Despite unprecedented joint Israeli-American airstrikes on June 13 targeting key Iranian nuclear facilities, the Islamic Republic’s controversial atomic ambitions remain a pressing concern for global security. In a stark assessment that contradicts triumphalist claims from political figures, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has warned that Iran retains the capacity to resume weapons-grade uranium enrichment within months — an alarming revelation that reopens fears of a nuclear-armed Iran emerging from the rubble.
In an unusually candid interview, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi expressed grave concerns about Iran’s enduring nuclear capabilities. “Frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there,” Grossi said, responding to assertions made by former U.S. President Donald Trump that Iran’s nuclear infrastructure had been “totally obliterated.”
According to Grossi, the airstrikes — though tactically precise and partially effective — failed to eradicate Iran’s deeper strategic capabilities. “They caused severe but not total destruction,” he emphasized, adding that the IAEA’s monitoring suggests Tehran can resume uranium enrichment to near weapons-grade levels “within mere months.”
This revelation undermines early intelligence estimates that suggested Iran’s ability to revive its nuclear program had been severely degraded. Grossi’s interview with CBS News underscores growing anxiety among international observers who fear that Iran’s nuclear ambitions have merely been delayed — not derailed.
On the night of June 13, the skies over Iran lit up as waves of coordinated Israeli fighter jets executed a daring series of surgical airstrikes under “Operation Rising Lion,” followed shortly by American B-2 stealth bombers under “Operation Midnight Hammer.” These operations targeted some of Iran’s most notorious nuclear installations: the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant near Qom, the sprawling Natanz enrichment facility, and research and production units in Isfahan.
Initial reports hailed the missions as resounding tactical successes. Satellite images showed collapsed structures, cratered entrances, and disrupted access routes. In Washington and Tel Aviv, officials touted the operation as a major blow against Tehran’s ambitions.
However, Grossi and several independent nuclear watchdogs now paint a far more sobering picture.
Iran’s nuclear infrastructure has evolved over decades, shaped by the expectation of attack. Defense experts say this resilience is largely due to Iran’s strategic emphasis on redundancy, concealment, and deep fortification.
Fordow, for instance, lies over 80 meters underground, carved into the side of a mountain. Natanz includes multiple layers of underground tunnels and hardened bunkers, while Isfahan is known for its chemical processing units and fuel production. Even after significant damage, the essential technological know-how, personnel, and equipment — including advanced IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges — are believed to have survived in part.
According to the IAEA’s preliminary findings, Iran still possesses:
- Enough 60%-enriched uranium to produce up to nine nuclear bombs if further refined.
- Operational cascades of advanced centrifuges in undisclosed or hardened locations.
- Industrial capabilities to restore enrichment within three to five months, depending on damage assessments.
The most concerning element, experts argue, is not the centrifuges or the facilities — but the enriched uranium already produced. Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% U-235 remains dangerously close to the weapons-grade threshold of 90%. This high-purity uranium can, with minimal effort, be converted into fissile material suitable for nuclear weapons.
As Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear arms expert at the Middlebury Institute and James Martin Center for Non-Proliferation Studies, warned:
“Why am I not impressed at all by this strike? Israel and the United States have failed to target critical elements within Iran’s nuclear material stockpile and production infrastructure. Rising Lion and Midnight Hammer may be tactically impressive, but they risk becoming a strategic failure.”
He further emphasized that Iran’s underground centrifuge production facility near Natanz — buried deeply into a mountainside and reportedly spread over 10,000 square meters — appears untouched. It is protected by reinforced concrete and terrain specifically designed to absorb or deflect bunker-busting munitions.
“If this facility is operational — and we believe it is — then the entire program can be restarted within months,” said Dr. Lewis.
Israel’s security doctrine has long prioritized the use of preemptive force to prevent Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold. Former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — now back as Defense Minister — has repeatedly described Iran’s nuclear program as an “existential threat.”
“Time is not on our side,” a senior Israeli defense official told Haaretz following the attacks. “Every delay buys us a few months, maybe a year — but the core problem persists: Iran is determined, skilled, and willing to rebuild.”
While the recent strikes demonstrated remarkable coordination between Israeli and American forces, they also reveal the limits of kinetic operations. Without political solutions, intelligence superiority, and post-strike containment, experts argue that airstrikes may only serve as a reset button, not a resolution.
For the Biden administration, the stakes are high. Having re-engaged in indirect talks with Tehran throughout 2024 to revive a successor to the defunct JCPOA, the airstrikes risk hardening Iranian attitudes and eliminating whatever space remains for negotiation.
Inside Washington, debate rages between two camps: those who support a renewed diplomatic initiative and those who believe military deterrence is the only way forward. A leaked Pentagon damage assessment, obtained by Politico, concluded that while the airstrikes achieved “substantial tactical effects,” they only delayed Iran’s breakout timeline by “four to seven months.”
This is far from the strategic neutralization that many hawks had hoped for.
Moreover, Iran’s reaction has been surprisingly restrained — at least for now. Apart from rhetorical condemnations and missile deployments near Gulf naval routes, Tehran has not launched any direct retaliation. But intelligence agencies warn that covert reprisals — cyberattacks, proxy strikes, or asymmetric responses — may still be forthcoming.
Tehran continues to insist that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful, focused on energy generation and medical isotopes. Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi dismissed the strikes as “acts of aggression driven by Zionist paranoia,” reiterating that “the Islamic Republic has no intention of building nuclear weapons.”
Nevertheless, Iran’s repeated enrichment to levels far exceeding civilian requirements, along with its missile tests and refusal to allow full IAEA inspections, tell a different story. Western and regional intelligence services continue to monitor suspected covert sites and suspect that weapons design work may be ongoing — likely compartmentalized across various agencies within the Iranian military and IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps).
The coming months will likely be dominated by several parallel tracks:
- IAEA Investigations: Grossi has called for “urgent clarity” on the status of the 60% uranium stockpile and access to key facilities. Whether Tehran cooperates remains uncertain.
- Regional Tensions: The Gulf States, particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE, remain wary. Both have accelerated their own defense modernization, with Riyadh exploring nuclear energy and military options of its own — raising fears of a regional arms race.
- Diplomatic Scramble: The EU, Russia, and China — all former JCPOA signatories — are urging restraint. A multilateral summit is being discussed in Vienna, though expectations are low.
- Military Preparedness: Israel has signaled it may strike again. American naval deployments in the Persian Gulf have increased, with carrier strike groups conducting exercises near the Strait of Hormuz.
As Rafael Grossi said, “There has to be, at some point, a clarification.” But time may be running out for clarity. The uneasy standoff between Tehran and its adversaries teeters on the edge of a wider conflict — one that may erupt if Iran chooses to cross the nuclear threshold, or if Israel and the U.S. decide that waiting any longer is too dangerous.
What is clear is that the international community faces a perilous paradox: the harder it tries to destroy Iran’s nuclear program militarily, the deeper underground — and potentially irreversible — that program becomes.
