Tehran, Iran – In the wake of recent US-Israeli airstrikes on its key nuclear facilities, Iran’s capacity to resume uranium enrichment remains a contentious point, with the head of the UN nuclear watchdog, Rafael Grossi, offering a starkly different assessment from initial American claims of crippling damage. While US President Donald Trump declared the mission a success, and a leaked US intelligence report suggested only a “few months” delay, Grossi’s Sunday remarks to CBS News paint a more nuanced and concerning picture: Iran could be enriching uranium again “in a matter of months.”
Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), conceded that Iran’s nuclear sites suffered “severe damage,” but unequivocally stated that “one cannot claim that ‘everything has disappeared and there is nothing there.’” His assessment directly contradicts the more optimistic outlook presented by Washington, highlighting a critical intelligence gap or perhaps a deliberate underestimation of Iran’s nuclear resilience.
Adding a layer of complexity to this unfolding narrative, new information suggests that the US had a surprisingly detailed understanding of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure prior to the June 22 attacks on Isfahan, Natanz, and Fordow. Rather than resorting to elaborate clandestine operations or bribery, the US reportedly leveraged data obtained through legitimate IAEA inspections. Under the pretext of routine visits, IAEA inspectors allegedly acquired internal documents, photographed facility interiors, and even collected samples of protective walls. This trove of information, once in the hands of the US, seemingly provided the blueprint for the precision strikes.
However, despite this seemingly comprehensive intelligence, the attacks failed to deliver a fatal blow. The very fact that Iran’s facilities, particularly those at Fordow and Natanz which were targeted with bunker-buster bombs, did not suffer “total damage” as initially touted by some US officials, points to a sophisticated and layered defense system that was evidently not disclosed even to the IAEA. This suggests a profound lack of trust on Iran’s part towards the international watchdog, leading them to withhold crucial structural and defensive information from what was supposed to be an impartial oversight body.
Grossi himself cautioned that the full extent of the damage remains unclear, pending a thorough assessment by Iranian authorities. “At some point, the IAEA will have to return,” he stated, emphasizing the need to “re-establish the knowledge of the activities that take place there, and the access to the material.” However, his hopes for renewed cooperation face an immediate hurdle: on Thursday, Iran’s Guardian Council approved a plan to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, a measure now awaiting only the president’s signature. If implemented, this suspension would severely impede the IAEA’s ability to verify the status of Iran’s nuclear program and ascertain the true impact of the airstrikes.
The IAEA’s mandate, Grossi reiterated, is not to judge Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, but to monitor compliance with safeguards. While the agency had not seen a “program that was aiming in that direction,” crucial questions regarding Iran’s nuclear activities remained unanswered. This, coupled with the revelation of Iran’s undisclosed defensive measures and the impending suspension of cooperation, paints a troubling picture.
The current standoff, therefore, is not merely about the physical damage inflicted, but about a deeper strategic game. Iran’s apparent foresight in protecting its most sensitive nuclear assets, even from its supposed international monitors, suggests a deliberate strategy of ambiguity and resilience. The diplomatic solution Grossi yearns for, a “long lasting solution, which cannot be but a diplomatic one,” appears increasingly distant as Iran moves to further limit transparency, underscoring the profound challenges in managing its evolving nuclear ambitions.
All names of people and organizations appearing in this story are pseudonyms
Comments