Responding to news of US attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Green Party co-leader Adrian Ramsay MP said:
“We utterly condemn the reckless attacks on Iran by the United States that can only lead to further dangerous conflict in an already volatile region. There is no international legal basis for this unilateral action that poses a serious threat to international peace and security.
“Our prime minister has shamefully decided to echo the rhetoric of Trump and Netanyahu rather than condemn the indefensible aggression of both Israel and the US. Keir Starmer has further implied that it is justifiable for the Iranian regime to be bombed back to the negotiating table. I fully recognise the brutal nature of the Iranian regime but this unilateral action is no way to build peace and risks making the UK once again complicit in escalating a Middle East crisis.”
After prevaricating about whether the United States would enter Israel’s war on Iran, President Donald Trump finally made a decision.
Early Sunday, US warplanes and submarines struck three of Iran’s nuclear sites at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, where the Iranians have a uranium enrichment plant buried about 80 metres beneath a mountain.
These strikes have to be viewed as part of an overall continuum that began with the Gaza war following Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and then continued with Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah (the Iran-backed militant group in Lebanon) and the fall of the Iran-backed Assad regime in Syria.
Iran has never been weaker than it is now. And when Trump said it may take two weeks for him to decide whether to bomb Iran, the Israelis likely pushed him to act sooner.
We can assume there was a lot of Israeli pressure on Trump to use the massive ordnance penetrators, the 30,000-pound (13,600-kilogram) “bunker buster” bombs that only the US can deploy with its B2 bombers.
Now that Trump has taken the significant step of entering the US in yet another Middle East war, where could things go from here? There are a few possible scenarios.
Iran strikes back
The Iranians know they don’t have the strength to take on the US, and that the Americans can do enormous damage to their country and even put the Iranian regime’s stability at risk.
This is always the prime consideration of the clerical regime led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – everything else is subordinate to that.
To gauge Iran’s possible reaction, we can look at the how it responded to the first Trump administration’s assassination of the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Quds Force, Qassem Soleimani, in January 2020.
Iran said there would be a major reaction, but all it did was launch a barrage of missiles at two American bases in Iraq, which caused no US fatalities and very little damage. After that token retaliation, Iran said the matter was closed.
Iran’s reaction to the new US strikes will likely be along these lines. It probably won’t want to get into a tit-for-tat with the US by launching attacks against American facilities in the region. Trump has promised to respond with force:
Iran, a bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.
It’s also unclear how long Iran will be able to prosecute this war. This depends largely on how many ballistic missiles and launchers it has left.
There are various estimates as to how many ballistic missiles Iran may have remaining in its stockpiles. It was believed to have about 2,000 missiles capable of reaching Israel at the start of the war. Some estimates say Iran has fired 700 of them; others say around 400. Whatever the number is, its stockpiles are dwindling quickly.
Israel has also destroyed about a third of Iran’s ballistic missile launchers. If Israel is able to destroy all of them, Iran would have very limited ability to fight back.
Iran backs down
Before the US got involved in the conflict, Iran said it was prepared to negotiate, but it wouldn’t do so while Israel was still attacking.
So, one scenario is that some sort of compromise can now be worked out, in which Israel announces a ceasefire and Iran and the US agree to resume negotiations on Tehran’s nuclear program.
The big problem is that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he doesn’t trust the negotiating process and he doesn’t want to stop Israel’s military actions until all of Iran’s nuclear facilities have been completely destroyed. He’s also been bombing Iran’s oil terminals and gas facilities to put even more pressure on the regime.
But the regime has shown itself to be incredibly determined not to lose face. It was under great pressure at different times during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and never considered surrendering until a US missile mistakenly took down an Iranian passenger jet, killing 290 people.
Iran then agreed to a UN-brokered ceasefire. But the Iran-Iraq war lasted eight years, causing an estimated one million deaths. And when the then-supreme leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, agreed to the ceasefire, he said it was “worse than drinking poison”.
Given the state of Iran’s military capabilities, Khamenei, the current supreme leader, might surrender simply to try to preserve the regime. But this would be quite a climbdown as far as he’s concerned, and he has been very obstinate in the past.
The regime is very unpopular, but the Iranian people, in my experience, are strongly patriotic – loyal to their country, if not the regime. Though it’s difficult to gauge opinion in a country of 90 million people, a lot of Iranians would not want to be ordered to do anything by the US or Israel, and would rather fight on.
Netanyahu has said he wants to create the conditions for the Iranian people to rise up against the regime.
But it’s worth bearing in mind that the opposite of autocracy is not necessarily democracy. It could possibly be chaos. Iran has a number of different ethnic groups and there may be huge disagreements over what should take the place of the clerical regime, were it to fall.
Though we don’t know his probable successor, the regime has had plenty of time to plan for this. Those in senior positions will also know that a post-Khamenei succession struggle really would put the regime at risk.
The US engagement is limited
According to the new polling by The Economist and YouGov, released on June 17, 60% of Americans were opposed to joining the conflict between Israel and Iran, with just 16% in favour. Among Republicans, 53% opposed military action.
So, these strikes were not an obviously popular move among Americans at this stage. However, if this is an isolated event and succeeds in bringing a swift end to the war, Trump will probably be applauded by a majority of Americans.
If the US has to go back with more bombers – or there are serious attacks on US interests in the region – there could be more adverse reactions among Americans.
If it hasn’t been destroyed, and depending how much damage has been done to its centrifuges, Iran may be able to reconstruct its nuclear program relatively quickly. And it could have more incentive to further enrich this uranium to 90% purity, or weapons-grade level, to build a nuclear device.
Ian Parmeter does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The jagged silhouette of a B2 stealth bomber seen during a 2015 flyover in the US.Jonathan Daniel / Getty Images
Late on Saturday night, local time, the United States carried out strikes against Iranian nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, marking its open participation in the conflict between Iran and Israel.
The US says it fired 30 submarine-launched missiles at the sites in Natanz and Isfahan, as well as dropping more than a dozen “bunker buster” bombs at Fordow and Natanz.
The kind of bomb in question is the extremely destructive GBU-57 Massive Ordance Penetrator, or MOP, which weighs around 13.5 tonnes.
The attacks raise a lot of questions. What are these enormous bombs? Why did the US feel it had to get involved in the conflict? And, going forward, what does it mean for Iran’s nuclear ambitions?
What are ‘bunker busters’, and why are they used?
Bunker busters are weapons designed to destroy heavily protected facilities such as bunkers deep underground, beyond the reach of normal bombs.
Bunker busters are designed to bury themselves into the ground before detonating. This allows more of the explosive force to penetrate into the ground, rather than travelling through the air or across the surface.
Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan are built deep underground. Estimates suggest that Fordow for example could be 80m beneath the surface, and capped with layers of reinforced concrete and soil.
What is the MOP?
The bunker buster used in this particular operation is the largest in the US arsenal. Leaving aside nuclear weapons, the MOP is the largest known buster buster in the world.
Weighing some 13.5 tonnes, the MOP is believed to be able to penetrate up to 60 metres below ground in the right conditions. It is not known how many the US possesses, but the numbers are thought to be small (perhaps 20 or so in total).
We also don’t know exactly how many were used in Iran, though some reports say it was 14. However, it is likely to be a significant portion of the US MOP arsenal.
Why does only the US possess this capability?
The US is not the only state with bunker-busting weaponry. However, the size of MOP means it requires very specialised bombers to carry and drop it.
Only the B2 stealth bomber is currently able to deploy the MOP. Each B2 can carry at most two MOPs at a time. Around seven of America’s 19 operational B2s were used in the Iran operation.
There has been some consideration whether large transport aircraft such as the C-130 Hercules could be modified to carry and drop the MOP from its rear cargo doors. While this would allow other countries (including Israel) to deploy the MOP, it is for now purely hypothetical.
Why has the US (apparently) used them in Iran
The Trump administration claims Iran may be only a few weeks from possessing a nuclear weapon, and that it needed to act now to destroy Iranian nuclear enrichment sites. This claim is notably at odds with published assessments from the US intelligence community.
However, Israel lacks bunker busting weaponry sufficient to damage the deeply buried and fortified enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.
An F-15E Strike Eagle releases a GBU-28 ‘bunker buster’ laser-guided bomb, a smaller equivalewnt of the 13,600 kg GBU-57 ‘Massive Ordnance Penetrator’ believed to have been used in Iran. Michael Ammons / US Air Force
Only the MOP could do the job (short of using nuclear weapons). Even then, multiple MOPs would have been required to ensure sufficient damage to the underground facilities.
The US has claimed that these sites have been utterly destroyed. We cannot conclusively say whether this is true.
Iran may also have other, undeclared nuclear sites elsewhere in the country.
Iran’s reaction
The US has reportedly reached out to Iran via diplomatic channels to emphasise that this attack was a one-off, not part of a larger project of regime change. It is hard to say what will happen in the next few weeks.
Iran may retaliate with large strikes against Israel or against US forces in the region. It could also interrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, which would affect a large portion of global oil shipments, with profound economic implications.
Alternatively, Iran could capitulate and take steps to demonstrate it is ending its nuclear program. However, capitulation would not necessarily mean the end of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
The value of nuclear weapons
Perhaps a greater concern is that the attack will reinforce Iran’s desire to go nuclear. Without nuclear weapons, Iran was unable to threaten the US enough to deter today’s attack.
Iran may take lessons from the fate of other states. Ukraine (in)famously surrendered its stockpile of former Soviet nuclear weapons in the early 1990s. Russia has since felt emboldened to annex Crimea in 2014 and launch an ongoing invasion in 2022. Other potential nuclear states, such as Iraq and Gadaffi’s regime in Libya, also suffered from military intervention.
By contrast, North Korea successfully tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006. Since then there has been no serious consideration of military intervention in North Korea.
Iran may yet have the ability to produce useful amounts of weapons-grade uranium. It may now aim to buy itself time to assemble a relatively small nuclear device, similar in scale to the bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Depending on what facilities and resources have survive the US strikes, the attack has likely reinforced that the only way the Iranian regime can guarantee its survival is to possess nuclear weapons.
James Dwyer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Israel faced a missile attack on Sunday as Iran said it reserved all options to defend itself after unprecedented U.S. strikes that President Donald Trump said had “obliterated” its key nuclear facilities.
Hours after Trump dramatically escalated Middle East tensions by sending B-2 bombers to Iran, the Israeli military warned people to seek cover from a barrage that appeared heavier than the Iranian salvoes fired in the past few days.
“The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences,” said Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas, calling the U.S. strikes a “grave violation” of the U.N. charter, international law and the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
“Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people,” Araqchi posted on X.
Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization said it would not allow development of its “national industry” to be stopped, and an Iranian state television commentator said every U.S. citizen or military member in the region would be legitimate targets.
Israel’s ambulance service said at least 16 people were hurt in the morning barrage.
Air raid sirens sounded across most of the country, sending millions of people to safe rooms and bomb shelters as explosions rang out and missile interceptions were seen above Jerusalem and in other parts of the country.
It was not immediately clear how many missiles had pierced Israel’s air defence systems, but police confirmed at least three impact sites in residential areas in central and northern Israel.
Video from Israel’s commercial hub Tel Aviv and the port city of Haifa further north showed rescue teams combing through debris, apartments reduced to rubble, mangled cars along a street filled with debris and medics evacuating injured people from a row of blown out houses.
Most airlines continued to avoid large parts of the Middle East after the U.S. strikes, according to flight tracking website FlightRadar24, with traffic already skirting airspace in the region due to recent missile exchanges.
TRUMP SAYS IRAN FACES ‘PEACE OR TRAGEDY’
Trump, in a televised address to the U.S. people, flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, called the strikes a “spectacular military success” that had taken out Iran’s three principal nuclear sites: Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow.
He warned Tehran it would face more devastating attacks if it does not agree to peace.
After days of deliberation and long before his self-imposed two-week deadline, Trump’s decision to join Israel’s military campaign against its major rival Iran is the biggest foreign policy gamble of his two presidencies and one fraught with risks and unknowns.
The major escalation of armed conflict in the Middle East risks opening a new era of instability in the Middle East.
Trump said Iran’s future held “either peace or tragedy,” and there were many other targets that could be hit by the U.S. military. “If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill.”
The U.S. contacted Iran diplomatically on Saturday to say the strikes are all the U.S. plans and it does not aim for regime change, CBS News reported.
Trump told Fox News’ Sean Hannity show that six “bunker-buster” bombs were dropped on the deep-underground Fordow facility, while 30 Tomahawk missiles were fired against other nuclear sites. U.S. B-2 bombers were involved in the strikes, a U.S. official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Reuters had reported the movement of the B-2 bombers, which can be equipped to carry the massive bombs that experts say would be needed to strike Fordow, which is buried beneath a mountain south of Tehran. Given its fortification, it will likely be days, if not longer, before the impact of the strikes is known.
An Iranian official, cited by Tasnim news agency, confirmed part of the Fordow site was attacked by “enemy airstrikes.” However, Mohammad Manan Raisi, a lawmaker for Qom, near Fordow, told the semi-official Fars news agency the facility had not been seriously damaged.
A reporter from Iranian state media IRNA reporter said he had arrived near the Fordow site at 3 a.m. (2330 GMT on Saturday) and saw smoke that “seems to be related to air defences”. He quoted a nearby witness as reporting “six explosions were heard, but they said it wasn’t very loud.”
DIPLOMATIC FAILURE
The U.N. nuclear watchdog said no increases in off-site radiation levels had been reported after the U.S. strikes.
Hassan Abedini, deputy political head of Iran’s state broadcaster, said Iran had evacuated the three sites some time ago.
“The enriched uranium reserves had been transferred from the nuclear centres and there are no materials left there that, if targeted, would cause radiation and be harmful to our compatriots,” he told the channel.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Trump on his “bold decision”, saying, “History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world’s most dangerous regime, the world’s most dangerous weapons.”
Israel and Iran have been engaged in more than a week of aerial combat that has resulted in deaths and injuries in both countries. Israel launched its attacks on June 13, saying Iran was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons.
Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only. Israel is widely assumed to possess nuclear weapons, which it neither confirms nor denies.
Diplomatic efforts by Western nations to stop the hostilities have so far failed. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called the U.S. strikes a “dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security.”
In the U.S., Democratic lawmakers and some from Trump’s Republican Party have argued that he must receive permission from Congress before committing the U.S. military to any combat against Iran.
At least 430 people have been killed and 3,500 injured in Iran since Israel began its attacks, Iranian state-run Nour News said, citing the health ministry.
In Israel, 24 civilians have been killed and 1,272 people injured, according to local authorities.
The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa has called on New Zealanders to condemn the US bombing of Iran.
PSNA co-chair Maher Nazzal said in a statement that he hoped the New Zealand government would be critical of the US for its war escalation.
“Israel has once again hoodwinked the United States into fighting Israel’s wars,” he said.
“Israel’s Prime Minister has [been declaring] Iran to be on the point of producing nuclear weapons since the 1990s.
“It’s all part of his big plan for expulsion of Palestinians from Palestine to create a Greater Israel, and regime change for the entire region.”
Israel knew that Arab and European countries would “fall in behind these plans” and in many cases actually help implement them.
“It is a dreadful day for the Palestinians. Netanyahu’s forces will be turned back onto them in Gaza and the West Bank.”
‘Dreadful day’ for Middle East “It is just as dreadful day for the whole Middle East.
“Trump has tried to add Iran to the disasters of US foreign policy in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. The US simply doesn’t care how many people will die.”
New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters “acknowledged the development in the past 24 hours”, including President Trump’s announcement of the US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
He described it as “extremely worrying” military action in the Middle East, and it was critical further escalation was avoided.
“New Zealand strongly supports efforts towards diplomacy. We urge all parties to return to talks,” he said.
“Diplomacy will deliver a more enduring resolution than further military action.”
The Australian government said in a statement that Canberra had been clear that Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programme had been a “threat to international peace and security”.
It also noted that the US President had declared that “now is the time for peace”.
“The security situation in the region is highly volatile,” said the statement. “We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy.”
Iran calls attack ‘outrageous’ However, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, said the “outrageous” US attacks on Iran’s “peaceful nuclear installations” would have “everlasting consequences”.
His comments come as an Iranian missile attack on central and northern Israel wounded at least 23 people.
In an interview with Al Jazeera, Dr Mehran Kamrava, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, said the people of Iran feared that Israel’s goals stretched far beyond its stated goal of destroying the country’s nuclear and missile programmes.
“Many in Iran believe that Israel’s end game, really, is to turn Iran into Libya, into Iraq, what it was after the US invasion in 2003, and/or Afghanistan.
“And so the dismemberment of Iran is what Netanyahu has in mind, at least as far as Tehran is concerned,” he said.
US attack ‘more or less guarantees’ Iran will be nuclear-armed within decade
‘No evidence’ of Iran ‘threat’ Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said there had been “absolutely no evidence” that Iran posed a threat.
“Neither was it existential, nor imminent,” he told Al Jazeera.
“We have to keep in mind the reality of the situation, which is that two nuclear-equipped countries attacked a non-nuclear weapons state without having gotten attacked first.
“Israel was not attacked by Iran — it started that war; the United States was not attacked by Iran — it started this confrontation at this point.”
Dr Parsi added that the attacks on Iran would “send shockwaves” throughout the world.
The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa has called on New Zealanders to condemn the US bombing of Iran.
PSNA co-chair Maher Nazzal said in a statement that he hoped the New Zealand government would be critical of the US for its war escalation.
“Israel has once again hoodwinked the United States into fighting Israel’s wars,” he said.
“Israel’s Prime Minister has [been declaring] Iran to be on the point of producing nuclear weapons since the 1990s.
“It’s all part of his big plan for expulsion of Palestinians from Palestine to create a Greater Israel, and regime change for the entire region.”
Israel knew that Arab and European countries would “fall in behind these plans” and in many cases actually help implement them.
“It is a dreadful day for the Palestinians. Netanyahu’s forces will be turned back onto them in Gaza and the West Bank.”
‘Dreadful day’ for Middle East “It is just as dreadful day for the whole Middle East.
“Trump has tried to add Iran to the disasters of US foreign policy in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. The US simply doesn’t care how many people will die.”
New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters “acknowledged the development in the past 24 hours”, including President Trump’s announcement of the US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
He described it as “extremely worrying” military action in the Middle East, and it was critical further escalation was avoided.
“New Zealand strongly supports efforts towards diplomacy. We urge all parties to return to talks,” he said.
“Diplomacy will deliver a more enduring resolution than further military action.”
The Australian government said in a statement that Canberra had been clear that Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programme had been a “threat to international peace and security”.
It also noted that the US President had declared that “now is the time for peace”.
“The security situation in the region is highly volatile,” said the statement. “We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy.”
Iran calls attack ‘outrageous’ However, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, said the “outrageous” US attacks on Iran’s “peaceful nuclear installations” would have “everlasting consequences”.
His comments come as an Iranian missile attack on central and northern Israel wounded at least 23 people.
In an interview with Al Jazeera, Dr Mehran Kamrava, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, said the people of Iran feared that Israel’s goals stretched far beyond its stated goal of destroying the country’s nuclear and missile programmes.
“Many in Iran believe that Israel’s end game, really, is to turn Iran into Libya, into Iraq, what it was after the US invasion in 2003, and/or Afghanistan.
“And so the dismemberment of Iran is what Netanyahu has in mind, at least as far as Tehran is concerned,” he said.
US attack ‘more or less guarantees’ Iran will be nuclear-armed within decade
‘No evidence’ of Iran ‘threat’ Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said there had been “absolutely no evidence” that Iran posed a threat.
“Neither was it existential, nor imminent,” he told Al Jazeera.
“We have to keep in mind the reality of the situation, which is that two nuclear-equipped countries attacked a non-nuclear weapons state without having gotten attacked first.
“Israel was not attacked by Iran — it started that war; the United States was not attacked by Iran — it started this confrontation at this point.”
Dr Parsi added that the attacks on Iran would “send shockwaves” throughout the world.
Te Kuaka, an independent organisation advocating for a progressive and principled New Zealand foreign policy, expresses grave concern over the United States’ unprovoked bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities. This attack constitutes a clear violation of international law and the sovereignty of states.
This act of aggression was conducted without United Nations authorisation or credible justification under international law and risks catastrophic regional escalation. Furthermore, the US Constitution reserves war powers to Congress, making this attack an alarming breach of US democratic process.
New Zealand can play a role in the world by upholding peace, multilateralism, and international law. We call on the New Zealand government to take the following actions:
Publicly condemn this unlawful military strike and demand an immediate de-escalation.
Commit to no involvement, whether direct or indirect, in US military action against Iran.
Immediately withdraw NZDF personnel from the US-led Red Sea operation.
Pursue diplomatic solutions through the UN rather than unilateral aggression.
Call for other states to denounce these acts as a violation of international law and a challenge to fundamental principles of state conduct within the UN system.
New Zealand demonstrated moral leadership when it refused to join the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq. This principled stand upheld our nation’s commitment to international law and independent foreign policy. Today, we face a similar test of our values. Just as we rejected participation in that disastrous war, New Zealand must again resist pressure to support unlawful US military action.
Te Kuaka urges the government to uphold an independent foreign policy that prioritises peace, human rights, and international law over militarism and aggression.
Seven men have been charged following disorder outside the Embassy of Iran.
At 09:54hrs on Friday, 20 June officers on duty outside the embassy in Prince’s Gate, SW7 were alerted to what appeared to be a fight in progress.
They intervened, assisted by additional officers who were deployed to the scene.
Two men, aged 37 and 39, were taken to hospital with serious but non-life threatening injuries.
Eight people were arrested in connection with the incident, including the 39-year-old who had been taken to hospital.
On Saturday, 21 June, seven of those arrested were charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent contrary to Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. All are Iranian nationals.
They have been remanded in custody to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Monday, 23 June.
· Mohammad Nadiri, 30 (05.07.94) of Central Street, Islington
· Pourrezaei Vahid, 41 (08.08.83) of Hamlet Square, Cricklewood
· Armin Hasanlov, 35 (14.05.90) of Prescot Road, Liverpool
· Esmaeil Balouchy, 50 (14.09.74) of Brent Lea, Brentford
· Saeed Hosseingholipoor, 34 (16.06.91) of Wilkins Close, Mitcham
· Farzin Suleimani, 31 (05.10.93) of Selsey Road, Birmingham
· Aref Yazdan Parast, 31 (19.02.94) of Worton Road, Isleworth
The eighth person arrested remains in hospital and has been bailed.
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
Washington, D.C.— Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, issued the following statement in response to the Trump administration’s recently announced strikes on Iran:
“We can all agree that Iran should never possess a nuclear weapon. But the American people do not want to begin a war with Iran, and Trump does not have the unilateral authority to start one.
“This strike was unconstitutional. I share the questions the American people have. What is the strategy here? Why are we putting American lives at risk? The administration must now do its utmost to ensure service members and civilians in the region are protected against retaliation.
“The United States of America is a democracy with constitutional separation of powers, and that requires a president—any president—to come to Congress to approve the use of military force.
“It is critical that Congress ask important questions before approval—Congress needs to understand what intelligence the administration is acting upon, what the goal is, what the endgame is, and whether we have built an international coalition of support. None of this happened.
“Congress has not been presented with any evidence that required these strikes tonight. I will continue to demand answers and to speak up on behalf of my constituents, the overwhelming majority of whom do not want to be dragged into yet another forever war.”
The U.S. Air Force’s B-2 Spirit stealth bombers were involved in strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites on Saturday.
Three Iranian nuclear sites were struck in a “very successful attack,” President Donald Trump said on Saturday, adding that the crown jewel of Tehran’s nuclear program, Fordow, is gone.
The B-2 is one of America’s most advanced strategic weapons platforms, capable of entering sophisticated air defenses and delivering precision strikes against hardened targets such as Iran’s buried network of nuclear research facilities.
B-2 SPIRIT SPECIFICATIONS:
The U.S. B-2 costs about $2.1 billion each, making it the most expensive military aircraft ever built. Made by Northrop Grumman (NOC.N), opens new tab, the bomber, with its cutting-edge stealth technology, began its production run in the late 1980s but was curbed by the fall of the Soviet Union. Only 21 were made after the Pentagon’s planned acquisition program was truncated.
The bomber’s range of over 6,000 nautical miles (11,112 km) without refueling enables global strike capabilities from continental U.S. bases. With aerial refueling, the B-2 can reach virtually any target worldwide, as demonstrated in missions from Missouri to Afghanistan and Libya and now Iran.
Its payload capacity of more than 40,000 pounds (18,144 kg) allows the aircraft to carry a diverse array of conventional and nuclear weapons. The bomber’s internal weapons bays are specifically designed to maintain stealth characteristics while accommodating large ordnance loads which could include two GBU-57A/B MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator), a 30,000-pound precision-guided “bunker buster” bomb.
Reports said six bunker buster bombs were used on Iran’s Fordow research site.
The B-2’s two-pilot crew configuration reduces personnel requirements while maintaining operational effectiveness through advanced automation systems.
The B-2’s stealth technology incorporates radar-absorbing materials and angular design features that minimize detection by enemy air defense systems. Its radar cross-section is reportedly comparable to that of a small bird, making it nearly invisible to conventional radar.
MASSIVE ORDNANCE PENETRATOR (MOP):
The 30,000-pound MOP represents the largest conventional bomb in the U.S. arsenal, specifically engineered to defeat hardened underground bunkers. Its massive size requires the B-2 to carry only one or two MOPs per mission, but provides unmatched bunker-penetration capability.
The weapon’s 20.5-foot (6.25-m) length and GPS-guided precision targeting system enable accurate strikes against specific underground facilities. Its penetration capability of over 200 feet through hardened concrete makes it effective against the world’s most protected underground installations.
CONVENTIONAL PAYLOADS:
Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) provide the B-2 with precision conventional strike capability against fixed targets. These GPS-guided weapons can be deployed in large numbers, with the bomber capable of simultaneously engaging multiple targets with high accuracy.
Joint Standoff Weapons (JSOW) extend the aircraft’s engagement range while maintaining stealth characteristics during approach. These glide bombs allow the B-2 to strike targets from outside heavily defended airspace perimeters.
Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM) offer long-range precision strike capability with their own stealth features. The extended-range JASSM-ER variant provides strike options against targets over 500 miles (805 km) away.
NUCLEAR PAYLOAD CAPABILITIES:
The B-2 Spirit serves as a key component of America’s nuclear triad, capable of delivering strategic nuclear weapons with stealth and precision. The aircraft can carry up to 16 B83 nuclear bombs.
With his unprecedented decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, directly joining Israel’s air attack on its regional arch-foe, U.S. President Donald Trump has done something he had long vowed to avoid – intervene militarily in a major foreign war.
The dramatic U.S. strike, including the targeting of Iran’s most heavily fortified nuclear installation deep underground, marks the biggest foreign policy gamble of Trump’s two presidencies and one fraught with risks and unknowns.
Trump, who insisted on Saturday that Iran must now make peace or face further attacks, could provoke Tehran into retaliating by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important oil artery, attacking U.S. military bases and allies in the Middle East, stepping up its missile barrage on Israel and activating proxy groups against American and Israeli interests worldwide, analysts said.
Such moves could escalate into a broader, more protracted conflict than Trump had envisioned, evoking echoes of the “forever wars” that America fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he had derided as “stupid” and promised never to be dragged into.
“The Iranians are seriously weakened and degraded in their military capabilities,” said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator for Democratic and Republican administrations. “But they have all sorts of asymmetric ways that they can respond… This is not going to end quick.”
In the lead-up to the bombing that he announced late on Saturday, Trump had vacillated between threats of military action and appeals for renewed negotiation to persuade Iran to reach a deal to dismantle its nuclear program.
A senior White House official said that once Trump was convinced that Tehran had no interest in reaching a nuclear agreement, he decided the strikes were “the right thing to do.”
Trump gave the go-ahead once he was assured of a “high probability of success,” the official said – a determination reached after more than a week of Israeli air attacks on Iran’s nuclear and military facilities paved the way for the U.S. to deliver the potentially crowning blow.
NUCLEAR THREAT REMAINS
Trump touted the “great success” of the strikes, which he said included the use of massive “bunker-buster bombs” on the main site at Fordow. But some experts suggested that while Iran’s nuclear program may have been set back for many years, the threat may be far from over.
Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, saying its program is for purely peaceful purposes.
“In the long term, military action is likely to push Iran to determine nuclear weapons are necessary for deterrence and that Washington is not interested in diplomacy,” the Arms Control Association, a non-partisan U.S.-based organization that advocates for arms control legislation, said in a statement.
“Military strikes alone cannot destroy Iran’s extensive nuclear knowledge. The strikes will set Iran’s program back, but at the cost of strengthening Tehran’s resolve to reconstitute its sensitive nuclear activities,” the group said.
Eric Lob, assistant professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Florida International University, said Iran’s next move remains an open question and suggested that among its forms of retaliation could be to hit “soft targets” of the U.S. and Israel inside and outside the region.
But he also said there was a possibility that Iran could return to the negotiating table – “though they would be doing so in an even weaker position” – or seek a diplomatic off-ramp.
In the immediate aftermath of the U.S. strikes, however, Iran showed little appetite for concessions.
Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization said it would not allow development of its “national industry” to be stopped, and an Iranian state television commentator said every U.S. citizen or military member in the region would not be legitimate targets.
Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, posted on X: “Trump indicated this is now the time for peace. It’s unclear and unlikely the Iranians will see it the same way. This is more likely to open a new chapter of the 46-year-old US-Iran war than conclude it.”
‘REGIME CHANGE’
Some analysts suggested that Trump, whose administration has previously disavowed any aim of dislodging the Iranian leadership, could be drawn into seeking “regime change” if Tehran carries out major reprisals or moves to build a nuclear weapon.
That, in turn, would bring additional risks.
“Beware mission creep, aiming for regime change and democratization campaigns,” said Laura Blumenfeld, a Middle East analyst at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies in Washington. “You’ll find the bones of many failed U.S. moral missions buried in Middle East sands.”
Jonathan Panikoff, a former U.S. deputy intelligence officer for the Middle East, said Iran’s leadership would quickly engage in “disproportionate attacks” if it felt its survival was imperiled.
But Tehran will also have to be mindful of the consequences, he said. While actions such as closing the Strait of Hormuz would pose problems for Trump with the resulting higher oil prices and potential U.S. inflationary impact, it would also hurt China, one of Iran’s few powerful allies.
At the same time, Trump is already facing strong push-back from congressional Democrats against the Iran attack and will also have to contend with opposition from the anti-interventionist wing of his Republican MAGA base.
Trump, who faced no major international crisis in his first term, is now embroiled in one just six months into his second.
Even if he hopes U.S. military involvement can be limited in time and scope, the history of such conflicts often carries unintended consequences for American presidents.
Trump’s slogan of “peace through strength” will certainly be tested as never before, especially with his opening of a new military front after failing to meet his campaign promises to quickly end wars in Ukraine and Gaza.
“Trump is back in the war business,” said Richard Gowan, U.N. director at the International Crisis Group. “I am not sure anyone in Moscow, Tehran or Beijing ever believed his spiel that he is a peacemaker. It always looked more like a campaign phrase than a strategy.”
Airlines continued to avoid large parts of the Middle East on Sunday after U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, according to flight tracking website FlightRadar24, with traffic already skirting airspace in the region due to recent missile exchanges.
“Following US attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, commercial traffic in the region is operating as it has since new airspace restrictions were put into place last week,” FlightRadar24 said on social media platform X.
Its website showed airlines were not flying in the airspace over Iran, Iraq, Syria and Israel. They have chosen other routings such as north via the Caspian Sea or south via Egypt and Saudi Arabia, even if it results in higher fuel and crew costs and longer flight times.
Missile and drone barrages in an expanding number of conflict zones globally represent a high risk to airline traffic.
Safe Airspace, a website run by OPSGROUP, a membership-based organisation that shares flight risk information, said on Sunday that the U.S. attacks on Iran may increase risks to U.S. operators in the region.
“While there have been no specific threats made against civil aviation, Iran has previously warned it would retaliate by attacking US military interests in the Middle East – either directly or via proxies such as Hezbollah,” Safe Airspace said.
Since Israel launched strikes on Iran on June 13, carriers have suspended flights to destinations in the affected countries, though there have been some evacuation flights from neighbouring nations and some bringing stranded Israelis home.
In the days before the U.S. strikes on Iran, American Airlines (AAL.O), suspended flights to Qatar, and United Airlines (UAL.O), did the same with flights to Dubai.
Safe Airspace said it was possible airspace risks could now extend to countries including Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
“We continue to advise a high degree of caution at this time,” it said.
Israel’s largest carriers, El Al Israel Airlines (ELAL.TA), Arkia and Israir (ISRG.TA), said on Sunday they were suspending rescue flights that allowed people to return to Israel until further notice. El Al said it would also extend its cancellation of scheduled flights through June 27.
Israel’s airports authority said the country’s airspace was closed for all flights, but land crossings with Egypt and Jordan remained open.
Tens of thousands of Israelis and others who had booked tickets to Israel are stuck abroad.
At the same time, nearly 40,000 tourists in Israel are looking to leave the country, some of whom are going via Jordan’s borders to Amman and others by boat to Cyprus.
The tourism ministry is trying to facilitate getting these people out.
Japan’s foreign ministry said on Sunday it had evacuated 21 people, including 16 Japanese nationals, from Iran overland to Azerbaijan. It said it was the second such evacuation since Thursday and that it would conduct further evacuations if necessary.
New Zealand’s government said on Sunday it would send a Hercules military transport plane to the Middle East on standby to evacuate New Zealanders from the region.
It said in a statement that government personnel and a C-130J Hercules aircraft would leave Auckland on Monday. The plane would take some days to reach the region, it said.
The government was also in talks with commercial airlines to assess how they may be able to assist, it added.
The jagged silhouette of a B2 stealth bomber seen during a 2015 flyover in the US.Jonathan Daniel / Getty Images
Late on Saturday night, local time, the United States carried out strikes against Iranian nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, marking its open participation in the conflict between Iran and Israel.
The US says it fired 30 submarine-launched missiles at the sites in Natanz and Isfahan, as well as dropping more than a dozen “bunker buster” bombs at Fordow and Natanz.
The kind of bomb in question is the extremely destructive GBU-57 Massive Ordance Penetrator, or MOP, which weighs around 13.5 tonnes.
The attacks raise a lot of questions. What are these enormous bombs? Why did the US feel it had to get involved in the conflict? And, going forward, what does it mean for Iran’s nuclear ambitions?
What are ‘bunker busters’, and why are they used?
Bunker busters are weapons designed to destroy heavily protected facilities such as bunkers deep underground, beyond the reach of normal bombs.
Bunker busters are designed to bury themselves into the ground before detonating. This allows more of the explosive force to penetrate into the ground, rather than travelling through the air or across the surface.
Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan are built deep underground. Estimates suggest that Fordow for example could be 80m beneath the surface, and capped with layers of reinforced concrete and soil.
What is the MOP?
The bunker buster used in this particular operation is the largest in the US arsenal. Leaving aside nuclear weapons, the MOP is the largest known buster buster in the world.
Weighing some 13.5 tonnes, the MOP is believed to be able to penetrate up to 60 metres below ground in the right conditions. It is not known how many the US possesses, but the numbers are thought to be small (perhaps 20 or so in total).
We also don’t know exactly how many were used in Iran, though some reports say it was 14. However, it is likely to be a significant portion of the US MOP arsenal.
Why does only the US possess this capability?
The US is not the only state with bunker-busting weaponry. However, the size of MOP means it requires very specialised bombers to carry and drop it.
Only the B2 stealth bomber is currently able to deploy the MOP. Each B2 can carry at most two MOPs at a time. Around seven of America’s 19 operational B2s were used in the Iran operation.
There has been some consideration whether large transport aircraft such as the C-130 Hercules could be modified to carry and drop the MOP from its rear cargo doors. While this would allow other countries (including Israel) to deploy the MOP, it is for now purely hypothetical.
Why has the US (apparently) used them in Iran
The Trump administration claims Iran may be only a few weeks from possessing a nuclear weapon, and that it needed to act now to destroy Iranian nuclear enrichment sites. This claim is notably at odds with published assessments from the US intelligence community.
However, Israel lacks bunker busting weaponry sufficient to damage the deeply buried and fortified enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.
An F-15E Strike Eagle releases a GBU-28 ‘bunker buster’ laser-guided bomb, a smaller equivalewnt of the 13,600 kg GBU-57 ‘Massive Ordnance Penetrator’ believed to have been used in Iran. Michael Ammons / US Air Force
Only the MOP could do the job (short of using nuclear weapons). Even then, multiple MOPs would have been required to ensure sufficient damage to the underground facilities.
The US has claimed that these sites have been utterly destroyed. We cannot conclusively say whether this is true.
Iran may also have other, undeclared nuclear sites elsewhere in the country.
Iran’s reaction
The US has reportedly reached out to Iran via diplomatic channels to emphasise that this attack was a one-off, not part of a larger project of regime change. It is hard to say what will happen in the next few weeks.
Iran may retaliate with large strikes against Israel or against US forces in the region. It could also interrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, which would affect a large portion of global oil shipments, with profound economic implications.
Alternatively, Iran could capitulate and take steps to demonstrate it is ending its nuclear program. However, capitulation would not necessarily mean the end of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
The value of nuclear weapons
Perhaps a greater concern is that the attack will reinforce Iran’s desire to go nuclear. Without nuclear weapons, Iran was unable to threaten the US enough to deter today’s attack.
Iran may take lessons from the fate of other states. Ukraine (in)famously surrendered its stockpile of former Soviet nuclear weapons in the early 1990s. Russia has since felt emboldened to annex Crimea in 2014 and launch an ongoing invasion in 2022. Other potential nuclear states, such as Iraq and Gadaffi’s regime in Libya, also suffered from military intervention.
By contrast, North Korea successfully tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006. Since then there has been no serious consideration of military intervention in North Korea.
Iran may yet have the ability to produce useful amounts of weapons-grade uranium. It may now aim to buy itself time to assemble a relatively small nuclear device, similar in scale to the bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Depending on what facilities and resources have survive the US strikes, the attack has likely reinforced that the only way the Iranian regime can guarantee its survival is to possess nuclear weapons.
James Dwyer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
After prevaricating about whether the United States would enter Israel’s war on Iran, President Donald Trump finally made a decision.
Early Sunday, US warplanes struck three of Iran’s nuclear sites at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, where the Iranians have a uranium enrichment plant buried about 80 metres beneath a mountain.
These strikes have to be viewed as part of an overall continuum that began with the Gaza war following Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and then continued with Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah (the Iran-backed militant group in Lebanon) and the fall of the Iran-backed Assad regime in Syria.
Iran has never been weaker than it is now. And when Trump said it may take two weeks for him to decide whether to bomb Iran, the Israelis likely pushed him to act sooner.
We can assume there was a lot of Israeli pressure on Trump to use the massive ordnance penetrators, the 30,000-pound (13,600-kilogram) “bunker buster” bombs that only the US can deploy with its B2 bombers.
Now that Trump has taken the significant step of entering the US in yet another Middle East war, where could things go from here? There are a few possible scenarios.
Iran strikes back
The Iranians know they don’t have the strength to take on the US, and that the Americans can do enormous damage to their country and even put the Iranian regime’s stability at risk.
This is always the prime consideration of of the clerical regime led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – everything else is subordinate to that.
To gauge Iran’s possible reaction, we can look at the how it responded to the first Trump administration’s assassination of the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Quds Force, Qassem Soleimani, in January 2020.
Iran said there would be a major reaction, but all it did was launch a barrage of missiles at two American bases in Iraq, which caused no US fatalities and very little damage. After that token retaliation, Iran said the matter was closed.
Iran’s reaction to the new US strikes will likely be along these lines. It probably won’t want to get into a tit-for-tat with the US by launching attacks against American facilities in the region. Trump has promised to respond with force:
Iran, a bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.
It’s also unclear how long Iran will be able to prosecute this war. This depends largely on how many ballistic missiles and launchers it has left.
There are various estimates as to how many ballistic missiles Iran may have remaining in its stockpiles. It was believed to have about 2,000 missiles capable of reaching Israel at the start of the war. Some estimates say Iran has fired 700 of them; others say around 400. Whatever the number is, its stockpiles are dwindling quickly.
Israel has also destroyed about a third of Iran’s ballistic missile launchers. If Israel is able to destroy all of them, Iran would have very limited ability to fight back.
Iran backs down
Before the US got involved in the conflict, Iran said it was prepared to negotiate, but it wouldn’t do so while Israel was still attacking.
So, one scenario is that some sort of compromise can now be worked out, in which Israel announces a ceasefire and Iran and the US agree to resume negotiations on Tehran’s nuclear program.
The big problem is that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he doesn’t trust the negotiating process and he doesn’t want to stop Israel’s military actions until all of Iran’s nuclear facilities have been completely destroyed. He’s also been bombing Iran’s oil terminals and gas facilities to put even more pressure on the regime.
But the regime has shown itself to be incredibly determined not to lose face. It was under great pressure at different times during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and never considered surrendering until a US missile mistakenly took down an Iranian passenger jet, killing 290 people.
Iran then agreed to a UN-brokered ceasefire. But the Iran-Iraq war lasted eight years, causing an estimated one million deaths. And when the then-supreme leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, agreed to the ceasefire, he said it was “worse than drinking poison”.
Given the state of Iran’s military capabilities, Khamenei, the current supreme leader, might surrender simply to try to preserve the regime. But this would be quite a climbdown as far as he’s concerned, and he has been very obstinate in the past.
The regime is very unpopular, but the Iranian people, in my experience, are strongly patriotic – loyal to their country, if not the regime. Though it’s difficult to gauge opinion in a country of 90 million people, a lot of Iranians would not want to be ordered to do anything by the US or Israel, and would rather fight on.
Netanyahu has said he wants to create the conditions for the Iranian people to rise up against the regime.
But it’s worth bearing in mind that the opposite of autocracy is not necessarily democracy. It could possibly be chaos. Iran has a number of different ethnic groups and there may be huge disagreements over what should take the place of the clerical regime, were it to fall.
Though we don’t know his probable successor, the regime has had plenty of time to plan for this. Those in senior positions will also know that a post-Khamenei succession struggle really would put the regime at risk.
The US engagement is limited
According to the new polling by The Economist and YouGov, released on June 17, 60% of Americans were opposed to joining the conflict between Israel and Iran, with just 16% in favour. Among Republicans, 53% opposed military action.
So, these strikes were not an obviously popular move among Americans at this stage. However, if this is an isolated event and succeeds in bringing a swift end to the war, Trump will probably be applauded by a majority of Americans.
If the US has to go back with more bombers – or there are serious attacks on US interests in the region – there could be more adverse reactions among Americans.
If it hasn’t been destroyed, and depending how much damage has been done to its centrifuges, Iran may be able to reconstruct its nuclear program relatively quickly. And it could have more incentive to further enrich this uranium to 90% purity, or weapons-grade level, to build a nuclear device.
Ian Parmeter does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
BISMARCK, N.D. — On Saturday, President Donald Trump announced his decision for the United States to take military action against Iran in its ongoing conflict with Israel. The president said the United States successfully attacked three nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan.
U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), issued the following statement:
“When the United States alone is able to do what others cannot, we must do what needs to be done, and that is exactly what President Trump ordered today. Iran must be prevented from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The Islamic Republic of Iran is more than a nuisance, it is a dangerous animal that must be stopped, and the firepower of the United States military was up to the task. President Trump is living up to his promise to end wars, which sometimes requires a show of strength. Tonight, the world has seen our strength on full display, and the world is safer for it. God Bless the United States Military and bring peace to our world.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast issued the following statement in response to the successful U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites.
“President Trump assured America and the world that there would be no Iranian nuclear weapons and he has no fictitious red lines. America and Iran both had a choice and we both chose action.”
Following Friday’s attacks on nuclear facilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the military conflict continues. As I reported to the IAEA Board of Governors and then to the UN Security Council last Friday, the IAEA is monitoring the situation very closely. Since the beginning of the events, our Incident and Emergency Centre has been working 24/7 to update the status of Iranian nuclear facilities and radiation levels at the sites in an ongoing exchange of information with the Iranian authorities.
The IAEA is ready to respond to any nuclear or radiological emergency within an hour.
Based on the information available to the IAEA, the following situation currently exists at Iranian nuclear facilities.
Following the strike on the Natanz fuel enrichment plant site, which destroyed the above-ground portion of the experimental fuel enrichment facility, one of the facilities used by Iran to produce uranium enriched to 60% U-235, no further damage was reported at the site.
The facility’s electrical infrastructure, including an electrical substation, the main electrical systems building, and emergency and backup generators, was also destroyed.
There are no signs of physical impact on the underground centrifuge cascade shop, which contains part of the experimental fuel enrichment facility and the main fuel enrichment facility. At the same time, the power outage in the centrifuge cascade shop could have damaged the centrifuges located there.
Radiation levels outside the Natanz site remain unchanged and within normal limits, indicating no external radiological impact on the population or the environment as a result of this event.
The Natanz facility site contains both radiological and chemical contamination. Given the type of nuclear material present at the facility, it is possible that uranium isotopes contained in uranium hexafluoride, uranyl fluoride and hydrogen fluoride are dispersed throughout the facility. The radiation, consisting predominantly of alpha particles, poses a serious hazard if uranium is inhaled or ingested. However, this risk can be effectively mitigated by appropriate protective measures, such as the use of respiratory protection while inside the affected facilities. Of greatest concern to the facility itself is the chemical toxicity of uranium hexafluoride and the fluorides formed upon contact with water.
No damage was reported at the Fordow enrichment plant site or the heavy water reactor under construction at Khondab. The Bushehr nuclear power plant and the Tehran research reactor were not targets of the recent strikes and were not damaged in this regard.
Four buildings at the Isfahan nuclear facility were damaged in Friday’s strikes: the central chemical laboratory, a uranium conversion plant, a fuel fabrication plant for the Tehran reactor, and a plant under construction to convert uranium hexafluoride into uranium dioxide powder.
As at Natanz, radiation levels outside the facility remain unchanged.
I confirm the cooperation and exchange of information between the Iranian authorities and the IAEA. In these tense and challenging circumstances, it is essential for the IAEA to receive timely and regular technical information about the facilities and their associated sites. This information is essential to promptly inform the international community and to ensure an effective response and assistance in the event of any emergency in Iran. Without information, we cannot accurately assess the radiological conditions and potential impacts on the population and the environment, and we cannot provide the necessary assistance.
The Agency is and will continue to be present in Iran. Safeguards inspections will continue in Iran as soon as it is safe to do so, as required by Iran’s safeguards obligations under the NPT.
I remain in touch with the inspectors in Iran; their safety is our top priority and all necessary measures are being taken to ensure that they are not harmed.
I stand ready to travel immediately and work with all relevant parties to ensure the protection of nuclear facilities and the continued peaceful use of nuclear technology in accordance with the Agency’s mandate, including by deploying, where necessary, Agency nuclear security and safety experts to complement our safeguards inspectors in Iran.
Madam Chairperson,
Military escalation threatens human lives, increases the likelihood of a radiological release with serious consequences for the population and the environment, and delays the critical task of a diplomatic settlement to provide long-term assurance that Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons.
In accordance with the objectives of the IAEA and its Statute, I call on all parties to exercise maximum restraint to avoid further escalation.
Last week, the Council made an important decision resolution on Iran’s safeguards obligations. The resolution contains important provisions on proliferation and underlines support for a diplomatic solution to the challenges posed by Iran’s nuclear programme. IAEA Member States can play a vital and active role in promoting an urgent shift away from military escalation and towards diplomacy. I urge you to use all available diplomatic means and assure you of my continued readiness to contribute, including through an early visit to Iran to assess the situation and ensure nuclear safety, security and non-proliferation in that country.
There is probably no goal more important or more widely supported than that of ensuring that humanity uses the enormous energy of the atom for good, not destruction. For over 60 years, the IAEA has played a central role in helping its Member States translate this desire into real progress.
Given the IAEA’s clear mandate and unique resources, I reaffirm the Agency’s readiness to facilitate technical discussions and support efforts to ensure transparency, nuclear safety and security, and achieve a peaceful resolution of issues related to nuclear activities in Iran.
Dear colleagues,
For the second time in three years, we are witnessing a dramatic conflict between two IAEA Member States, in which nuclear installations are coming under fire and nuclear safety is being threatened.
As in the case of a military conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, the IAEA will not stand aside.
We can and will act within our statutory mandate to help prevent a nuclear accident that could lead to unpredictable radiological consequences. For the IAEA to act, constructive and professional dialogue must begin, and this must happen as soon as possible.
As insurmountable as this task may seem in the context of an ongoing military conflict, we have already demonstrated that even in such circumstances, technical assistance, provided in a spirit of respect and impartiality, can benefit everyone without exception.
I intend to continue my ongoing engagement with the conflicting parties to find the most appropriate way to achieve this goal, and I ask Member States to support me in this effort. I count on the Council, and especially the Member States that are best placed to do so, to respond to this call to assist the IAEA in helping those who are trading blows today to prevent the worst from happening. There is always a time and a place for diplomacy.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Early this morning, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was informed of a military operation launched by Israel that includes strikes on nuclear facilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
We are currently in contact with Iranian nuclear safety authorities to determine the status of the relevant nuclear facilities and to assess any broader nuclear safety and security implications. Iranian authorities have now confirmed that the Natanz uranium enrichment facility was hit and that no elevated radiation levels were detected there. They have also reported that the Isfahan and Fordow facilities have not been hit to date.
This development is deeply concerning. I have repeatedly stated that nuclear facilities should never be attacked, regardless of the context or circumstances, as this could cause harm to both the population and the environment. Such attacks have serious implications for nuclear safety, security and safeguards, as well as for regional and international peace and security.
In this regard, the IAEA refers to numerous General Conference resolutions on the issue of military attacks on nuclear facilities, including GC(XXIX)/RES/444 and GC(XXXIV)/RES/533, which, inter alia, state that “any armed attack or threat of attack against nuclear facilities used for peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and the Statute of the Agency.”
Moreover, the IAEA has consistently emphasized that “armed attacks on nuclear facilities may result in radioactive releases with serious consequences both within and beyond the State attacked”, as noted in resolution GC(XXXIV)/RES/533.
As Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and in line with the purposes of the IAEA as set out in its Statute, I call on all parties to exercise maximum restraint to avoid further escalation. I reiterate that any military action that jeopardizes the nuclear safety and security of nuclear facilities would have grave consequences for the people of Iran, the region, and beyond.
Yesterday the Board of Governors made an important decisionresolutionon Iran’s safeguards obligations. In addition, the Council’s resolution emphasizes its support for a diplomatic solution to the problems caused by the Iranian nuclear program.
The IAEA continues to monitor the situation closely, stands ready to provide technical assistance, and remains committed to its nuclear safety, security and safeguards mandate in all circumstances. It stands ready to engage with all relevant parties to help ensure the protection of nuclear facilities and the continued peaceful use of nuclear technology in accordance with the Agency’s mandate, including by deploying Agency nuclear safety and security experts (in addition to our safeguards inspectors in Iran) where needed to ensure that nuclear facilities are fully protected and remain used exclusively for peaceful purposes.
I wish to inform the Council that I have informed the relevant authorities of my readiness to travel at the earliest opportunity to assess the situation and ensure nuclear safety, security and non-proliferation in Iran.
I am also in contact with our inspectors in Iran and Israel. The safety of our employees is of utmost importance. All necessary measures are taken to ensure that they are not harmed.
Despite the current military actions and heightened tensions, it is clear that the only sustainable path forward – for Iran, Israel, the entire region and the international community – is one based on dialogue and diplomacy to ensure peace, stability and cooperation.
As the international technical institution charged with overseeing the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the International Atomic Energy Agency remains a unique and vital forum for dialogue, especially now.
In accordance with its Statute and long-standing mandate, the IAEA provides a framework and a natural forum where facts prevail over rhetoric and where engagement can replace escalation.
I reaffirm the Agency’s readiness to facilitate technical discussions and support efforts to promote transparency, safety, security and a peaceful resolution of nuclear-related issues in Iran.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) continues to closely monitor and assess the situation in relation to the Israeli attacks on nuclear facilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, issuing frequent public updates on developments and their possible impact on the population and the environment, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said.
Since the outbreak of hostilities nearly a week ago, the IAEA has reported damage at some of these facilities, including nuclear sites located in Arak, Isfahan, Natanz and Tehran, and their potential radiological consequences.
In his statementAt the meeting of the Board of Governors on 13 June, the morning of the day that Iranian nuclear facilities were targeted, the Director General recalled numerous General Conference resolutions on the issue of military attacks on nuclear facilities, including GC(XXIX)/RES/444 and GC(XXXIV)/RES/533, which, inter alia, state that “any armed attack or threat of attack against nuclear facilities used for peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and the Statute of the Agency”.
He also mentioned that, moreover, the IAEA has consistently emphasized that “armed attacks on nuclear facilities may result in radioactive releases with serious consequences both within and beyond the State that is attacked”, as noted in resolution GC(XXXIV)/RES/533.
Later, at a special session of the Governing Council on 16 June 2025, in itsstatement The Director General stressed that “for the second time in three years, we are witnessing a dramatic conflict between two IAEA Member States, in which nuclear installations are being targeted and nuclear safety is being threatened. As in the case of the military conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, the IAEA will not stand aside.”
“The IAEA is monitoring the situation very closely,” he added. “The IAEA is ready to respond within an hour to any nuclear or radiological emergency.”
It was the third summary statement by the Director-General on the situation in Iran in four days after he spokeat the meeting of the Board of Governors on June 13 andagain— at the United Nations Security Council later that day. The agency also regularly posts updates on its official X account.
Director General Grossi said IAEA inspectors remain present in Iran and are ready to visit nuclear sites when possible, even though the Agency’s staff numbers have been partially reduced given the security situation.
He also added: “The Agency is and will continue to be present in Iran. As soon as it is safe to do so, safeguards inspections will continue in Iran, as required by Iran’s safeguards obligations under its NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) Safeguards Agreement.”
Calling on all parties to exercise maximum restraint to avoid further escalation, Director General Grossi stressed that he “stands ready to travel immediately and engage with all relevant parties to ensure the protection of nuclear facilities and the continued peaceful use of nuclear technology in accordance with the Agency’s mandate, including by deploying, where necessary, Agency nuclear security and safety experts to complement our safeguards inspectors in Iran.”
“Military escalation threatens human lives, increases the likelihood of a radiological release with serious consequences for the population and the environment, and delays the critical task of a diplomatic solution to provide long-term assurance that Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons,” he said.
The IAEA stands ready to act within its statutory mandate to help prevent a nuclear accident that could lead to serious radiological consequences, he said, adding: “For the IAEA to act, constructive and professional dialogue must begin, and this must happen as soon as possible.”
Based on the information available, the IAEA has reported on the situation at nuclear facilities and sites in Iran, including the following developments.
One of the targets of the June 13 strikes was the Natanz fuel enrichment plant, which destroyed the above-ground portion of the experimental fuel enrichment facility, one of the facilities Iran used to produce uranium enriched to 60% U-235.
The facility’s electrical infrastructure, including the electrical substation, the main power supply building, and emergency and backup generators, was also destroyed. A power outage to the underground centrifuge cascade hall could have damaged the centrifuges there, CEO Grossi told the Council in a speech on June 16.
Later this week, the IAEA issued an update, reporting that, following its ongoing analysis of high-resolution satellite imagery obtained after the strikes on the Natanz site, the Agency had identified additional indicators that point to direct impacts on the underground enrichment facilities at Natanz as well.
According to Director General Grossi, there are no radiological consequences outside the Natanz site, but there is limited radiological and chemical contamination in the enrichment plant premises.
“The contamination is limited to the perimeter of this facility. There was no radiological impact on the external environment,” he said.
He explained that given the type of nuclear material present at the Natanz facility, it is possible that uranium isotopes contained in uranium hexafluoride, uranyl fluoride and hydrogen fluoride are dispersed throughout the facility. The radiation, which consists predominantly of alpha particles, poses a serious hazard if uranium is inhaled or ingested. However, this risk can be effectively mitigated by appropriate protective measures, such as the use of respiratory protection when inside the affected facilities. The greatest concern for the facility itself is the chemical toxicity of uranium hexafluoride and the fluorides formed when in contact with water.
At the Isfahan nuclear facility, Friday’s strikes damaged four buildings: the central chemical laboratory, the uranium conversion plant, the Tehran reactor fuel fabrication plant, and the facility under construction to convert uranium hexafluoride into enriched uranium metal. As in Natanz, radiation levels outside the Isfahan facility remain unchanged.
On June 18, the IAEA said in an update that it had information that two Iranian centrifuge-related facilities were targeted by the attacks: the TESA facility in Karaj and the Tehran Research Center. Both locations were previously subject to IAEA monitoring and verification measures under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
One building was damaged at the Tehran Research Center, where rotors for advanced centrifuges were manufactured and tested. In Karaj, two buildings were destroyed, which housed workshops for manufacturing various centrifuge components.
On 19 June, the heavy water research reactor under construction at Hondaba was hit. Since the reactor was not operational and did not contain nuclear material, Director General Grossi reported that there were no radiological consequences. Although damage to the nearby heavy water plant was initially not visible, the Agency now assesses that major structures, including the distillation plant, were damaged.
To date, no damage has been reported at other Iranian nuclear facilities.
Although no major radiological incidents have occurred as a result of these attacks so far, Director General Grossi emphasized the possible risks from a nuclear safety perspective.
“There are significant quantities of nuclear material in Iran in different places, which means that the possibility of a radiological accident with the dispersion of radioactive substances and particles in the atmosphere really does exist,” he said.
Director General Grossi also stressed the importance of cooperation and information exchange with Iranian authorities.
“In this tense and challenging environment, it is of utmost importance for the IAEA to receive timely and regular technical information on nuclear facilities and their respective sites. This information is necessary to promptly inform the international community and ensure an effective response and assistance in the event of any emergency in Iran,” he explained, adding that he is in constant contact with other countries in the region.
This update was first published on IAEA.org in English on June 19.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
The IAEA Board of Governors will convene its regular September meeting at the Agency’s headquarters starting at 10:30 CEST on Monday, 9 September, in Board Room C, Building C, 4th floor, in the Vienna International Centre (VIC).
Board discussions are expected to include, among others: nuclear and radiation safety; nuclear security; strengthening the Agency’s activities related to nuclear science, technology and applications; verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015); application of safeguards in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in the Syrian Arab Republic; NPT Safeguards Agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran; nuclear safety, security and safeguards in Ukraine; transfer of the nuclear materials in the context of AUKUS and its safeguards in all aspects under the NPT; application of IAEA safeguards in the Middle East; and the restoration of sovereign equality of Member States in the IAEA.
The Board of Governors meeting is closed to the press.
Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi will open the meeting with an introductory statement which will be released to journalists after delivery and posted on the IAEA website. The IAEA will provide video footage here and will make photos available on Flickr.
Press Conference:
Director General Grossi is expected to hold a press conference at 13:00 CEST on Monday, 9 September, in the Press Room of the M building.
A live video stream of the press conference will be available. The IAEA will provide video footage here and will make photos available on Flickr.
Photo Opportunity:
There will be a photo opportunity with the IAEA Director General and the Chair of the Board, Ambassador Holger Federico Martinsen of Argentina, before the start of the Board meeting, on 9 September at 10:30 CEST in Board Room C, in the C building in the VIC.
Press Working Area:
The Press Room on the M-Building’s ground floor will be available as a press working area starting from 9:00 CEST on 9 September.
Accreditation:
All journalists interested in covering the meeting in person must register with the Press Office by 16:00 CEST on Thursday, 5 September. Please email press@iaea.org. We encourage those journalists who do not yet have permanent accreditation to request it at UNIS Vienna.
Please plan your arrival to allow sufficient time to pass through the VIC security check.
The reaction of world leaders after U.S. forces struck three Iranian nuclear sites on Sunday Iran time ranged from Israel lauding President Donald Trump’s decision to the U.N. calling for de-escalation and Iran and some other nations condemning the attacks.
ISRAEL PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, RECORDED STATEMENT:
“Congratulations, President Trump. Your bold decision to target Iran’s nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history… History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world’s most dangerous regime the world’s most dangerous weapons.”
IRAN FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAQCHI, ON X:
“The United States, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the NPT by attacking Iran’s peaceful nuclear installations. The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior. In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.”
U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL ANTONIO GUTERRES, STATEMENT
“I am gravely alarmed by the use of force by the United States against Iran today. This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security. There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control – with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world. I call on Member States to de-escalate and to uphold their obligations under the UN Charter and other rules of international law. At this perilous hour, it is critical to avoid a spiral of chaos. There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy. The only hope is peace.”
NEW ZEALAND FOREIGN MINISTER WINSTON PETERS, STATEMENT:
“We acknowledge developments in the last 24 hours, including President Trump’s announcement of US strikes on nuclear facilities in Iran. Ongoing military action in the Middle East is extremely worrying, and it is critical further escalation is avoided. New Zealand strongly supports efforts towards diplomacy. We urge all parties to return to talks. Diplomacy will deliver a more enduring resolution than further military action.”
AUSTRALIA GOVERNMENT SPOKESPERSON, STATEMENT:
“We have been clear that Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program has been a threat to international peace and security. We note the US President’s statement that now is the time for peace. The security situation in the region is highly volatile. We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy.”
MEXICO FOREIGN MINISTRY, ON X:
“The ministry urgently calls for diplomatic dialogue for peace between the parties involved in the Middle East conflict. In keeping with our constitutional principles of foreign policy and our country’s pacifist conviction, we reiterate our call to de-escalate tensions in the region. The restoration of peaceful coexistence among the states of the region is the highest priority.”
VENEZUELA FOREIGN MINISTER YVAN GIL, ON TELEGRAM:
“Venezuela Condemns U.S. Military Aggression Against Iran and Demands an Immediate Cessation of Hostilities. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela firmly and categorically condemns the bombing carried out by the United States military, at the request of the State of Israel, against nuclear facilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan complexes.”
CUBA PRESIDENT MIGUEL DIAZ-CANEL, ON X:
“We strongly condemn the US bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities, which constitutes a dangerous escalation of the conflict in the Middle East. The aggression seriously violates the UN Charter and international law and plunges humanity into a crisis with irreversible consequences.”
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is continuing to closely monitor and assess the situation regarding the Israeli attacks on nuclear sites in the Islamic Republic of Iran, providing frequent public updates about developments and their possible consequences for human health and the environment, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said today.
Since the military attacks began almost a week ago, the IAEA has been reporting on damage at several of these facilities, including at nuclear-related sites located in Arak, Esfahan, Natanz and Tehran, and their potential radiological impact.
In his statement to the Board of Governors on 13 June, the morning of the attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, the Director General recalled the numerous General Conference resolutions on the topic of military attacks against nuclear facilities, in particular, GC(XXIX)/RES/444 and GC(XXXIV)/RES/533, which provide, inter alia, that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency”.
He also stated that, furthermore, the IAEA has consistently underlined that “armed attacks on nuclear facilities could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked”, as was stated in GC(XXXIV)/RES/533.
Later at the special session of the Board of Governors on 16 June 2025, in his statement, the Director General emphasized that, “For the second time in three years, we are witnessing a dramatic conflict between two IAEA Member States in which nuclear installations are coming under fire and nuclear safety is being compromised. The IAEA, just as has been the case with the military conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, will not stand idly by during this conflict.”
“The IAEA is monitoring the situation very carefully,” he said. “The IAEA is ready to respond to any nuclear or radiological emergency.”
It was the Director General’s third comprehensive statement in four days about the situation in Iran, following the statement to the Board on 13 June and one to the United Nations Security Council later the same day. In addition, the Agency has provided regular updates on its official X account.
IAEA inspectors remain present in Iran, ready to be deployed at nuclear sites when possible, even though the number of Agency staff has been reduced somewhat in light of the security situation, Director General Grossi said.
He added: “The Agency is and will remain present in Iran. Safeguards inspections in Iran will continue as required by Iran’s safeguards obligations under its NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) Safeguards Agreement, as soon as safety and security conditions allow.”
Calling for maximum restraint to avoid further escalation, Director General Grossi stressed that he was ready “to travel immediately and engage with all relevant parties to help ensure the protection of nuclear facilities and the continued peaceful use of nuclear technology in accordance with the Agency mandate, including by deploying Agency nuclear safety and security experts, in addition to our safeguards inspectors in Iran, wherever necessary.”
“Military escalation threatens lives, increases the chance of a radiological release with serious consequences for people and the environment and delays indispensable work towards a diplomatic solution for the long-term assurance that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon,” he said.
The IAEA stands ready to act within its statutory mandate to assist in preventing a nuclear accident that could result in grave radiological consequences, he said, adding: “For the IAEA to act, a constructive, professional dialogue will have to ensue, and this must happen sooner rather than later.”
Based on information available to it, the IAEA has been reporting on the situation at the nuclear facilities and sites in Iran, including:
The Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant site was targeted in attacks on 13 June that destroyed the above-ground part of the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant, one of the facilities at which Iran was producing uranium enriched up to 60% U-235.
Electricity infrastructure at the plant – including an electrical sub-station, a main electric power supply building, and emergency power supply and back-up generators – was also destroyed. The loss of power to the underground cascades may have damaged the centrifuges there, Director General Grossi told the Board on 16 June.
Later this week, the IAEA issued an update, saying that based on continued analysis of high- resolution satellite imagery collected after the attacks on the nuclear site at Natanz, the Agency has identified additional elements that indicate direct impacts also on the underground enrichment halls at Natanz.
There has been no radiological impact outside the Natanz site, but circumscribed radiological and chemical contamination inside the enrichment facility, Director General Grossi reported.
“It was limited to this facility. There was no radiological impact externally,” he said.
Considering the type of nuclear material at the Natanz facility, it is possible that uranium isotopes contained in uranium hexafluoride, uranyl fluoride and hydrogen fluoride are dispersed inside the facility, he said. The radiation, primarily consisting of alpha particles, poses a significant danger if uranium is inhaled or ingested. However, this risk can be effectively managed with appropriate protective measures, such as using respiratory protection devices while inside the affected facilities. The main concern inside the facility is the chemical toxicity of the uranium hexafluoride and the fluoride compounds generated in contact with water.
At the Esfahan nuclear site, four buildings were damaged in Friday’s attack: the central chemical laboratory, a uranium conversion plant, the Tehran reactor fuel manufacturing plant, and the enriched uranium metal processing facility, which was under construction. As in Natanz, off-site radiation levels remain unchanged at the Esfahan nuclear site.
On 18 June, the IAEA said in an update that it had information that two centrifuge production facilities in Iran – the TESA Karaj workshop and the Tehran Research Center – were hit. Both locations were previously under IAEA monitoring and verification under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
At the Tehran Research Center, one building was hit where advanced centrifuge rotors were manufactured and tested. At the Karaj workshop, two buildings were destroyed where different centrifuge components were manufactured.
The Khondab Heavy Water Research Reactor, under construction, was hit on 19 June. As the reactor was not operational and did not contain any nuclear material, Director General Grossi said no radiological consequence was expected. While damage to the nearby Heavy Water Production Plant was initially not visible, it is now assessed that key buildings at the facility were damaged, including the distillation unit.
At present, no damage has been observed at Iran’s other nuclear sites.
While there so far has been no major radiological incident as a result of the attacks, Director General Grossi stressed the possible nuclear safety and security risks.
“There is a lot of nuclear material in Iran in different places, which means that the potential for a radiological accident with the dispersion in the atmosphere of radioactive materials and particles does exist,” he said.
Director General Grossi also emphasized the importance of cooperating and exchanging information with the Iranian authorities.
“Amid theses challenging and complex circumstances, it is crucial that the IAEA receives timely and regular technical information about the nuclear facilities and their respective sites. This information is needed to promptly inform the international community and ensure an effective response and assistance to any emergency situation in Iran,” he said, adding that he was also in constant contact with other countries in the region.
Momentum for nuclear energy as a key driver toward net-zero is stronger than ever. Now is the time to turn last year’s historic consensus in Dubai into action, advancing nuclear solutions to ensure energy security, achieve climate targets and promote sustainable development.
This year’s COP has climate finance at the top of the agenda. Building on the back of the historic inclusion of nuclear in the COP28 Global Stocktake and the first ever Nuclear Energy Summit in Brussels, Director General Grossi will attend COP29 with a call to increase climate finance for nuclear. At the Financing Low Carbon Technology, Including Nuclear Energy event on 13 November at 16:00, Director General Grossi, as well as the COP29 presidency, ministers, heads of international organizations, multilateral development banks and the private sector will discuss scaling up the financing necessary to expand all low carbon energy technologies, including nuclear power.
In recently published projections, the IAEA increased its forecast for nuclear power generation for the fourth consecutive year. In its high-case scenario, global nuclear capacity by 2050 could reach two and a half times today’s levels, with small modular reactors (SMRs) contributing a quarter of this expansion. The United States Senior Advisor to the President for International Climate Policy, John Podesta, and Director General Grossi will host an event on Accelerating Early Deployment of Small Modular Reactors at 12:45 on 13 November.
Throughout the two-week conference, which runs from 11 to 22 November, the IAEA will also promote the use of nuclear science and technologies for climate change adaptation and monitoring to achieve sustainable water management, protect coastal and marine ecosystems and provide food security.
Millions worldwide still face hunger, and transforming agrifood systems through science and technology is essential to address this challenge amid changing climate conditions. An event on the joint IAEA/FAO Atoms4Food initiative will take place at the China Pavilion on 12 November to present achievements in agriculture and food security in the context of national climate adaptation efforts.
The Atoms4Climate pavilion will be hosted by the IAEA in the Blue Zone at COP and will showcase nuclear power, science and technology solutions for climate change mitigation, adaptation and monitoring.
The IAEA will host and participate in more than 50 events focusing on four thematic areas: energy, food, the ocean and water.
See the IAEA COP29 page for the complete list of IAEA and partner events. Check the individual event pages for updates on livestreaming opportunities.
Nuclear security measures
For the third time, the IAEA is supporting the COP host country to implement nuclear security measures during the two-week conference. In October, the Agency trained more than 100 national first responders and staff from security enforcement bodies, including through hands-on equipment training conducted at the Baku Stadium, the venue for the COP. The Agency has also supplied over 100 radiation detection devices to support the nuclear security measures throughout COP, which is expected to draw around 40 000 participants. Similar assistance was provided by the IAEA at COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, and COP28 in Dubai, UAE, as part of the IAEA’s two decades worth of support offered to countries, upon their request, for nuclear security at major public events.
IAEA media team contacts
IAEA experts in climate change mitigation, adaptation and monitoring will be available for interviews at COP29.
For interview requests and other media-related questions, please contact Fredrik Dahl, IAEA Spokesperson, at Fredrik.Dahl@iaea.org and copy press@iaea.org.
The IAEA video team will be present at COP29. B-roll footage is available here. For additional requests of B-roll of the Director General, the IAEA pavilion or specific events, please contact multimedia.contact-point@iaea.org and copy press@iaea.org.
Registration
To attend IAEA events in person, you must register for COP29. For media accreditation and all other details concerning the attendance of COP29, please refer to the UNFCCCC online registration page. The IAEA cannot assist with accreditation to COP29.
Media kit
The COP29 media kit provides information on the four key areas highlighted at the #Atoms4Climate pavilion — energy, food, the ocean and water — along with recent reports and further background information.
The IAEA Board of Governors will convene its regular November meeting at the Agency’s headquarters starting at 10:30 CET on Wednesday, 20 November, in Board Room C, Building C, 4th floor, in the Vienna International Centre (VIC).
Board discussions are expected to include, among others: applications for membership of the Agency; report of the Technical Assistance and Cooperation Committee; verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015); nuclear verification: the conclusion of safeguards agreements and of additional protocols (if any), staff of the Department of Safeguards to be used as Agency inspectors, application of safeguards in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in the Syrian Arab Republic, naval nuclear propulsion: Australia and naval nuclear propulsion: Brazil, and NPT safeguards agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran; nuclear safety, security and safeguards in Ukraine; transfer of the nuclear materials in the context of AUKUS and its safeguards in all aspects under the NPT; and restoration of the Sovereign Equality of Member States in the IAEA.
The Board of Governors meeting is closed to the press.
Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi will open the meeting with an introductory statement, which will be released to journalists after delivery and posted on the IAEA website.
Press Conference
Director General Grossi is expected to hold a press conference at 13:00 CET on Wednesday, 20 November, in the Press Room of the M building.
A live video stream of the press conference will be available. The IAEA will provide video footage of the press conference and the Director General’s opening statement here and will make photos available on Flickr.
Photo Opportunity
There will be a photo opportunity with the IAEA Director General and the Chair of the Board, Ambassador Philbert Abaka Johnson of Ghana, before the start of the Board meeting, on 20 November at 10:30 CET in Board Room C, in the C building in the VIC.
Press Working Area
The Press Room on the M-Building’s ground floor will be available as a press working area, starting from 9:00 CET on 20 November.
Accreditation
All journalists interested in covering the meeting in person – including those with permanent accreditation – are requested to inform the IAEA Press Office of their plans. Journalists without permanent accreditation must send copies of their passport and press ID to the IAEA Press Office by 14:00 CET on Tuesday, 19 November.
We encourage those journalists who do not yet have permanent accreditation to request it at UNIS Vienna.
Please plan your arrival to allow sufficient time to pass through the VIC security check.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors will convene its regular March meeting at the Agency’s headquarters starting at 10:30 CET on Monday, 3 March, in Board Room C, Building C, 4th floor, in the Vienna International Centre (VIC).
Board discussions are expected to include, among others: Nuclear Safety Review 2025; Nuclear Security Review 2025; Nuclear Technology Review 2025; verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015); the conclusion of safeguards agreements and of additional protocols; application of safeguards in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in the Syrian Arab Republic; NPT safeguards agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran; nuclear safety, security and safeguards in Ukraine; transfer of the nuclear materials in the context of AUKUS and its safeguards in all aspects under the NPT; the restoration of the sovereign equality of Member States in the IAEA; and personnel matters.
The Board of Governors meeting is closed to the press.
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi will open the meeting with an introductory statement, which will be released to journalists after delivery and posted on the IAEA website.
Press Conference
Director General Grossi is expected to hold a press conference at 13:00 CET on Monday, 3 March, in the Press Room of the M building.
A live video stream of the press conference will be available. The IAEA will provide video footage of the press conference and the Director General’s opening statement here and will make photos available on Flickr.
Photo Opportunity
There will be a photo opportunity with the IAEA Director General and the Chair of the Board, Ambassador Matilda Aku Alomatu Osei-Agyeman of Ghana, before the start of the Board meeting, on 3 March at 10:30 CET in Board Room C, in the C building in the VIC.
Press Working Area
Conference room M7 on the M-Building’s ground floor will be available as a press working area, starting from 09:00 CET on 3 March. Please note the change of room.
Accreditation
All journalists interested in covering the meeting in person – including those with permanent accreditation – are requested to inform the IAEA Press Office of their plans. Journalists without permanent accreditation must send copies of their passport and press ID to the IAEA Press Office by 14:00 CET on Friday, 28 February.
We encourage those journalists who do not yet have permanent accreditation to request it at UNIS Vienna.
Please plan your arrival to allow sufficient time to pass through the VIC security check.
Nobel’s spotlight on our perilous path and how we change course
I want to start by congratulating Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha for their Nobel Peace Prize.
As a young diplomat almost 40 years ago, I was fortunate to be part of a UN disarmament fellowship programme and to visit Hiroshima. There, fellows had an opportunity to meet the hibakusha and I had a conversation with an ailing victim. I have carried to every meeting, to every negotiation, and to every posting, the memory this woman’s silent testimony. When I asked her about that morning in 1945, she struggled to express the horror in words. She tried to articulate some words but stayed silent. Looking at me, right into my eyes. The look in her eyes has stayed with me ever since, like a powerful reminder, a secret mandate, to work so that her suffering is never repeated.
For decades after the Second World War, the international community has been dealing with this unique dilemma: we built robust norms and passed nonproliferation and disarmament treaties. Instead of dozens of countries armed with nuclear weapons, as was the concern in the 1960s, there are less than ten. Stockpiles of nuclear weapons have shrunk from tens of thousands to thousands.
But on its journey through the perils of the atomic age, the world has come to a crucial crossroads. Our deep psychological connection caused by collectively seeing the horror of the consequences of nuclear war seems to be evaporating, taking with it our joint resolve to do everything possible to prevent a repetition.
Like a giant spotlight, this year’s Nobel Peace Prize has lit up our path ahead. It has done it, by reminding us of the past, and of the consequences of ignoring the perils of nuclear weapons use.
Context of conflicts
To understand the important challenges we face, we must look at the global context, at what is happening around the world.
War has returned to Europe, and it directly involves a nuclear weapon state. The conflict in Ukraine is also an indirect confrontation between the world’s biggest nuclear weapon states, the first since the end of the Cold War. But nuclear exercises and open references to the use of nuclear weapons in the theatre of this war are increasing the risks and can not be ignored.
In the Middle East, the conflict of the past year has ignited smoldering tensions between Israel and Iran and led to the unprecedented step of direct exchanges and attacks between the two. Here there is also a nuclear weapons dimension. On one side, the assumed presence of nuclear weapons looms in the background. On the other, the very real potential of nuclear proliferation is raising the stakes.
We find ourselves in a harmful loop: the erosion of the restraints around nuclear weapons is making these conflicts more dangerous. Meanwhile, these conflicts are contributing to the erosion of the restraints. The vicious circle dynamic is in motion.
An unfortunate change of direction
Doctrines regarding the use of nuclear weapons are being revised or reinterpreted. The quantity and quality of nuclear weapon stockpiles are being increased.
And in some non-nuclear weapon states – states that are important in their region – leaders are asking “why not us?”. And they are asking this openly!
At the start of the nuclear arms race, J Robert Oppenheimer described the USSR and the US as “two scorpions in a bottle” each capable of killing the other, but only by risking their own life.
Oppenheimer’s blunt statement would later be developed and elaborated under the roof of deterrence and the more sophisticated concept of “Mutual Assured Destruction,” or MAD.
Today, independent of the vantage point of the observer, there is widespread concern that the risk of mutual destruction through nuclear war is higher than it has been for more than a generation.
Lessons from history
But it does not have to be this way. We can do better. History has shown that effective dialogue among superpowers has, more often than not, led to confidence and, as a result, also to arms limitation and even disarmament. At certain moments in history, world leaders took the right decisions, to tone down, or, to use today’s parlance, to de-escalate. Let’s see:
The end of the Cuban Missile Crisis happened thanks to the direct engagement of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and US President John F Kennedy. Decades later, at the Geneva Summit of 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan agreed a crucial axiom: “Nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.” They met again the next year in Reykjavik and significant reductions in nuclear arsenals followed. Nuclear weapon reductions and the elimination of a whole category of weapon, through the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty, were agreed. These steps towards rapprochement took leadership and courage. They often happened despite skepticism and voices against them.
Diplomacy and dialogue (and the duty of nuclear weapon states)
A return to diplomacy and dialogue is urgently needed, and this, not only in things nuclear. Shutting the other side out has never solved a problem and almost certainly aggravates it. Top leadership involvement is simply indispensable when nuclear weapons are involved. President Trump took the initiative and talked to Kim Jong Un. More of this is needed. Some have said these talks were ill prepared. I say, this is important. Nuclear weapon policy and limitations does not work bottom up. It is of course the other way around.
We must be proactive in building the trust and protections that lower the risk of close calls and of brinkmanship, especially during today’s tensions. Not taking active steps means we rely on luck – or the assumption that the other side will show restraint – to save us from nuclear war. The longer you rely on luck, the more likely it is to run out.
Conflict and tensions compel nations to arm themselves. Diplomacy and compromise create conditions in which they can disarm.
The road to a nuclear weapon-free world is long and winding. The disarmament landscape is complex, and it’s worth acknowledging that. This does not diminish the responsibility nuclear weapons states have to make progress. After all, they committed themselves to this goal back in 1968, through the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Steps can be taken to decrease the reliance on nuclear weapons, both in their production and the scenarios for their use.
Nuclear weapon states, through their actions at home and on the world stage, have a responsibility to avoid a scenario in which more countries seek nuclear weapons. Pushing ahead with increases in arsenals leads to despair, cynicism, and a growing skepticism about the value of past commitments. Disengagement and unilateralism fuel sentiments of vulnerability in other countries, and with that, the notion nuclear weapons could be the ultimate protection against outside threats.
Engagement among the five permanent members of the Security Council is indispensable. Such engagement can take many different shapes, starting with direct contact among themselves, bilaterally or as a group. This dialogue, which still exists, has been reduced to a very low level, virtually without real impact. Perhaps its revival could be assisted by an international organization, or facilitated with the support of a respected, impartial leader. Therefore, it’s essential that the United Nations, other international organizations, and their leaders work effectively to ensure their continued relevance amid the changing needs of their stakeholders.
Do not make things worse (by falling for the siren call of proliferation)
The IAEA has played its indispensable technical role during past attempts of nuclear proliferation, particularly in the Middle East. As the difficult experiences in Iraq, Libya and Syria remind us, the draw of nuclear weapons is real and so is the geopolitical and military response.
Today’s tensions are prompting even leaders of important counties that, so far, are in good standing with the NPT to ask: “Why shouldn’t we have a nuclear weapon too?”
To this, I would say, “Do not make things worse.” Acquiring a nuclear weapon will not increase national security, it will do the opposite. Other countries will follow. And this will contribute to the unravelling of a nonproliferation regime that has had its ups and downs – and it still has its limitations – but none-the-less it has served humanity extraordinarily well. The problem and challenge to the NPT regime may come from those nuclear armed but also those who, while not having nuclear weapons, may feel the NPT has failed as a catalyst to disarmament.
Weakening the non-proliferation treaty under the argument that progress on nuclear disarmament has been slow and more drastic approaches are required, would be totally misguided and may make us throw away existing international measures committing nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states in this field.
I come from a non-nuclear weapon state. I understand the frustration that some people feel about the “haves” and “have-nots” of nuclear weapons. But I have also seen the legacy of peace and prosperity left by leaders who resisted that siren call. In the 1980s, vision, resolve and dialogue meant Brazil and Argentina changed course and did not go down the path to nuclear arms. Today, Latin America is a nuclear weapon free zone.
Multilateral leaders: step up by stepping in
Many wonder whether there’s still a role for multilateralism in guiding us through this maze of conflicting interests. Yes, there is. During difficult times in the past, international organizations have had a big impact on peace and security. But it only happens when leaders of these organizations get off the side lines and use their mandate and their own good offices effectively.
We prove our relevance in extraordinary times.
Each organization has different tools, a different mandate, a different membership, and each of their leaders will determine how to act. I can speak for the IAEA. We have nuclear science at our core, and we are the world’s nuclear weapons watchdog. Let me give you an example:
For almost three years, Ukraine, the world and the IAEA have been confronted with a completely unprecedented situation – never before has a military conflict involved the seizure of a nuclear power plant and been fought among the facilities of a major nuclear power programme.
At the beginning of the war, Ukraine’s biggest nuclear power plant – the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe, with nearly 6 gigawatts of installed capacity – was taken by Russia. This established a hotspot in the middle of a combat zone. The chance of an incident – or accident – causing terrible radiological consequences became real.
Observing this from the outside was never, in my mind, an option. Staying on the sidelines and later reflecting on “lessons learned” may have been the more traditional – or expected – path for an international organization. But to me this would have been a dereliction of duty. So, we leaned into our core mission, crossed the front lines of war, and established a permanent presence of IAEA experts at all Ukraine’s nuclear power plants. That makes us the only international organization operating independently in occupied territory. We are informing the world of what’s going on and reducing the chance that a radiological incident enflames the conflict and causes even more devastation.
We did the same by going to Kursk when a Russian nuclear reactor was at risk of coming into the line of fire. I am in constant communication with both sides.
I have been meeting with President Zelenskyy, and President Putin regularly. Nuclear safety and security during this conflict must have the buy-in and continued involvement of both leaders. Talking to only one of them would not achieve this important goal. At the same time, I am keeping an open dialogue with leaders on all continents and briefing the UN Security Council. When it comes to nuclear safety in Ukraine it has been possible to build a level of agreement that is rare during the divisions of this conflict. Where there is agreement, there is hope for more agreement.
Ukraine is not our only hotspot.
In Iran, the IAEA’s job is to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of a growing nuclear programme. Iran has now enriched uranium to a level that is hard to justify. It has not yet answered the IAEA’s questions completely and it has made our work more difficult by taking away some of our cameras and blocking some of our most experienced safeguards inspectors from going into the country. This has caused concern and led to a pattern of mistrust and recriminations. In diplomacy, progress often requires prompting, catalyzing, and suggesting ways forward. This presents a role for an impartial, honest and effective broker. It is a role I, in my capacity as the IAEA’s Director General, have been playing. In fact, I returned from my latest visit to Tehran just a few weeks ago where I presented alternatives and ideas to reduce the growing tensions, and hopefully to retain Iran within the NPT and the non-proliferation norms.
The danger of playing it safe
When it comes to working on behalf of peace and security, playing it safe is dangerous.
Silence and indifference can be deadly.
Dag Hammerskjold, the second Secretary General of the United Nations, said: “It is when we all play safe that we create a world of utmost insecurity.”
A new path
This week, the Norwegian Nobel Committee looked beyond today’s conflicts. In its own way, it did not play it safe. Instead, it shined a light on the horrors of nuclear war and the people who have been warning us about them for many decades.
In doing that, the Nobel Committee, Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha have illuminated the danger of the path we are now on.
We have to make a new path.
First, the leaders of the nuclear weapon states must recognize the need for a responsible management of their nuclear arsenals. Experiences from the past confirm that even at times of crisis and conflict it has been possible to recognize the unique terminal power of these weapons and the responsibility that comes with it. What Kennedy, Khrushchev, Reagan, Gorbachev, or Trump did by reaching out to a nuclear-armed adversary, sets a precedent, a useful one. Such contacts, either bilateral or at the P5 level could possibly be facilitated by a competent broker. These are the first steps to bringing down the tone so that nuclear sabre rattling recedes and the commitments to the unequivocal undertakings to move towards a nuclear free world can be fulfilled.
Secondly, an iron-clad resolve to observe and strengthen the global non-proliferation regime needs to be adopted. Nuclear weapon and nuclear non-weapon states must work together to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We need to walk through perilous times by recognizing limitations and keeping our eyes on our common objectives.
Nuclear disarmament cannot be imposed on the nuclear armed.
Realism is not defeatism. Diplomacy is not weakness.
Difficult times call for enlightened leadership, at the national level, and at the international level as well.
Putting the international system back on track is within our reach. World leaders, including those at the top of the multilateral system, have a duty and an irrevocable responsibility to work towards this.
Personally, I am convinced. Perhaps, because the secret mandate I received that day in Hiroshima from a hibakusha burns in me, stronger than ever. Thank you.
The IAEA has a long history of helping countries adjust to salinized soils. In 1978, the IAEA helped develop climate smart agricultural practices to reclaim salt-affected soil that transformed saline soils in Pakistan into productive farmlands.
IAEA support to the country has continued as the changing climate has caused even further soil salinization. In Pakistan, erratic rainfall patterns have pushed farmers to irrigate using groundwater with high levels of salt. With IAEA support, Pakistan’s Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology (NIAB) has developed and planted salt-tolerant crops and implemented soil nutrient and water management techniques. Today, NIAB is sharing its expertise by training scientists from other countries affected by soil salinization.
Following IAEA regional projects, in which 60 researchers from 10 countries were trained in soil, nutrient and water management to combat soil salinity, the IAEA published an open-access book enabling experts in several countries to successfully grow crops under saline conditions such as millet in Lebanon, barley and safflower in Jordan and Kuwait, okra in Syria and quinoa in the United Arab Emirates. “Thanks to the joint work with the IAEA, our scientists applied the recommended climate-smart agricultural practices to successfully grow crops under saline conditions,” says Nabeel Bani Hani, Director of the National Agricultural Research Center in Jordan.
“As the world faces increasing pressure to feed a growing population, restoring degraded land is more urgent than ever. The IAEA’s work shows that with the right tools—science, collaboration, and innovation—we can turn salty, barren soils into fertile ground for the future” said Mohammad Zaman, Head of the Soil and Water Management and Crop Nutrition Section of the Joint FAO/IAEA Centre.
Attacks on nuclear sites in the Islamic Republic of Iran have caused a sharp degradation in nuclear safety and security in Iran. Though they have not so far led to a radiological release affecting the public, there is a danger this could occur.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has been monitoring closely the situation at Iran’s nuclear sites since Israel began its attacks a week ago. As part of its mission, the IAEA is the global nerve centre for information on nuclear and radiological safety, and we can respond to any nuclear or radiological emergency.
Based on information available to the IAEA, the following is the current situation at Iran’s nuclear sites. Which I offer as a follow up to my most recent report to this Security Council.
The Natanz enrichment site contains two facilities. The first is the main Fuel Enrichment Plant. Initial attacks on the 13th of June targeted and destroyed electricity infrastructure at the facility, including an electrical sub-station, the main electric power supply building, and emergency power supply and back-up generators. On the same day, the main cascade hall appears to have been attacked using ground-penetrating munitions.
The second facility at Natanz is the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant. It consists of aboveground and underground cascade halls. On the 13th of June the above-ground part was functionally destroyed and the strikes on the underground cascade halls were seriously damaging.
The level of radioactivity outside the Natanz site has remained unchanged and at normal levels, indicating no external radiological impact on the population or the environment.
However, within the Natanz facility there is both radiological and chemical contamination. It is possible that Uranium isotopes contained in Uranium Hexafluoride, Uranyl Fluoride and Hydrogen Fluoride are dispersed inside the facility. The radiation, primarily consisting of alpha particles, poses a significant danger if inhaled or ingested. This risk can be effectively managed with appropriate protective measures, such as using respiratory devices. The main concern inside the facility is chemical toxicity.
Fordow is Iran’s main enrichment location for enriching uranium to 60%. The Agency is not aware of any damage at Fordow at this time.
At the Esfahan nuclear site, four buildings were damaged in last Friday’s attack: the central chemical laboratory, a uranium conversion plant, the Tehran reactor-fuel manufacturing plant, and the enriched uranium metal processing facility, which was under construction.
No increase of off-site radiation levels was reported. As in Natanz, the main concern is chemical toxicity.
The Khondab Heavy Water Research Reactor under construction in Arak, was hit on the 19th of June. As the reactor was not operational and did not contain any nuclear material, no radiological consequence is expected. The nearby Heavy Water Production Plant is also assessed to have been hit, and similarly no radiological consequence is expected.
As stated in the IAEA’s update of the 18th of June, at the Tehran Research Center, one building, where advanced centrifuge rotors were manufactured and tested, was hit. At the Karaj workshop, two buildings, where different centrifuge components were manufactured, were destroyed. There was no radiological impact, internally or externally.
Let me now refer to the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. This is the nuclear site in Iran where the consequences of an attack could be most serious. It is an operating nuclear power plant and as such it hosts thousands of kilograms of nuclear material. Countries of the region have reached out directly to me over the past few hours to express their concerns, and I want to make it absolutely and completely clear: In case of an attack on the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant a direct hit could result in a very high release of radioactivity to the environment.
Similarly, a hit that disabled the only two lines supplying electrical power to the plant could cause its reactor’s core to melt, which could result in a high release of radioactivity to the environment. In their worst-case, both scenarios would necessitate protective actions, such as evacuations and sheltering of the population or the need to take stable iodine, with the reach extending to distances from a few to several hundred kilometres. Radiation monitoring would need to cover distances of several hundred kilometres and food restrictions may need to be implemented.
Any action against the Tehran Nuclear Research Reactor could also have severe consequences, potentially for large areas of the city of Tehran and its inhabitants. In such a case, protective actions would need to be taken.
I will continue to provide public updates about the developments at all these sites and their possible health and environmental consequences.
The Agency is, as madame Undersecretary kindly reminded, and will remain present in Iran and inspections there will resume, as required by Iran’s safeguards obligations under its NPT Safeguards Agreement, as soon as safety and security conditions allow.
In this context, let me restate that the safety of our inspectors is of utmost importance. The host country has a responsibility in this regard, and we expect every effort to be made to ensure that their security and their communication lines with the IAEA headquarters will be maintained.
As stated in my most recent report to the Agency’s Board of Governors and based on inspections conducted at the relevant facilities since then, Iran’s uranium stockpiles remain under safeguards in accordance with Iran’s comprehensive safeguards agreement. You may recall that more than 400kg of this stockpile is uranium enriched up to 60% U-235. It is essential that the Agency resumes inspections as soon as possible to provide credible assurances that none of it has been diverted.
Importantly, any special measures by Iran to protect its nuclear materials and equipment must be done in accordance with Iran’s safeguards obligations and the Agency.
Therefore, it is of paramount importance that the Agency’s inspectors are allowed to verify that all relevant materials, especially those enriched to 60%, are accounted for. Beyond the potential radiological risks, attacks on such materials would make this effort of course more difficult.
Madame President,
The IAEA has consistently underlined, as stated in its General Conference resolution, that armed attacks on nuclear facilities should never take place, and could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked.
I therefore again call on maximum restraint. Military escalation threatens lives and delays indispensable work towards a diplomatic solution for the long-term assurance that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon.
Madame President,
The presence, support, analysis and inspections of technical experts are crucial to mitigating risks to nuclear safety and security – that is true during peacetime and even more so during military conflict.
For the second time in three years, we are witnessing a dramatic conflict between two UN and IAEA Member States in which nuclear installations are coming under fire and nuclear safety is being compromised. The IAEA, just as has been the case with the military conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, will not stand idle during this conflict.
As I stated in this chamber just a few days ago, I am ready to travel immediately and to engage with all relevant parties to help ensure the protection of nuclear facilities and the continued peaceful use of nuclear technology in accordance with the Agency mandate, including by deploying Agency nuclear safety and security experts, in addition to our safeguards inspectors in Iran, wherever necessary.
For the IAEA to act, a constructive, professional dialogue is needed. I urge the Members of this Council to support us in making it happen sooner rather than later.
The IAEA must receive timely and regular technical information about affected nuclear facilities and their respective sites. I urge in this regard the Iranian regulatory authorities to continue a constructive dialogue with the IAEA Incident and Emergency Centre, which has been operating 24/7 since the beginning of this conflict.
Nuclear facilities and material must not be shrouded by the fog of war.
Yesterday there was an incorrect statement to the media by an Israeli military official that Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant had been attacked. Though the mistake was quickly identified and the statement retracted, the situation underscored the vital need for clear and accurate communication, and the Agency’s unique role in providing it in a technically accurate and politically impartial way is obvious.
Let me conclude by assuring the international community of the IAEA’s continued support at this very grave time.
A diplomatic solution is within reach if the necessary political will is there. Elements for an agreement have been discussed. The IAEA can guarantee, through a watertight inspections system, that nuclear weapons will not be developed in Iran. They can form the basis of a long-standing agreement that brings peace and avoids a nuclear crisis in the Middle East. This opportunity should not be missed. The alternative would be a protracted conflict and a looming threat of nuclear proliferation that, while emanating from the Middle East, would effectively erode the NPT and the non-proliferation regime as a whole.
A centrifuge manufacturing workshop has been hit in Esfahan, the third such facility that has been targeted in Israel’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear-related sites over the past week, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said today, citing information available to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The workshop – which made the machines used to enrich uranium – was previously under IAEA monitoring and verification as part of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), including with installed Agency cameras.
“We know this facility well. There was no nuclear material at this site and therefore the attack on it will have no radiological consequences,” Director General Grossi said.
It came a few days after the IAEA on 18 June reported that the Tehran Research Center, where advanced centrifuge rotors were manufactured and tested, had been hit, as had a workshop in the city of Karaj where different centrifuge components were manufactured. There was no radiological impact, internally or externally.
The IAEA has closely been monitoring the situation at Iran’s nuclear sites since Israel began its attacks early on 13 June, providing regular updates on military strikes on facilities in Arak, Esfahan, Karaj, Natanz and Tehran.
Director General Grossi told the United Nations Security Council on Friday that “attacks on nuclear sites in the Islamic Republic of Iran have caused a sharp degradation in nuclear safety and security” in the country, adding: “Though they have not so far led to a radiological release affecting the public, there is a danger this could occur.”
A large nuclear complex in Esfahan has been targeted for a second time during Israel’s attacks on Iran over the past nine days, with several more buildings struck, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said today.
The site in central Iran was first hit on 13 June when four buildings were damaged: the central chemical laboratory, a uranium conversion facility, a reactor fuel manufacturing plant, and an enriched uranium metal processing facility under construction. No increase of off-site radiation levels was reported.
Based on information available to the IAEA today, six other buildings at the same site have now also been attacked: a natural and depleted uranium metal production facility which had not yet begun operations, a fuel rod production facility, a building with low-enriched uranium pellet production as well as a laboratory and nuclear material storage, another laboratory building, a workshop handling contaminated equipment and an office building with no nuclear material.
The same Esfahan complex includes a centrifuge manufacturing workshop that the IAEA earlier today reported had also been hit by Israel.
The facilities targeted today either contained no nuclear material or small quantities of natural or low enriched uranium, meaning any radioactive contamination is limited to the buildings that were damaged or destroyed.
“This nuclear complex in Esfahan – one of the key sites of the Iranian nuclear programme – has repeatedly been attacked and extensively damaged. Based on our analysis of the nuclear material present, we don’t see any risk of off-site contamination. Nevertheless, as I have repeatedly stated, nuclear facilities should never be attacked,” Director General Grossi said.
