I understand the physics, but it's believed that the Natanz and Isfahan facilities are hardened such that a 1kT weapon wouldn't destroy them. You'd have to use a larger weapon, which would produce much more fallout.
You realize that the best hardened structures money could buy in 91 and 03 proved completely ineffectual in the face of conventional bunker busters right? In both those wars most of those bombs were not purpose built, just regular Vietnam era iron bombs with a piercing and guidence kit slapped on them. those bombs are capable of penetrating dozens of meters underground through multiple reinforced concrete barriers. In this case, we are talking about a purpose built nuclear bomb. All we have to do is pierce the skin at any point in that facility, and the 1 kiloton bomb will to the rest whether the facility is the size of a football field or a city block. Classic armor versus bullet scenario.
And btw, once under the reinforced bunker exterior, that will be a hell of a better seal for the blast than anything the Nevada tests every had.
Surely you understand that a bomb dropped from an airplane isn't packed away and sealed off from the outside like an underground test, right? If you look at the history of underground tests (at least in Nevada), when the seal failed, there was a lot of radiation released. There's no way that you could protect against that with a dropped bomb. Here's a good article on containment of low-yield nuclear weapons.
What, do you think there is a happy acme style rabit hole left when the bomb penetrates? And as I already told you, your Nevada tests are for significantly more powerful bombs, sometimes on the order of hundreds of times more powerful than we are talking about here.
Excellent use of "(explosive wise)" to hedge your claim.
When talking about the destuction of the targeted facility it is the only relevant metric, unless you are going to maintain we can radiation dose the thing into oblivion.
But there are other effects to detonating a nuclear weapon near a major city (as would have to be the case in Isfahan). Your statement is essentially, "Except for the radiation and fallout, a nuclear weapon is just like a big bomb." While true, it's meaningless.
The ground tremors will be the only immediate and significant effect to nearby communities, which might be serious depending on building quality. It is a simply fact that the VAST majority (if not all) of the radiation will be burried deep underground. Your fallout scenario is just plain stupid, any plume would not be large enough for significant dispersal. The weapons we are talking about are simply too small.
Any who advocated nuking every little facility? Most don't need nukes (probably all).
I just wanted to let readers know that what you had written is not beyond dispute. There are lots of people, from military officers, to international lawyers, to scientists, who think that those effects of nuclear weapons are unavoidable.
