which part of the facility the Israelis destroyed.
And that information vacuum is its own kind of message.
From a military technology standpoint, the fact that there was no radiation leak tells you something about the precision of the strike.
These were not carpet bombs.
This was surgical.
Israel tiene tecnología militar muy avanzada.
Israel has very advanced military technology.
Tienen misiles de largo alcance, bombas muy precisas, y también drones muy sofisticados.
They have long-range missiles, very precise bombs, and also sophisticated drones.
Es una de las fuerzas aéreas más modernas del mundo.
It's one of the most modern air forces in the world.
I spent time embedded with units during the 2006 Lebanon conflict, and even then the precision guidance systems were remarkable.
Now, twenty years later, the standoff capability, meaning how far away the aircraft can be from the target when it releases a weapon, that has changed the calculus completely.
Sí, y eso es importante porque Irán tiene defensas aéreas también.
And that matters because Iran has air defenses too.
Tienen misiles tierra-aire.
They have surface-to-air missiles.
Pero claramente no pudieron detener este ataque en Yazd.
But clearly they couldn't stop this strike on Yazd.
Which raises a strategic question that I keep circling back to.
What does Iran do now with its nuclear program?
Because history suggests that bombing a program doesn't end it.
It changes it.
Syria had a covert reactor that Israel destroyed in 2007.
Syria quietly stopped.
But Syria isn't Iran.
No, Irán es mucho más grande y más complejo.
Iran is much larger and more complex.
Tienen más instalaciones, más científicos, más experiencia.
They have more facilities, more scientists, more experience.
La verdad es que puedes retrasar el programa, pero es muy difícil eliminarlo completamente.
The truth is you can delay the program, but it's very difficult to eliminate it completely.
And the historical record on that is pretty consistent.
Look, the Manhattan Project, the Soviet program, the Chinese program, Pakistan.
Once a state gets serious about building a bomb and has the industrial base, they eventually figure it out.
The only country that voluntarily gave up a functioning weapons program was South Africa.
Sí, Sudáfrica es un caso muy interesante.
South Africa had six nuclear bombs and destroyed them in 1989.
Tenían seis bombas nucleares y las destruyeron en 1989.
But Iran's situation is very different.
Pero la situación de Irán es muy diferente.
Iran feels threatened by Israel, by Saudi Arabia, by the United States.
Irán se siente amenazado por Israel, por Arabia Saudí, por Estados Unidos.
The security dilemma, right.
And this is where I think the technology story connects to something much deeper.
The reason states want nuclear weapons isn't irrational.
Look at what happened to Gaddafi.
He gave up his weapons program in 2003 under Western pressure.
By 2011, he was dead.
North Korea watched that very carefully.
Corea del Norte es el ejemplo perfecto.
North Korea is the perfect example.
Tienen armas nucleares y nadie los ataca directamente.
They have nuclear weapons and nobody attacks them directly.
Es una lección muy clara para Irán: si tienes una bomba, estás más seguro.
It's a very clear lesson for Iran: if you have a bomb, you're safer.
The extraordinary thing is that this logic, this nuclear deterrence logic, was the foundation of Cold War stability between the US and the Soviet Union.
Mutually Assured Destruction.
And now we're watching the same logic play out, messily, in a much more multipolar world.
Mira, y hay otro factor importante.
And there's another important factor.
Arabia Saudí dijo hace unos años que si Irán tiene una bomba nuclear, ellos también quieren una.
Saudi Arabia said years ago that if Iran gets a nuclear bomb, they want one too.
Es una reacción en cadena muy peligrosa.
That's a very dangerous chain reaction.
Mohammed bin Salman said it explicitly in 2018.
If Iran develops a bomb, Saudi Arabia will follow.
And Saudi Arabia has the money.
They have relationships with Pakistan, which has bombs.
The technology transfer pathway exists.
La verdad es que estamos hablando de una región que ya tiene muchos conflictos.
We're talking about a region that already has many conflicts.
Si Arabia Saudí y otros países del Golfo también quieren armas nucleares, la situación se vuelve mucho más difícil de controlar.
If Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries also want nuclear weapons, the situation becomes much harder to control.
And this is where the G7 news from yesterday connects, because those foreign ministers meeting to discuss protecting the Strait of Hormuz, that's not just about oil tankers.
It's about what happens after this war ends and what kind of Iran emerges on the other side.
Sí, y el precio del petróleo a 110 dólares el barril también tiene relación.
And oil at 110 dollars a barrel also connects.
Porque el dinero del petróleo financió el programa nuclear de Irán durante muchos años.
Because oil money financed Iran's nuclear program for many years.
Hay una conexión entre energía, economía y tecnología militar.
There's a connection between energy, economy, and military technology.
I mean, that connection runs through all of this.
The sanctions that the West used to pressure Iran's nuclear program, they targeted oil exports specifically.
Which is also why the Strait of Hormuz became the pressure point it became.
Everything runs through there, oil and leverage both.
Bueno, y hay un organismo internacional que supervisa todo esto: el AIEA, la Agencia Internacional de Energía Atómica.
The IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, had inspectors at Iran's nuclear facilities.
Ellos tenían inspectores en las instalaciones nucleares de Irán.
But in recent years, Iran severely limited the inspectors' access.
Pero en los últimos años, Irán limitó mucho el acceso de los inspectores.
The IAEA inspectors.
When Rafael Grossi, the director general, started talking about 'serious credibility gaps' in Iran's disclosures, that was diplomatic language for: we think they're lying to us and we can't verify what they're doing.
That was two years before this war started.
Es que sin inspectores, no puedes verificar nada.
Without inspectors, you can't verify anything.
Y cuando no puedes verificar, la desconfianza crece.
When you can't verify, distrust grows.
Y cuando la desconfianza crece...
And when distrust grows, you arrive at where we are now.
llegamos a donde estamos ahora.
So here we are.
An Israeli strike on a uranium processing facility in one of the oldest cities on earth.
No radiation leak, which is almost a miracle of precision.
And the underlying question, which nobody can answer right now, is whether this is the moment that ends Iran's nuclear ambitions or the moment that hardens them.
A ver, yo creo que la respuesta depende de cómo termina esta guerra.
I think the answer depends on how this war ends.
Si Irán pierde mucho, quizás acepta negociar de nuevo sobre sus armas nucleares.
If Iran loses a lot, maybe they'll agree to negotiate again on nuclear weapons.
Pero si Irán sobrevive y se siente más amenazado que antes, van a querer esa bomba más que nunca.
But if Iran survives and feels more threatened than before, they'll want that bomb more than ever.
No, you're absolutely right about that.
And that's the thing about nuclear technology.
The knowledge doesn't go away when you destroy a building.
The scientists are still there.
The physics is still there.
What you're really bombing when you hit Yazd is time.
And nobody knows how much you've bought.
Exacto.
This isn't just a military attack.
Y eso es lo que hace este momento tan importante.
It's a question about the future of nuclear technology, proliferation, and global security.
No es solo un ataque militar.
Yazd is an ancient city, but today it represents something very modern and very dangerous.
Es una pregunta sobre el futuro de la energía nuclear, la proliferación y la seguridad global.
Yazd es una ciudad antigua, pero hoy representa algo muy moderno y muy peligroso.