The head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog says Iran’s nuclear sites have suffered major damage in recent Israeli airstrikes – but the country’s atomic programme is not completely destroyed. Rafael Mariano Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told RFI he wants inspectors to return to Iran quickly, and warned that cutting ties with the agency could trigger a fresh crisis.
RFI: After 12 days of war between Israel and Iran, can you tell us if Iran’s nuclear programme has been destroyed?
Rafael Mariano Grossi: I don’t know. I think “destroyed” is going too far. But the programme has taken serious damage. The attacks that began on 13 June caused major physical destruction at three sites – Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow.
Iran had focused most of its uranium enrichment and conversion activities at those places. So yes, very serious damage. There are other nuclear sites in Iran that were not hit. I know there’s a lot of talk about whether this is total destruction or not.
What I can say – and I think everyone agrees – is that the damage is very significant.
RFI: The US president said the programme has been set back by decades. Do you think that’s credible?
Grossi: These kinds of claims about timelines in nuclear matters have not always worked out well. You might remember back in 2003, when during the Iraq war, the UK and US said Saddam Hussein could launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes.
These statements always need context. It depends on what you’re measuring. Maybe it’s decades compared to certain goals. With reduced capabilities, it will clearly be harder for Iran to continue at the same pace. But what the president said suggests a military aim – and that’s about intention.
We don’t guess people’s intentions. We look at what we can actually see.
US asked France to speak to Iran before Israel truce
RFI: So right now, is it impossible to say exactly what’s left of Iran’s nuclear programme?
Grossi: We know a lot. We know these sites very well – that’s what makes us different from others. We were on the ground, inspecting these facilities regularly. So we can draw some clear conclusions from satellite images and other tools about the type of damage and what it means.
In those sites, we have a good idea of what’s happened. Of course, we still need to go there, which isn’t easy. There’s rubble. These places are not functioning anymore.
RFI: Can you already do a “preliminary assessment” based on satellite photos?
Grossi: Yes – plus the deep knowledge we already have of these sites and what they were capable of. I’ll give you an example: Fordow is a major site underground. It’s like something from a movie.
We’ve seen images showing bombs that can pierce deep underground. We can’t fully measure the damage, but with that kind of force, and knowing how delicate centrifuges are, it’s clear they’re no longer working.
These machines are very precise – even small vibrations can destroy them. So yes, we can make a fairly confident technical conclusion. I know the Fordow site well. It’s a network of tunnels with different activities. From what we saw in the images, the damage matches the main enrichment hall.
RFI: Do you know where the 408 kilos of enriched uranium Iran had are now? You had just confirmed that number before the war.
Grossi: Actually it was a bit more than that, but we rounded it to 400. Enrichment activity continued up until 12 June. In fact, the day before the US strikes, IAEA inspectors were still on site. We didn’t know attacks were coming, but we were doing daily checks.
The important thing is that Iran said it would take steps to protect its stock.
US strikes on Iran open up 'new chapter' in the Middle East: analyst
RFI: So it tried to put the uranium somewhere safe?
Grossi: That’s what we assume. Then the military strikes began. Naturally, everything stopped – we couldn’t inspect, and that’s normal in a conflict. As soon as I heard there was a ceasefire, I wrote to the foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi – I know him well. I said: “There’s a ceasefire, things may calm down, let’s meet.” I didn’t say: “I want to come and inspect right now.”
RFI: So you made a polite, diplomatic request...
Grossi: Exactly. You need to show respect. I suggested we meet to start discussing how inspectors can return to the sites.
RFI: Have you received a reply?
Grossi: Not yet.
RFI: Is communication between your agency and Iran still open?
Grossi: Yes, we’re still in contact. But there’s some tension. Some political voices in Iran now say the agency has not been neutral.
RFI: Because the agency didn’t condemn the Israeli attacks? That led to a vote in the Iranian parliament yesterday to suspend cooperation with the IAEA. Is that a concern for you?
Grossi: A huge one. I hope to speak with my Iranian colleagues soon and understand what this vote really means. But I want to be clear – the IAEA being in Iran is not a favour or a nice gesture. It’s an international obligation.
Iran is part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which means it must allow inspections. This is international law. You can’t just walk away from that. I hope Iran doesn’t do that – otherwise, we’d be heading into a major new crisis.
Israeli strike on Tehran jail was 'irresponsible': French prisoner's sister
RFI: If Iran blocks inspectors from going to the sites, what can you do?
Grossi: That would put Iran outside international law. I would then have to call a meeting of the IAEA board. But I don’t want to jump ahead. I don’t want to assume that will happen.
RFI: But the consequences could be serious...
Grossi: Very serious. It would mean Iran is stepping away from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I don’t think that’s what Iran wants – and I don’t think it’s in Iran’s interest.
RFI: Just before the war, was Iran cooperating properly with your agency?
Grossi: Not really. They were cooperating, but I had already said publicly – and in my last report to the IAEA board – that cooperation was limited. There were many questions Iran was not answering clearly. We had found traces of uranium in places where they shouldn’t be, and Iran’s explanations didn’t make technical sense. There was no transparency.
RFI: Was Iran close to making a nuclear bomb – the reason Israel gave for launching the war?
Grossi: Iran had enough material to maybe make around 10 bombs or a bit fewer. And Iran had the related technology. But I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again – Iran did not have a nuclear weapon.
RFI: So the war wasn’t necessary?
Grossi: That’s not for me to decide. I’m a man of peace. I believe that through inspections and dialogue, which is what the IAEA was made for, we can avoid these situations. Political decisions are not my job. I don’t judge them. But I do prefer peace.
RFI: Are you still optimistic?
Grossi: A calm and realistic kind of optimism.
RFI: So it’s possible that dialogue and inspections could restart?
Grossi: It’s not just possible – it’s essential.
This interview was adapted from the original version in French by RFI's Arnaud Pontus
