Nuclear Energy

Scientists say warmer waters in the North Sea due to climate change have created conditions allowing jellyfish to thrive and reproduce.

Four reactor units at one of France’s largest nuclear power stations have been forced to shut down due to a swarm of jellyfish in the plant’s water pumping stations, French energy group Electricite de France (EDF) said.

Three reactor units were automatically shut down on Sunday evening at Gravelines on the English Channel, followed by the fourth early on Monday morning, EDF said, adding that the safety of the plant, its employees and the environment was not at risk.

“These shutdowns are the result of the massive and unpredictable presence of jellyfish in the filter drums of the pumping stations,” EDF said in a statement.

The plant in northern France is one of the largest in the country and is cooled from a canal connected to the North Sea.

Teams were carrying out inspections to restart the site “in complete safety”, EDF said, adding the reactors that were shut down are expected to restart on Thursday.

The beaches around Gravelines, between the major cities of Dunkirk and Calais, have seen an increase in jellyfish in recent years due to warming waters and the introduction of invasive species.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists wrote in 2021 that jellyfish swarms incapacitating nuclear power plants is “neither new nor unknown” and there was substantial economic cost due to the forced closure of power plants.

Scientists are currently exploring ways to avert closures due to sea swarms, including using drones to map the movement of jellyfish, which would allow early intervention.

“Jellyfish breed faster when water is warmer, and because areas like the North Sea are becoming warmer, the reproductive window is getting wider and wider,” Derek Wright, marine biology consultant with the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told the Reuters news agency.

“Jellyfish can also hitch rides on tanker ships, entering the ships’ ballast tank in one port and often getting pumped out into waters halfway across the globe,” he said.

An invasive species known as the Asian Moon jellyfish, native to the Pacific Northwest, was first sighted in the North Sea in 2020. The species, which prefers still water with high levels of animal plankton, such as that in ports and canals, has caused similar problems before in ports and at nuclear plants in China, Japan, and India.

EDF said it did not know the species of jellyfish involved in the shutdown, but this is not the first time jellyfish have shut down a nuclear facility, though such incidents were “quite rare” – the last effect on EDF operations was in the 1990s.

There have been cases of plants in other countries shutting down due to jellyfish invasions, notably a three-day closure in Sweden in 2013 and a 1999 incident in Japan that caused a major drop in power output.

Experts say overfishing, plastic pollution and climate change have created conditions for jellyfish to thrive and reproduce.

EDF said there was no risk of a power shortage due to the shutdown, saying other energy sources, including solar power, were operational.

The IAEA is yet to make a statement about the meeting, which will not include a visit to Iranian nuclear sites.

Iran’s talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be “technical” and “complicated”, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has said, ahead of a visit by the United Nations nuclear watchdog for the first time since Tehran cut ties with it last month in the wake of the June conflict triggered by Israeli strikes.

Esmaeil Baghaei, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, told reporters on Monday that a meeting may be organised with Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi during the IAEA’s visit, “but it is a bit soon to predict what the talks will result since these are technical talks, complicated talks”.

The IAEA’s visit marks the first to Iran since President Masoud Pezeshkian ordered the country on July 3 to suspend its cooperation with the nuclear watchdog after an intensive 12-day war with Israel. The conflict also saw the United States launch massive strikes on Israel’s behalf against key Iranian nuclear sites.

Pezeshkian told Al Jazeera in an interview last month that his country is prepared for any future war Israel might wage against it, adding that he was not optimistic about the ceasefire between the countries. He confirmed that Tehran is committed to continuing its nuclear programme for peaceful purposes.

He added that Israel’s strikes, which assassinated leading military figures and nuclear scientists, damaged nuclear facilities and killed hundreds of civilians, had sought to “eliminate” Iran’s hierarchy, but “completely failed to do so”.

Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi told Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency on Monday that Massimo Aparo, the IAEA’s deputy director general and head of safeguards, had left Iran. Aparo met with an Iranian delegation, which included officials from the Foreign Ministry and the IAEA, to discuss “the method of interaction between the agency and Iran”.

Gharibabadi said they decided to continue consultations in the future, without providing further details.

The IAEA did not immediately issue a statement about Aparo’s visit, which will not include any planned access to Iranian nuclear sites.

Relations between the IAEA and Iran deteriorated after the watchdog’s board said on June 12 that Iran had breached its non-proliferation obligations, a day before Israel’s air strikes over Iran, which sparked the conflict.

Baghaei, meanwhile, criticised the IAEA’s lack of response to the Israeli strikes.

“Peaceful facilities of a country that was under 24-hour monitoring were the target of strikes, and the agency refrained from showing a wise and rational reaction and did not condemn it as it was required,” he said.

Araghchi had previously said that cooperation with the agency, which will now require approval by Iran’s highest security body, the Supreme National Security Council, would be about redefining how both sides cooperate. The decision will likely further limit inspectors’ ability to track Tehran’s programme that had been enriching uranium to near weapons-grade levels.

Iran has had limited IAEA inspections in the past, in negotiations with the West, and it is unclear how soon talks between Tehran and Washington for a deal over its nuclear programme will resume, if at all.

US intelligence agencies and the IAEA assessed that Iran last had an organised nuclear weapons programme in 2003. Although Tehran had been enriching uranium up to 60 percent, this is still some way from the weapons-grade levels of 90 percent.

Iranian diplomats are meeting their counterparts from Germany, the United Kingdom and France for renewed nuclear talks, amid warnings that the three European powers could trigger “snapback” United Nations sanctions outlined under a previous 2015 deal.

The meeting, which is under way in Turkiye’s Istanbul on Friday morning, is the first since Israel’s mid-June attack on Iran, which led to an intensive 12-day conflict, with the United States militarily intervening on Israel’s behalf and attacking key Iranian nuclear sites.

Israel’s offensive – which killed top commanders, nuclear scientists and hundreds of civilians, as residential areas were struck, as well – also derailed US-Iran nuclear talks that began in April.

Iran said on Friday that the meeting is an opportunity for the so-called E3 group of Germany, UK and France to correct their positions on Iran’s nuclear issue. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said in an interview with state news agency IRNA that Iran considers the talk of extending UN Security Council Resolution 2231 to be doubly “meaningless and baseless”.

The resolution, which cemented the 2015 deal Iran reached with world powers, under which it curbed enrichment in return for much-needed sanctions relief, is due to expire in October. It enshrines the big powers’ prerogative to restore UN sanctions.

Since then, the E3 have threatened to trigger the “snapback mechanism”, which would reinstate the sanctions on Iran by the end of August, under the moribund 2015 nuclear deal which US President Donald Trump unilaterally torpedoed in 2018 during his first term.

The option to trigger the snapback expires in October, and Tehran has warned of consequences should the E3 opt to activate it.

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, who is attending the talks Friday, alongside senior Iranian diplomat Majid Takht-Ravanchi, warned this week that triggering sanctions “is completely illegal”.

He also accused European powers of “halting their commitments” to the deal after the US withdrew from it.

“We have warned them of the risks, but we are still seeking common ground to manage the situation,” said Gharibabadi.

Warning from Tehran

Iranian diplomats have previously warned that Tehran could withdraw from the global nuclear non-proliferation treaty if UN sanctions are reimposed.

Restoring sanctions would deepen Iran’s international isolation and place further pressure on its already strained economy.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar has urged European powers to trigger the mechanism. Israel’s June 13 attack on Iran came two days before Tehran and Washington were scheduled to meet for a sixth round of nuclear negotiations.

On June 22, the US struck Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz.

Before the conflict, Washington and Tehran were divided over uranium enrichment, which Iran has described as a “non-negotiable” right for civilian purposes, while the US called it a “red line”.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says Iran is enriching uranium to 60 percent purity – far above the 3.67 percent cap under the 2015 deal, but well below the 90 percent needed for weapons-grade levels.

Tehran has said it is open to discussing the rate and level of enrichment, but not the right to enrich uranium.

A year after the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal, Iran reportedly began rolling back its commitments, which had placed restrictions on its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief.

Israel and Western powers accuse Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons – a charge Tehran has consistently denied. Both US intelligence and the IAEA said they had seen no evidence of Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon in the build-up to the June conflict.

Enrichment is ‘stopped’

Iran insists it will not abandon its nuclear programme, which Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called a source of “national pride”.

The full extent of the damage sustained in the US bombing remains unclear. Trump has claimed the sites were “completely destroyed”, but US media reports have cast doubt over the scale of destruction.

Araghchi has noted that enrichment is currently “stopped” due to “serious and severe” damage to nuclear sites caused by US and Israeli attacks.

In an interview with Al Jazeera that aired on Wednesday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Iran is prepared for another war and reiterated that its nuclear programme will continue within the framework of international law, adding the country had no intention of pursuing nuclear weapons.

Since the 12-day conflict, Iran has suspended cooperation with the IAEA, accusing it of bias and of failing to condemn the attacks.

Inspectors have since left the country, but a technical team is expected to return in the coming weeks, after Iran said future cooperation would take a “new form”.

Israel has warned it may resume attacks if Iran rebuilds facilities or moves towards weapons capability. Iran has pledged a “harsh response” to any future attacks.

The E3 nations meeting marks the first since Israel targeted Iran’s key nuclear and military sites in a 12-day war last month.

Iran has reaffirmed its right to enrich uranium on the eve of a key meeting with European powers threatening to reimpose nuclear sanctions.

Friday’s meeting, set to take place in Istanbul, will bring Iranian officials together with officials from Britain, France and Germany – known as the E3 nations – and will include the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas.

It will be the first since Israel’s mid-June attack targeting key Iranian nuclear and military sites led to a 12-day war that ended in a ceasefire on June 24.

“Especially after the recent war, it is important for them [European countries] to understand that the Islamic Republic of Iran’s position remains unshakable, and that our uranium enrichment will continue,” the Tasnim news agency quoted Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi as saying on Thursday.

The United States joined its ally Israel in the offensive, striking three Iranian nuclear facilities overnight between June 21 and 22.

Israel launched its attack on Iran just two days before Tehran and Washington were set to resume negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme.

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said on Thursday that Tehran would be prepared to engage in further talks on its nuclear programme with the US if Washington takes meaningful steps to rebuild trust.

In a social media post, Gharibabadi also said that for talks to take place with the US, Tehran would seek “several key principles” to be upheld.

These include “rebuilding Iran’s trust – as Iran has absolutely no trust in the United States”, he said, adding there could be no room “for hidden agendas such as military action, though Iran remains fully prepared for any scenario”.

Britain, France and Germany – alongside China, Russia and the US – are parties to a 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, which placed major restrictions on its atomic activities in return for the gradual lifting of United Nations sanctions.

However, in 2018, the US unilaterally withdrew from the agreement during Donald Trump’s first term as president and reimposed its own sanctions.

Britain, France and Germany maintained their support for the 2015 accord and sought to continue trade with Iran.

But they have since accused Tehran of failing to uphold its commitments and are threatening to reimpose sanctions under a clause in the agreement that expires in October – something Iran is eager to avoid.

The IAEA, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, says Iran is the only non-nuclear-armed country currently enriching uranium to 60 percent – far beyond the 3.67 percent cap set by the 2015 accord. Ninety percent enrichment is required for a nuclear weapon.

Western powers, led by the US and backed by Israel, have long accused Tehran of secretly seeking nuclear weapons.

Iran has repeatedly denied this, insisting its nuclear programme is solely for civilian purposes such as energy production.

Tehran and Washington had held five rounds of nuclear talks starting in April, but a planned meeting on June 15 was cancelled after Israel launched its strikes on Iran.

Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi has said that Tehran cannot give up on its uranium enrichment programme, which was severely damaged by waves of US and Israeli air strikes last month.

“It is now stopped because, yes, damages are serious and severe, but obviously, we cannot give up our enrichment because it is an achievement of our own scientists, and now, more than that, it is a question of national pride,” Araghchi told the US broadcaster Fox News in an interview aired on Monday.

Araghchi said at the beginning of the interview that Iran is “open to talks” with the United States, but that they would not be direct talks “for the time being”.

“If they [the US] are coming for a win-win solution, I am ready to engage with them,” he said.

“We are ready to do any confidence-building measure needed to prove that Iran’s nuclear programme is peaceful and would remain peaceful forever, and Iran would never go for nuclear weapons, and in return, we expect them to lift their sanctions,” the foreign minister added.

“So, my message to the United States is that let’s go for a negotiated solution for Iran’s nuclear programme.”

Araghchi’s comments were part of a 16-minute interview aired on Fox News, a broadcaster known to be closely watched by US President Donald Trump.

“There is a negotiated solution for our nuclear programme. We have done it once in the past. We are ready to do it once again,” Araghchi said.

Tehran and Washington had been holding talks on the nuclear programme earlier this year, seven years after Trump pulled the US out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which Tehran signed with several world powers in 2015. Under the pact, Iran opened the country’s nuclear sites to comprehensive international inspection in return for the lifting of sanctions.

Trump’s decision to pull the US out of the deal came after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Iran of pursuing a “secret nuclear programme“.

Iran has long maintained that its nuclear enrichment programme is strictly for civilian purposes.

The US and Iran engaged in talks as recently as May to reach a new deal, but those negotiations broke down when Israel launched surprise bombing raids across Iran on June 13, targeting military and nuclear sites.

More than 900 people were killed in Iran, and at least 28 people were killed in Israel before a ceasefire took hold on June 24.

The US also joined Israel in attacking Iranian nuclear facilities, with the Pentagon later claiming it had set back the country’s nuclear programme by one to two years.

Araghchi said on Monday that Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation is still evaluating how the attacks had affected Iran’s enriched material, adding that they will “soon inform” the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of its findings.

He said any request for the IAEA to send inspectors would be “carefully considered”.

“We have not stopped our cooperation with the agency,” he claimed.

IAEA inspectors left Iran after Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed a law suspending cooperation with the IAEA earlier this month.

Tehran had sharply criticised the IAEA and its chief, Rafael Grossi, over a June 12 resolution passed by the IAEA board accusing Tehran of non-compliance with its nuclear obligations.

Iranian officials said the resolution was among the “excuses” that Israel used as a pretext to launch its attacks, which began on June 13 and lasted for 12 days.

Speaking to journalists earlier on Monday, Stephane Dujarric, the spokesperson for the United Nations secretary-general, said that the UN welcomed renewed “dialogue between the Europeans and the Iranians”, referring to talks set to take place between Iran, France, Germany and the United Kingdom in Turkiye on Friday.

The three European parties to the former JCPOA agreement have said that Tehran’s failure to resume negotiations would lead to international sanctions being reimposed on Iran.

China, France, Germany, Russia and the UK are the remaining parties to a 2015 nuclear deal reached with Iran.

Iran, France, Germany and the United Kingdom will hold nuclear talks in Istanbul following warnings by the three European countries that failure to resume negotiations would lead to international sanctions being reimposed on Tehran.

The talks scheduled for Friday come after foreign ministers of the E3 nations, as those European countries are known, as well as the European Union’s foreign policy chief, held their first call on Thursday with Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi since Israel and the United States attacked Iranian nuclear facilities a month ago.

The three European countries, along with China and Russia, are the remaining parties to a 2015 nuclear deal reached with Iran, from which the US withdrew in 2018, that had lifted sanctions on the Middle Eastern country in return for restrictions on its nuclear programme.

“The meeting between Iran, Britain, France and Germany will take place at the deputy foreign minister level,” Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman, Esmaeil Baghaei, was quoted by Iranian state media as saying.

The E3 have said they would restore United Nations sanctions on Tehran by the end of August if nuclear talks that were ongoing between Iran and the US, before Israel launched a surprise attack, do not resume or fail to produce concrete results.

Iran has accused the US of complicity in the Israeli attack, which killed top Iranian military officials, nuclear scientists and hundreds of civilians. The US also launched strikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites, claiming to have “obliterated” them. A ceasefire took effect on June 24.

“If EU/E3 want to have a role, they should act responsibly, and put aside the worn-out policies of threat and pressure, including the ‘snap-back’ for which they lack absolutely moral and legal ground,” Araghchi said last week.

Before the Israel-Iran war, Tehran and Washington held five rounds of nuclear talks mediated by Oman but faced major stumbling blocks such as uranium enrichment in Iran, which Western powers want to bring down to zero to minimise any risk of weaponisation.

Tehran maintains that its nuclear programme is solely meant for civilian purposes.

Middle East assessments

Also on Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin held a surprise meeting in the Kremlin with Ali Larijani, the top adviser to Iran’s supreme leader on nuclear issues.

Larijani “conveyed assessments of the escalating situation in the Middle East and around the Iranian nuclear programme”, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said of the unannounced meeting.

Putin expressed Russia’s “well-known positions on how to stabilise the situation in the region and on the political settlement of the Iranian nuclear programme”, he added.

Moscow has a cordial relationship with Iran’s clerical leadership and provides crucial backing for Tehran, but it did not swing forcefully behind its partner even after the US joined Israel’s bombing campaign.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says Tehran is committed to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), dismissing speculation that Iran would leave the accord in response to major attacks by Israel and the United States on its nuclear and other sites.

Araghchi also said on Thursday that Iran will honour its safeguards agreement with the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), despite recently passing a law to suspend cooperation with the agency.

Safeguards agreements between the IAEA and NPT signatories allow the UN agency to ensure that the countries’ nuclear programmes remain peaceful.

“Iran remains committed to the NPT and its Safeguards Agreement,” Araghchi wrote in a social media post.

“In accordance with the new legislation by Majlis [parliament], sparked by the unlawful attacks against our nuclear facilities by Israel and the US, our cooperation with [the IAEA] will be channelled through Iran’s Supreme National Security Council for obvious safety and security reasons.”

It is not clear how that cooperation will proceed or when and how IAEA inspectors will be granted access to Iran’s nuclear sites.

Araghchi’s comment was made in response to a German Federal Foreign Office statement decrying the Iranian legislation against the IAEA as a “devastating message”.

The Iranian foreign minister hit out at the criticism by Germany – one of Israel’s most committed allies that backed the attacks against Iran last month.

At the height of Israel’s strikes, which were launched without direct provocation, Chancellor Friedrich Merz suggested Germany and the West are benefitting from the war.

“This is dirty work that Israel is doing for all of us,” he said. The remarks earned him praise from Israeli officials and caused outrage in some other quarters.

On Thursday, Araghchi rebuked “Germany’s explicit support for Israel’s unlawful attack on Iran, including safeguarded nuclear sites, as ‘dirty work’ carried out on behalf of the West”.

He also accused Berlin of repudiating its commitments under the 2015 multilateral nuclear deal with Tehran by demanding zero enrichment by Iran.

The pact – which US President Donald Trump torpedoed during his first term in 2018 – allows Iran to enrich uranium at a low grade under a strict monitoring regime.

“‘Iranians were already put off by Germany’s Nazi-style backing of Genocide in Gaza, and its support for Saddam’s war on Iran by providing materials for chemical weapons,” Araghchi said in a post on X.

“The explicit German support for the bombing of Iran has obliterated the notion that the German regime harbours anything but malice towards Iranians.”

Companies from the former West Germany have long been accused by Iran of helping late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein develop chemical weapons, which he used against Iranian forces during the war between the two countries in the 1980s.

Iran has been calling on Germany to investigate its ties to Iraq’s chemical weapons, but Berlin has not publicly acknowledged any role in the programme.

Germany and other European countries came out in support of Israel in its recent 12-day war with Iran, which killed hundreds of Iranian civilians, including nuclear scientists and their family members, as well as top military officials.

The US joined the Israeli campaign last month, bombing three Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran retaliated against the US attack with a missile strike against an airbase in Qatar where US soldiers are stationed. Hours later, a ceasefire was reached.

Iranian officials have sharply criticised the IAEA not only for failing to condemn the Israeli and US strikes but also for passing a resolution on June 12 accusing Tehran of noncompliance with its nuclear obligations, the day before Israel attacked.

International law offers special protection to nuclear sites due to the high risk of an environmental disaster if attacks result in the leak of radioactive material.

The state of the Iranian nuclear programme after the US and Israeli strikes remains unclear.

On Wednesday, the Pentagon said the US bombing operation set back Iran’s nuclear programme by one to two years.

But IAEA chief Rafael Grossi recently said Iran could be enriching uranium again in a “matter of months”. Enrichment is the process of enhancing the purity of radioactive uranium atoms to produce nuclear fuel.

Iran has repeatedly denied seeking a nuclear weapon while Israel is widely believed to possess an undeclared nuclear arsenal of dozens of atomic bombs.

Rafael Grossi raises concern over Iran’s stockpile of 60 percent enriched uranium, just below weapons grade.

Iran may be able to restart uranium enrichment in a matter of months despite a wave of attacks by the United States and Israel that targeted its nuclear infrastructure, according to the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, Rafael Grossi.

The remarks came on Saturday, days after US President Donald Trump insisted this month’s attacks had set Iran’s nuclear ambitions back “by decades”.

Speaking to CBS News on Saturday, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said while key facilities had been hit, some are “still standing”.

“They can have, you know, in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium,” Grossi said, adding that it could even be sooner.

He raised concerns over Iran’s stockpile of 60 percent enriched uranium, just below weapons grade, which could theoretically produce more than nine nuclear bombs if refined further.

He acknowledged the IAEA does not know whether this stockpile was moved before the bombings or partially destroyed. “There has to be, at some point, a clarification,” he said.

Israeli attacks

The Israeli assault began on June 13 with strikes on Iran’s nuclear and military sites.

Israel claimed the attacks were designed to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, an accusation Tehran has consistently denied. The US joined the offensive days later, hitting three of Iran’s nuclear facilities.

In the wake of the attacks, Iranian lawmakers moved to suspend cooperation with the IAEA and denied Grossi’s request to inspect facilities, including the underground enrichment plant at Fordow.

“We need to be in a position to confirm what is there, where it is, and what happened,” Grossi said.

The Iranian Ministry of Health reported at least 627 civilian deaths across the country during the 12-day assault that also saw 28 people killed in Israel in retaliatory strikes launched by Iran, according to Israeli authorities.

On Saturday, Iran’s judiciary said an Israeli missile strike on Tehran’s Evin Prison on June 23 killed 71 people, including military recruits, detainees and visitors.

US president says Iranian Supreme Leader’s alleged ‘anger, hatred, disgust’ led him to drop work on sanctions relief.

President Donald Trump has hit out at Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s claim that Iran won its recent 12-day war with Israel, also saying the United States will “absolutely” bomb the country again if it pursues nuclear weapons.

The US president launched a torrent of abuse at Iran’s Supreme Leader on his Truth Social platform on Friday, claiming he had saved Khamenei from “A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH” and accusing him of “blatantly and foolishly” lying when he claimed “victory” in the war the previous day.

In his first sortie since the Israel-Iran war ended with a ceasefire earlier this week, Khamenei had also said Iran “slapped America in the face” by launching missiles at a major US base in Qatar following US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz.

In Friday’s post, Trump said he had demanded Israel pull back from “the final knockout”.

“His Country was decimated, his three evil Nuclear Sites were OBLITERATED, and I knew EXACTLY where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces, by far the Greatest and Most Powerful in the World, terminate his life,” he said.

The question of whether US attacks destroyed Iran’s nuclear capabilities is moot – a leaked intelligence report contradicted Trump’s account of events, suggesting the military’s strikes had set the country back by mere months.

The US president said that Khamenei’s comments, which he described as “a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust”, had led him to drop work on “the possible removal of sanctions, and other things, which would have given a much better chance to Iran at a full, fast, and complete recovery”.

Future of nuclear programme

Trump’s rant against Khamenei came on the back of bellicose comments earlier that day at a White House news conference. Asked whether he would consider new air strikes if the recent attacks had not succeeded in ending Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, Trump said, “Sure, without question, absolutely.”

He said he would like inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or another respected source to be able to inspect Iran’s nuclear sites.

But Iran has approved a bill to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, a move widely seen as a direct response to the strikes.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi indicated on Friday that Tehran may reject any request by the agency for visits to Iranian nuclear sites.

“[IAEA Director General] Grossi’s insistence on visiting the bombed sites under the pretext of safeguards is meaningless and possibly even malign in intent,” Araghchi said on X. “Iran reserves the right to take any steps in defence of its interests, its people and its sovereignty.”

Grossi said on Wednesday that ensuring the resumption of IAEA inspections was his top priority, as none had taken place since Israel began bombing on June 13.

Meanwhile, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz indicated on Friday that his country might still be on a war footing with Iran, saying he had instructed the military to prepare an enforcement plan against the country.

The plan “includes maintaining Israel’s air superiority, preventing nuclear advancement and missile production, and responses to Iran for supporting terrorist activities against Israel”, Katz said.

Katz said on Thursday that Israel had wanted to “eliminate” Khamenei and would not have required US permission to do so.

Barely 72 hours after United States President Donald Trump’s air strikes against Iran, a controversy erupted over the extent of the damage they had done to the country’s uranium enrichment facilities in Fordow and Natanz.

The New York Times and CNN leaked a preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that the damage may have been “from moderate to severe”, noting it had “low confidence” in the findings because they were an early assessment.

Trump had claimed the sites were “obliterated”.

The difference in opinion mattered because it goes to the heart of whether the US and Israel had eliminated Iran’s ability to enrich uranium to levels that would allow it to make nuclear weapons, at least for years.

Israel has long claimed – without evidence – that Iran plans to build nuclear bombs. Iran has consistently insisted that its nuclear programme is purely of a civilian nature. And the US has been divided on the question – its intelligence community concluding as recently as March that Tehran was not building a nuclear bomb, but Trump claiming earlier in June that Iran was close to building such a weapon.

Yet amid the conflicting claims and assessments on the damage from the US strikes to Iranian nuclear facilities and whether the country wants atomic weapons, one thing is clear: Tehran says it has no intentions of giving up on its nuclear programme.

So what is the future of that programme? How much damage has it suffered? Will the US and Israel allow Iran to revive its nuclear programme? And can a 2015 diplomatic deal with Iran – that was working well until Trump walked out of it – be brought back to life?

What Iran wants

In his first public comments since the US bombing, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that the attack “did nothing significant” to Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar said Khamenei spoke of how “most of the [nuclear] sites are still in place and that Iran is going to continue its nuclear programme”.

Mohammad Eslami, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, on Tuesday said that “preparations for recovery had already been anticipated, and our plan is to prevent any interruption in production or services”.

To be sure, even if they haven’t been destroyed, Natanz and Fordow – Iran’s only known enrichment sites – have suffered significant damage, according to satellite images. Israel has also assassinated several of Iran’s top nuclear scientists in its wave of strikes that began on June 13.

However, the DIA said in the initial assessment that the Trump administration has tried to dismiss, that the attacks had only set Iran’s nuclear programme back by months. It also said that Iran had moved uranium enriched at these facilities away from these sites prior to the strikes. Iranian officials have also made the same claim.

The UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), had accused Iran of enriching up to 400kg of uranium to 60 percent – not far below the 90 percent enrichment that is needed to make weapons.

Asked on Wednesday whether he thought the enriched uranium had been smuggled out from the nuclear facilities before the strikes, Trump said, “We think everything nuclear is down there, they didn’t take it out.” Asked again later, he said, “We think we hit them so hard and so fast they didn’t get to move.”

What was the extent of damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities?

Without on-site inspections, nobody can be sure.

Central Intelligence Agency director John Ratcliffe on Wednesday posted a statement saying, “several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years”. That’s a very different timeline from what the DIA suggested in its early assessment.

But it’s important to remember that the DIA and CIA also disagreed on whether Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in 2003.

The DIA sided with the UN’s view that inspections had proven Hussein didn’t have such weapons. The CIA, on the other hand, provided intelligence that backed the position of then-president George W Bush in favour of an invasion – intelligence that was later debunked. In that instance, the CIA proved politically more malleable than the DIA.

Amid the current debate over whether Iranian nuclear sites were destroyed, Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has also weighed in favour of the president’s view.

“Iran’s nuclear facilities have been destroyed. If the Iranians chose to rebuild, they would have to rebuild all three facilities (Natanz, Fordow, Esfahan) entirely, which would likely take years to do,” she posted on Twitter/X.

But Gabbard has already demonstrably changed her public statements to suit Trump.

In March, she testified before a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons programme that he suspended in 2003”.

On June 20, Trump was asked for his reaction to that assessment. “She’s wrong,” he said.

Gabbard later that day posted that her testimony had been misquoted by “the dishonest media” and that “America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalise the assembly”.

Gabbard’s clarification did not contradict her earlier view, that Iran was not actively trying to build a weapon.

Asked in an interview with a French radio network whether Iran’s nuclear programme had been destroyed, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi replied, “I think ‘destroyed’ is too much. But it suffered enormous damage.”

On Wednesday, Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission concurred with the CIA, saying Iran’s nuclear facilities had been rendered “totally inoperable” and had “set back Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons for many years to come”.

Also on Wednesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the destruction of Iran’s surface facilities at Isfahan was proof enough of Iran’s inability to make a bomb.

“The conversion facility, which you can’t do a nuclear weapon without a conversion facility, we can’t even find where it is, where it used to be on the map,” he told reporters.

Can a 2015 diplomatic deal be resuscitated?

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), negotiated with Iran by France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the US, China, Russia and the European Union in 2015, was the only agreement ever reached governing Iran’s nuclear programme.

The JCPOA allowed Iran to enrich its own uranium, but limited it to the 3.7 percent enrichment levels required for a nuclear reactor to generate electricity. At Israel’s behest, Trump abandoned the agreement in 2018 and Iran walked away from it a year later – but before that, it was working.

Even though Trump has said he will never return to the JCPOA, which was negotiated by his predecessor, Barack Obama, he could return to an agreement of his own making that strongly resembles it. The crucial question is, whether Israel will this time back it, and whether Iran will be allowed to have even a peaceful nuclear programme, which it is legally entitled to.

On Wednesday, Trump didn’t sound as though he was moving in this direction. “We may sign an agreement. I don’t know. I don’t think it’s that necessary,” he told reporters at The Hague.

Any JCPOA-like agreement would also require Iran to allow IAEA inspectors to get back to ensuring that Tehran meets its nuclear safeguard commitments.

“IAEA inspectors have remained in Iran throughout the conflict and are ready to start working as soon as possible, going back to the country’s nuclear sites and verifying the inventories of nuclear material,” the IAEA said on Tuesday.

But Iran’s powerful Guardian Council on Thursday approved a parliamentary bill to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, suggesting that Tehran is at the moment not in the mood to entertain any UN oversight of its nuclear facilities.

What happens if Iran returns to enriching uranium?

“If Iran wants a civil nuclear programme, they can have one, just like many other countries in the world have one, and [the way for] that is, they import enriched material,” Rubio told journalist Bari Weiss on the Podcast, Honestly, in April.

“But if they insist on enriching [themselves], then they will be the only country in the world that doesn’t have a weapons programme, quote unquote, but is enriching. And so I think that’s problematic,” he said.

Ali Ansari, an Iran historian at St. Andrews University in the UK, told Al Jazeera that “there have already been calls to cease uranium enrichment from activists within the country”.

But the defiant statements from Iranian officials since the US strikes – including from Khamenei on Thursday – suggest that Tehran is not ready to give up on enrichment.

Trump has, in recent days, suggested that he wants Iran to give up its nuclear programme altogether.

On Tuesday, Trump posted on TruthSocial, “IRAN WILL NEVER REBUILD THEIR NUCLEAR FACILITIES!”

He doubled down on that view on Wednesday.

“Iran has a huge advantage. They have great oil, and they can do things. I don’t see them getting back involved in the nuclear business any more, I think they’ve had it,” he told reporters at the end of the NATO summit in The Hague.

And then he suggested the US would again strike Iran’s facilities, even if it weren’t building a bomb. “If [Iran] does [get involved], we’re always there, we’ll have to do something about it.” If he didn’t, “someone else” would hit Iran’s nuclear facilities, he suggested.

That “someone” would be Israel – which has long tried to kill any diplomatic effort over Iran’s nuclear programme.

At the NATO summit, Trump was asked whether Israel and Iran might start a war again soon.

“I guess some day it can. It could maybe start soon,” he said.

Israel launched an unprecedented strike on Iran’s military and nuclear sites on June 13, a day after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board passed a resolution saying Tehran was not complying with its commitment to nuclear safeguards.

Though Israel did not use the United Nations nuclear watchdog’s resolution to justify the Iran attack, its Ministry of Foreign Affairs welcomed the IAEA resolution, calling it “a necessary and overdue step” that confirmed Iran’s “systematic clandestine nuclear weapons programme”.

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Atomic Energy Organization in a joint statement condemned the resolution, calling it “politically motivated”. The resolution, the joint statement said, “seriously undermines the credibility and integrity of the IAEA”.

Tehran insists its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes and that its facilities are monitored by the UN nuclear watchdog.

Here’s what the IAEA said about the Iranian nuclear programe earlier this month, and its criticisms against its past actions.

Did the IAEA think that Iran was building nuclear weapons?

The IAEA cannot fully assess Iran’s nuclear energy programmes, as Tehran halted its implementation of the Additional Protocol in February 2021, which permitted the IAEA enhanced inspection rights – including snap inspections and continuous surveillance.

Iran continued to comply with IAEA’s Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement after 2021, which permitted access to Iran’s declared nuclear sites (Natanz, Fordow, Bushehr) and also allowed for routine monitoring and verification of declared nuclear material.

At a press event in Vienna on June 9, however, IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi said Iran’s recent failure to comply with reporting obligations had “led to a significant reduction in the agency’s ability to verify whether Iran’s nuclear programme is entirely peaceful”.

During the IAEA’s Board of Governors meeting (which took place from June 9-13), Grossi said Iran had “repeatedly either not answered… the agency’s questions” regarding the presence of man-made uranium particles at three locations – Varamin, Marivan and Turquzabad.

Grossi also described Iran’s “rapid accumulation of highly-enriched uranium” as a “serious concern”, referring to the 60 percent pure uranium enrichment facilities at Fordow and Natanz.

In 2023, the IAEA had discovered 83.7 percent pure uranium particles at Fordow – close to the 90 percent purity required to make an atomic bomb.

On June 12, one day before Israel’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the IAEA board passed a resolution declaring that Tehran was breaching its non-proliferation obligations.

Al Jazeera’s Hashem Ahelbarra, reporting from Vienna on June 12, noted it was the first time in almost 20 years that the IAEA, which monitors Iran’s nuclear programme, had accused Tehran of breaching its non-proliferation obligations.

Last week, however, Grossi emphasised that the IAEA had found no evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons production.

In an interview with Al Jazeera on June 19, Grossi was emphatic that Iran’s alleged violations of its assurances had not led his agency to conclude that Tehran was building bombs.

“We have not seen elements to allow us, as inspectors, to affirm that there was a nuclear weapon that was being manufactured or produced somewhere in Iran,” he said.

United States Vice President JD Vance invoked the IAEA resolution to make a case for the military action against Iran.

“They’ve been found in violation of their non-proliferation obligations by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is hardly a rightwing organization,” he posted on X on June 17.

The US president ordered his military to bomb three Iranian sites on June 22 – a decision welcomed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been making claims for decades that Iran was on the cusp of making nuclear weapons.

Trump has claimed that the nuclear sites have been “obliterated” and Iran’s nuclear programme has been set back by decades.

How has Iran responded?

On June 23, the national security committee of Iran’s parliament approved the outline of a bill designed to suspend Tehran’s cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, committee spokesperson Ebrahim Rezaei told the Tasnim news agency.

Rezaei said that, according to the bill, installing surveillance cameras, allowing inspections, and submitting reports to the IAEA would be suspended as long as the security of nuclear facilities is not guaranteed. Iran joined the IAEA in 1959.

In particular, Rezaei said Iran asserts its right, as a 1968 signatory to the UN’s nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, including uranium enrichment.

Parliament still has to approve the NPT withdrawal bill in a plenary.

Tehran has long complained that the treaty fails to protect it from attack by a country with a nuclear arsenal, the US, and another widely believed to have one, Israel.

What’s more, Iranian authorities have claimed Grossi is looking to become the next secretary-general of the UN, and is therefore sacrificing the nuclear watchdog’s integrity by adopting pro-Western rhetoric to gain personal favour.

On June 1, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, Mohammad Eslami, told state TV: “Rafael Grossi [is] driven by his ambitions and a strong desire to become the UN secretary-general, is seeking to gain the approval of a few specific countries and align himself with their goals.”

Did the IAEA skirt controversy over the Fukushima disaster?

In June 2023, the Japanese government started releasing treated, but still radioactive, water from the ruined Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station into the Pacific Ocean.

The IAEA gave the controversial plan the green light following a two-year review.

At the time, Grossi said the agency’s safety review had concluded the plan was “consistent with relevant international safety standards… [and] the controlled, gradual discharges of the treated water to the sea would have a negligible radiological impact on people and the environment”.

More than 1.3 million tonnes of water had built up at the Fukushima plant since a March 2011 tsunami destroyed the power station’s electricity and cooling systems and triggered the world’s worst nuclear disaster since Chornobyl.

The release of the water, which began in August 2023, encountered fierce resistance from Japan’s neighbours and Pacific island nations as well as fishing and agricultural communities in and around Fukushima, which fear for their livelihoods.

Beijing, in particular, was a fierce critic of the water discharge plan. In a statement following the IAEA’s July 2023 report, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs chastised its “hasty release”, claiming it “failed to fully reflect views from experts”.

Are there echoes of Iraq in the current debate about Iran?

To several observers, there are.

In the lead-up to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, the US and the United Kingdom asserted that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), including chemical weapons, in addition to pursuing a nuclear weapons programme.

These claims were central in justifying military action under the argument that Iraq posed an imminent threat to regional and global security.

Towards the end of 2002, the IAEA carried out several inspections of Iraqi weapons programmes.

In early 2003, they established the existence of high-tolerance aluminium tubes in Iraq. In theory, these can be used to enrich uranium for use in a nuclear warhead.

The aluminium tubes became a cornerstone in the Bush administration’s Iraq mandate. As the only physical evidence the US could brandish, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President George W Bush and his advisers.

The tubes were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programmes”, Condoleezza Rice, the US national security adviser, explained on CNN on September 8, 2002. “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

For its part, the IAEA refuted the theory that the tubes were destined for use in a nuclear programme. And after the invasion, extensive searches found no active WMD programmes in Iraq.

Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump is attempting a high-risk manoeuvre in bombing Iran and then quickly seeking to de-escalate tensions, analysts told Al Jazeera.

But it remains to be seen whether Washington can navigate a clean exit from the deadly imbroglio, which has the potential to erupt into a large-scale regional confrontation.

Even if Trump avoids a wider war, analysts say troubling questions remain over how worthwhile the US military intervention was.

Early on Sunday, the US joined Israel in its military campaign against Iran, sending B-2 stealth aircraft to drop bombs on three of the country’s nuclear sites.

Trump has framed the military action as part of Washington’s long-term goal of preventing Tehran from building a nuclear weapon. But the bombing provoked a retaliatory strike, with Iran launching missiles at the US’s Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar on Monday.

Since then, Trump has announced a ceasefire between all parties and claimed he was able to “stop the war”. He credited the bombing with bringing “everyone together”.

But media outlets have questioned whether Trump was successful in destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities, as he has claimed. And Trump has denounced both Iran and Israel for early violations of the ceasefire.

“As soon as we made the deal, [Israel] came out and dropped a load of bombs, the likes of which I’ve never seen before,” Trump told reporters in an unvarnished moment on the White House lawn on Tuesday.

“We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f*** they’re doing.”

Behind the rhetoric

Despite the rocky first hours after the ceasefire announcement, Israeli and Iranian leaders appear to have fallen in line with Trump’s messaging about peace.

Following a call from the US president, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said that his country would refrain from further attacks. Israel had “achieved all of the war’s goals”, his office said.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, meanwhile, hailed his country’s “heroic resistance”. He said Iran would respect the truce and seek to protect its interests through diplomacy.

But experts warn that the talk of peace and diplomacy might conceal greater challenges ahead.

Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, a think tank, told Al Jazeera that Trump’s harsh words for the latest attack reveal his increasingly public frustrations with Israel, a longtime US ally.

They might also indicate that extracting the US from Israel’s war with Iran might be more difficult than it seems.

“I think it’s crucial to understand Israel does not want an end to the fighting, and I think Trump is starting to recognise how deeply America and Israel’s interests in all of this diverge,” Parsi told Al Jazeera.

Israeli officials have repeatedly signalled that their military operations against Iran are aimed at prompting wider regime change, a goal Trump appeared to endorse last week but has since disavowed.

On Tuesday, the Israeli military’s chief of staff, Eyal Zamir, issued a statement to the media confirming that Israel had “concluded a significant chapter, but the campaign against Iran is not over”.

That viewpoint may diverge from Trump’s, according to Parsi. Nevertheless, Parsi believes Trump has shown more willingness to tell Israel “no” than many of his presidential predecessors.

“But Trump has not been able to sustain that ‘no’ in an effective way,” Parsi added, pointing to the US president’s interventions in Israel’s war on Gaza.

“He pressured the Israelis into the ceasefire in Gaza, but then he relented and let Netanyahu get out of the ceasefire and never go to phase two of that agreement. If he wants to deal with Iran, he’s going to have to make sure he does not repeat that mistake.”

Still, Parsi noted that Trump has shown “a remarkable nimbleness” in his ability to commit – then withdraw – US military forces from foreign conflicts. Earlier this year, for instance, Trump entered into 45 days of air strikes against the Yemen-based Houthi armed group, but by May, he had unveiled a ceasefire.

Risk of a ‘quagmire’

For its part, Iran has been seen as eager to find an off-ramp to exit the conflict. Several analysts told Al Jazeera that Tehran would likely take pains to avoid any actions that could draw the US back into the fight.

The US and Iran had been in talks to scale back Tehran’s nuclear programme. But Israel’s initial surprise attack on June 13 had derailed the negotiations.

Negar Mortazavi, a non-resident fellow at the nonprofit Center for International Policy, said that Iran still remains open to returning to the negotiating table.

The country has long denied seeking a nuclear weapon and has instead framed its efforts as aimed at developing civilian energy infrastructure.

“Iran wants to have a civilian nuclear programme,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera. “And I think, if Trump accepts that, then there’s a very strong path and possibility for a deal.”

Trump, however, has been vague about what he may accept. He described the US attack on Sunday as the destruction of “all Nuclear facilities & capability” in Iran, in a series of statements that did not appear to distinguish between nuclear enrichment for civilian energy purposes or for weapons.

His statements were also at odds with a classified report leaked to US media, indicating that Iran’s nuclear programme was damaged but not obliterated – and could be rebuilt in a matter of months.

“IRAN WILL NEVER REBUILD THEIR NUCLEAR FACILITIES,” Trump wrote in one of the messages on Tuesday.

Still, Mortazavi believes Iran will likely have no choice but to return to negotiations, even if Trump again takes a maximalist position and opposes all uranium enrichment.

“They might be able to meet somewhere half way,” Mortazavi said of the US and Iran. She added that one possible compromise would be to have a “consortium” of regional countries that would monitor a civilian nuclear programme.

“The alternative, which is military conflict and war, is just going to be devastating for a lot more civilians”, she explained, “and could potentially turn into a quagmire like Iraq or Afghanistan”.

Sina Azodi, an assistant professor of Middle East politics at George Washington University, pointed out that Trump’s ceasefire announcement on Monday could hold clues about his approach to any renewed negotiations.

Trump started his statement by writing, “CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYONE!” Then, he ended the missive with, “God bless Israel, God bless Iran, God bless the Middle East, God bless the United States of America, and GOD BLESS THE WORLD!”

Azodi said that the message – which appeared to put Iran in the same standing as Israel – was unprecedented from a US president since the Iranian Revolution of 1979. He noted that Trump appeared to be setting a “conciliatory” tone.

That sentiment was also reflected on the economic front. On Tuesday, Trump said that China could continue to buy oil from Iran, despite US sanctions that would otherwise limit such trade.

That, too, was interpreted by many analysts as a goodwill offering to officials in Tehran, as Trump seeks a resolution to the conflict.

“Trump wants to be the one who used military force, showed strength, and then quickly brought an end to the conflict,” Azodi told Al Jazeera.

“He certainly does not want a broader conflict in the region, because then there’s a possibility that he would have to resort to more military intervention.”

Any further military involvement, analysts say, could inflame tensions within Trump’s base, as many of his “America First” followers oppose overseas military action.

Some have speculated that Trump’s strike-and-exit approach allowed him to split the difference, satisfying the war hawks in the Republican Party while mollifying those who disagree with foreign intervention.

“But it’s impossible to know what comes next, given his style,” Azodi said. “One day, he’s on a good side. One day, he’s belligerent and angry.”

Long-term success?

Whether Trump will continue his calls for peace after Sunday’s attack remains unclear.

The US president has been on the defensive, as journalists continue to question the effectiveness of the US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities like Fordow.

“That place is under rock. That place is demolished,” Trump told journalists on Tuesday.

He called on news outlets to apologise for casting doubt on the success of the mission. “It’s all fake news,” he said. “Those pilots hit their targets. Those targets were obliterated.”

Azodi noted that the US strikes appear to be less successful than the Trump administration has claimed. Evidence has surfaced that Iran relocated much of its uranium stockpile in the lead-up to the attack.

What is clear, Azodi said, is that the US violated international law in striking a facility under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

That could lead Iran to make good on its threat to withdraw from the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), freeing it from international obligations that would limit any weapons development.

“In the short term, yes, Trump can come and brag about [the US strikes] on Truth Social, saying that he ‘obliterated’ the Iranian nuclear programme,” Azodi said.

“But in the long term, you can’t bomb the knowledge. Iran’s fissile material appears to have survived. And now Iranians have a lot of motive for withdrawing from the NPT.”

That, he warned, would mean that “it would be impossible to monitor their nuclear programme”.

US President Donald Trump says that Sunday’s US air strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites have caused the “total obliteration” of its nuclear programme.

But the US Joint Chiefs of Staff says the final analysis is yet to come.

The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran insists the US attacks won’t affect its work – and that the nuclear material had already been removed.

So, what do we know about the US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities?

And if the strikes were effective, with the right technological know-how, could Iran easily rebuild?

Presenter: Imran Khan

Guests: 

Laura Rockwood – Senior fellow at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation

Roxane Farmanfarmaian – Director of Global Politics and International Studies at the University of Cambridge and senior associate fellow at the European Leadership Network

Imad Khadduri – Former nuclear scientist at the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission and author of the book Iraq’s Nuclear Mirage: Memoirs and Delusions

As United States President Donald Trump addressed the world on the strikes launched by his country’s military against three key Iranian nuclear sites in the early hours on Sunday, he thanked several people and institutions.

The US military, fighter pilots who dropped the bombs, and a general were among those on his list. So was one individual who is not American, and with whom Trump has had a topsy-turvy relationship: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Trump also said Netanyahu and he had worked like “perhaps no team has ever worked before”. Those laudatory comments represent a stark contrast from the far more crude language that Trump used for the Israeli leader just four years ago, and their public tension over Iran less than a month ago.

We track Trump’s often-love and sometimes-hate relationship with Netanyahu:

What did Trump say about Netanyahu?

In his televised address on Sunday, during the early morning hours in the Middle East, Trump thanked and congratulated Netanyahu. “I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu,” he said, referring to a name the Israeli PM is widely known by.

“We worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we’ve gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel,” Trump said, referring to Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“I want to thank the Israeli military for the wonderful job they’ve done,” Trump said, adding praise for the US forces.

Trump warned Iran to accept what he described as “peace” but what effectively amounts to the surrender of its nuclear programme, on US terms.

“If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier,” he said. Meanwhile, Israel remains the only country in the Middle East with a nuclear arsenal, though it has never officially acknowledged it.

The US strikes follow nine days of Israeli missile attacks against Iran, including on its nuclear facilities. Israel did not have the bombs needed to damage or destroy Iran’s most secretive nuclear site in Fordow, buried deep inside a mountain.  The US, using its bunker-buster bombs, hit Fordow as well as the facilities in Natanz and Isfahan on Sunday.

Trump’s decision to align himself with Netanyahu in bringing the US into the war with Iran has split his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) support base.

What did Netanyahu say about Trump?

After Trump announced the strikes and appreciated the Israeli leader, Netanyahu responded with warmer words than the ones the US president had used for him.

“President Trump, your bold decision to target Iran’s nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history,” Netanyahu said in a recorded video statement.

He further said, “In tonight’s action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, America has been truly unsurpassed. It has done what no other country on Earth could do.”

“History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world’s most dangerous regime the world’s most dangerous weapons,” said Netanyahu.

The chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has publicly said it does not believe that Iran was building a nuclear weapon, an assessment shared by US intelligence agencies, which also drew the same conclusion earlier this year.

However, Trump has in recent days said his hand-picked spy chief, Tulsi Gabbard, and the intelligence community’s assessment were “wrong”.

Trump’s “leadership today has created a pivot of history that can help lead the Middle East and beyond to a future of prosperity and peace”, Netanyahu said in this statement.

“President Trump and I often say: ‘Peace through strength’. First comes strength, then comes peace. And tonight, Donald Trump and the United States acted with a lot of strength,” concluded Netanyahu.

How were their ties during Trump’s first term?

Netanyahu enjoyed a close relationship with Trump during his first term in office from 2017 to 2021.

Trump recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved the US embassy there from Tel Aviv, a long-sought symbolic victory for Netanyahu that strengthened his image domestically. Trump appointed an ambassador who was ideologically aligned with Israel’s settler movement, David Friedman, in May 2017.

In March 2019, the US president also recognised Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights, becoming the only world leader to back Israel’s annexation of the region that is recognised internationally as a part of Syria.

In September 2020, Trump hosted the signing of the Abraham Accords, which led to normalisation of relations between Israel and four Arab states – Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, and Sudan.

Trump formally withdrew the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal — in May 2018, through a presidential proclamation that reinstated US sanctions against Iran.

This marked a major shift from the previous US policy of implementing the JCPOA in January 2016 to curb Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump declared the deal “defective at its core”, claiming it offered insufficient assurances and failed to address Iran’s missile programme and regional activities.

Why did Trump sour on Netanyahu?

In a December 2021 Axios interview with Israeli journalist Barak Ravid, Trump revealed that his relationship with Netanyahu deteriorated after the Israeli PM publicly congratulated incoming President Joe Biden on his 2020 election victory — a loss that Trump has refused to accept.

“The first person that congratulated [Biden] was Bibi Netanyahu, the man that I did more for than any other person I dealt with. Bibi could have stayed quiet. He has made a terrible mistake,” Trump said, referring to Netanyahu by his nickname. “And not only did he congratulate him, he did it on tape.”

“F*** him,” Trump said, expressing his anger.

How have their ties been since?

While the incoming Trump administration initially claimed to broker a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, with some observers noting that he may rein in the Israeli military campaign, it soon rallied behind Netanyahu’s continuing genocidal campaign against the Palestinian people.

In a joint news conference in February this year, Trump wildly proposed that the US should “take over” the Gaza Strip, redevelop it, and relocate Palestinians⁠ — a plan that Netanyahu publicly endorsed as “nothing wrong”.

Netanyahu also said he was “committed to US President Trump’s plan for the creation of a different Gaza”. Later that month, the US approved $2.5bn worth of arms sales to Israel, including bombs and drones.

In March, Israel resumed major air attacks in Gaza after negotiations over the release of captives collapsed. The White House confirmed that Israel had consulted Trump before the attacks.

On Iran, meanwhile, Trump’s position has seesawed from alignment with Netanyahu to his own distinct positions.

April 12-June 13, 2025: The US led back-channel nuclear negotiations with Iran, mediated by Oman.

May: Trump stated during his Gulf tour that the US was in “very serious negotiations” with Iran and “getting very close” to a nuclear deal, signalling openness to diplomacy. On May 28, Trump said he told Netanyahu to hold off on any strike against Iran to give his administration more time to push for a new nuclear deal. He told reporters at the White House that he relayed to Netanyahu a strike “would be inappropriate to do right now because we’re very close to a solution”.

June 11-12: The IAEA said Iran had not been transparent enough in its nuclear programme, and that elements of its approach were in violation of the country’s safeguards agreement with the United Nations nuclear watchdog. The US began evacuating its regional embassies. Tensions surged as Trump stated that diplomacy was stalling and hinted at serious consequences if no deal was reached.

June 13: Israel launched massive air strikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites, killing key nuclear scientists, scholars, and top military commanders.

In the initial US reaction to Israeli attacks on Iran, Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, called the strikes “unilateral” and said Washington was “not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region”.

The US-Iran talks over a nuclear deal were suspended. Trump admitted that he was aware of Israel’s plans to attack Iran.

June 19: Trump, after nearly a week of stalled talks and Israeli attacks, signalled support for Israel’s military campaign, though keeping a diplomatic track open for talks with Tehran.

June 20: The US president set a two-week ultimatum for Iran to negotiate the nuclear deal.

June 21: Trump ordered US air strikes on Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear facilities, coordinating with Israel. He declared them “completely obliterated”.

US lawmakers and American citizens have condemned what they call President Donald Trump’s ‘unconstitutional’ decision to bomb Iran without Congressional approval. Many criticised the US military intervention as a betrayal of Trump’s ‘America First’ platform that got him re-elected.

Tensions soar at UN as Iran, allies condemn US military action, while US, Israel reject censure.

The United Nations Security Council has convened an emergency session following US-led strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, prompting sharp rebukes from several member states and renewed calls for a ceasefire in the Middle East, as allies Israel and the US lauded the attack.

Russia, China and Pakistan have proposed a resolution demanding an “immediate and unconditional ceasefire”, according to diplomats familiar with the draft circulated on Sunday. While the proposal does not explicitly name the United States or Israel, it condemns the attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. A vote has not yet been scheduled.

To pass, the resolution requires the backing of at least nine members and no vetoes from the five permanent members — the US, UK, France, Russia and China, which makes it a non-starter since the US will not censure itself.

Speaking to the Council, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned the region stood “on the brink of a deadly downward spiral.”

“The bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States marks a perilous turn in a region that is already reeling,” Guterres said. “We now risk descending into a rathole of retaliation after retaliation. We must act – immediately and decisively – to halt the fighting and return to serious, sustained negotiations on the Iran nuclear programme.”

Acting US ambassador Dorothy Shea defended the military action, stating that Washington had moved to dismantle Iran’s enrichment capacity in order to protect both its citizens and allies.

“The time finally came for the United States, in defence of its ally and our own interests, to act decisively,” Shea told the chamber. “Iran should not escalate… any Iranian attack, direct or indirect, against Americans or American bases will be met with devastating retaliation.”

Iran’s Ambassador Ali Bahreini said the Israeli and US attacks on Iran did not come about “in a vacuum”, adding that they are the result of “politically motivated actions” of the US and its European partners.

He said the US “decided to destroy diplomacy” and pointedly made it clear that the Iranian military will decide on the  “timing, nature and scale” of its response.

Meanwhile, Israel’s UN envoy Danny Danon said the attacks had made the world “a safer place”, rejecting calls for condemnation. “That’s for the Iranian people to decide, not for us,” he said when asked whether Israel supported regime change in Tehran

China’s ambassador Fu Cong condemned the US strikes and urged restraint. “We call for an immediate ceasefire,” he said. “China is deeply concerned about the risk of the situation getting out of control.”

Russia’s UN envoy Vasily Nebenzya described the attacks as yet another sign of Washington’s disregard for global norms. “The US has opened a Pandora’s box,” he said. “No one knows what catastrophe or suffering will follow.”

Pakistan’s ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad also condemned the US bombing, calling it deeply troubling. “The sharp rise in tensions and violence as a result of Israeli aggression and unlawful actions is profoundly disturbing,” he said. “Pakistan stands in solidarity with the government and brotherly people of Iran during this challenging time.” This came the day after Pakistan suggested US President Donald Trump be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Trump’s announcement that American forces had “obliterated” Iran’s key nuclear sites marked the most significant Western military action against Tehran since the 1979 revolution.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, told the Council that while the scale of underground damage remains unclear, impact craters were visible at the Fordow enrichment site. The entrances to tunnels at Isfahan appeared to have been struck, while Natanz — long a target of Israeli sabotage — had been hit again.

Iran has castigated Grossi for being complicit in paving the way for Israel and the US to attack it.

The United Nations nuclear watchdog’s Board of Governors approved a resolution declaring Iran was not complying with its commitment to international nuclear safeguards the day before Israel launched its initial attack on June 13.

The United States struck three key nuclear sites in Iran early on Sunday, injecting itself into Israel’s war with Iran in a sophisticated mission and prompting fears of military escalation in the Middle East amid Israel’s brutal onslaught of Gaza.

In a televised address early on Sunday, US President Donald Trump justified the strikes, saying they were aimed at stopping “the nuclear threat” posed by Iran. Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow sites, which are involved in the production or storage of enriched uranium, were targeted.

“Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,” he said, warning Tehran against retaliation.

Israel and Trump claim that Iran can use the enriched uranium to make atomic warheads. But Iran insists its nuclear programme is solely for civilian purposes. The United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has also rejected Israeli claims that Iran was on the verge of making nuclear weapons.

Condemning the strikes, which US officials said were covertly coordinated, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that the time for diplomacy had passed and that his country had the right to defend itself.

“The warmongering, a lawless administration in Washington, is solely and fully responsible for the dangerous consequences and far-reaching implications of its act of aggression,” he said at a news conference in Istanbul, Turkiye.

Iranian officials, meanwhile, have not detailed the extent of the damage and have attempted to downplay the significance of the hits. Speaking on state TV, Hassan Abedini, the deputy political director of Iran’s state broadcaster, said the three nuclear sites had been evacuated “a while ago” and that they “didn’t suffer a major blow because the materials had already been taken out”.

Here’s what to know about the nuclear plants hit and what the attacks mean for Iran:

Which facilities were hit?

Trump on Sunday said a full “payload” of bombs “obliterated” Iran’s Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear sites. Iranian officials, according to the Reuters news agency, also confirmed that the three facilities were hit.

1. Fordow is an underground enrichment facility in operation since 2006. Built deep inside the mountains some 48km (30 miles) from the Iranian city of Qom, north of Tehran, the site enjoys natural cover. The primary focus of Sunday’s strikes, Fordow was hit with Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOPs) or “bunker-buster” bombs delivered from B-2 stealth bomber planes, US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Dan Caine said in a briefing on Sunday. The 13,000kg (28,700lb) GBU-57 MOP is the most powerful bunker-buster bomb, able to penetrate 60m (200 feet) below ground and delivering up to 2,400kg (5,300lb) of explosives, while the bombers are hard to detect. Caine added that 14 MOPs were delivered to at least two nuclear sites. Israel had earlier attacked Fordow on June 13, causing surface damage, but security analysts believe only US bunker busters can penetrate the facility. An independent assessment of the scale of the damage is not yet available.
2. Natanz is considered the largest nuclear enrichment facility in Iran, located about 300km (186 miles) south of Tehran. It is believed to consist of two facilities. One is the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP), which is a test and research facility located above ground and used to assemble centrifuges, rapidly rotating machines used for uranium enrichment. According to the non-profit Nuclear Threat Initiative, the facility had close to a thousand centrifuges. The other facility, located deep beneath the ground, is the Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP). Caine did not specify what weapons hit Natanz on said on Sunday.
3. Isfahan is an atomic research facility located in the central city of Isfahan. It was built in the 1970s and was used for uranium conversion. It was the last location hit before the US bombing mission, which involved about 125 aircraft, withdrew from the Iranian airspace, according to officials. Caine said “more than two dozen” Tomahawk missiles were fired at Isfahan from US submarines. said the Iranians did not detect the mission and were notified afterwards.

Are the sites destroyed?

Independent impact assessment of the US strikes at Fordow remains unclear.

Defence Secretary Hegseth on Sunday said the US’s “initial assessment is that all our precision munitions struck where we wanted them to strike and achieved the desired effect”, citing particular damage at Fordow.

An Iranian lawmaker told Al Jazeera that the site suffered superficial damage. Israeli strikes on the plant last week only caused “limited, if any, damage” at the underground plant, according to IAEA boss Rafael Grossi.

The extent of damage at Natanz is also unclear following Sunday’s strike. Earlier Israeli attacks “completely destroyed” the above-ground plant, and caused centrifuges in the underground parts of the uranium plant to be “severely damaged if not destroyed altogether”, even though it was not directly hit, Grossi told reporters last week.

Meanwhile, the IAEA said on Sunday that six buildings at Isfahan suffered damage following the US attacks, including a workshop handling contaminated equipment. Earlier Israeli strikes had damaged four buildings on the site, the agency had reported, including the plant’s central chemical laboratory.

Initial reports from Iran and neighbouring Gulf countries such as Kuwait further indicate that there is no significant leakage of radioactive material from any of the plants. That could suggest that Iranian officials might have moved the stockpiles of enriched uranium out of the facilities targeted by the US, analysts say.

According to the IRNA news agency, Reza Kardan, the deputy director of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran and the head of the National Nuclear Safety System Center in the country, confirmed on Sunday that “no radiation contamination or nuclear radiation has been observed outside” the sites.

“Preliminary plans had been made and measures had been taken to protect the safety and health of the dear people of the country, and despite the criminal actions this morning in attacking nuclear facilities, due to the previously planned measures and the measures taken, no radiation contamination or nuclear radiation has been observed outside these sites and facilities,” Kardan said.

The IAEA also said the radiation levels near targeted sites had not increased.

“Following attacks on three nuclear sites in Iran – including Fordow – the IAEA can confirm that no increase in off-site radiation levels has been reported as of this time,” the agency said in a social media post on Sunday.

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, says it is likely Iran had taken precautionary actions ahead of the US attacks.

“It appears that they already had gotten an advanced warning,” he told Al Jazeera.

“They understood that he [Trump] was buying time while moving military assets in order to actually strike. So, I think for some time they have moved those assets – where they are is unclear at this point.”

Will this derail Iran’s nuclear efforts?

The impact of the strikes on Iran’s overall nuclear programme is yet unknown.

However, analysts say there was no clear evidence that Iran had advanced so far as to be able to reach weaponisation in its nuclear programme in the first place.

Parsi said Iran’s most valuable nuclear asset is its stockpile of enriched uranium.

“As long as they continue to have that, they still actually have very much a nuclear programme that still could be weaponised,” he added.

“And I think we are going to start to hear from the Israelis in rather short order, that this was not the type of successful strike Trump has claimed, but they are going to start making the case that there needs to be a more ongoing bombing campaign against Iran.”

Has Iran’s nuclear programme suffered setbacks before?

• Yes. Iran’s nuclear ambitions started back in the 1950s under the leadership of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a close ally of the US and Israel. The shah’s original vision was to build Iran’s nuclear capacities for both energy generation and, to a lesser extent, weapons manufacturing. The US, Germany, and France all supported the country with aid and technology. However, following the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the new government, under leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, halted or paused parts of the programme, arguing that it was expensive and that it represented Iran’s continued reliance on Western technology.
• Shelved or cancelled programmes further took a hit during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) when the country was forced to divert resources to the war effort after Iraq’s invasion. Its Bushehr nuclear reactor site, which was under construction as part of a partnership with the industrial manufacturing giant Siemens, was bombed severely by Iraq and was left in near-total damage. Siemens eventually withdrew from the project. The government would later on reportedly restart the nuclear programme, although Iranian leadership has always insisted it is pursuing nuclear power for civilian use.
• Stuxnet – a computer virus developed by Israel and the US, likely launched back in 2005 but discovered in 2010 – caused extensive damage to Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The programme, nicknamed Operation Olympic Games, compromised the Iranian network and caused centrifuges to tear themselves apart. It reportedly expanded rapidly under former US President Barack Obama, but began during the administration of US President George W Bush.
• Under the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (officially known as Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA), the country was forced to limit its enrichment capabilities in exchange for sanctions relief. The deal, signed between Iran, China, Russia, the US, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the European Union, capped enrichment at 3.67 percent. Sanctions, some of them in place since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, were gradually removed. Tehran complied with the terms of the deal, according to the (IAEA). It also agreed to allow the IAEA regular monitoring access. However, Trump pulled out of the agreement during his first term as US president in 2018, and slapped on sanctions as part of a “maximum pressure” campaign, forcing Tehran to also discard the terms though it continued to cooperate with the IAEA.

It seems like just yesterday that United States President Donald Trump was pushing a “diplomatic resolution” to the Iranian nuclear issue.

Now, the US has joined Israel’s illegal assault on Iran, striking three Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday in what Trump has boasted was a “very successful attack”.

As CNN dramatically put it, “a midsummer night in June 2025 could come to be remembered as the moment the Middle East changed forever; when the fear of nuclear annihilation was lifted from Israel; when Iran’s power was neutered and America’s soared”.

Of course, a “fear of nuclear annihilation” has nothing to do with Israel’s current strikes on Iran, which have been dutifully portrayed in the US media as targeting military and nuclear facilities but have somehow managed to slaughter hundreds of civilians. The victims include 23-year-old poet Parnia Abbasi, killed along with her family as they slept in their Tehran apartment building.

As is clear as day to anyone not in the business of defending Israeli depredations, the attacks on Iran are simply a war of convenience for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is killing all sorts of birds with one stone in his campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities.

In addition to distracting the world from Israel’s ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip, where starving Palestinians continue to be massacred on a daily basis as they seek food and other aid, Netanyahu has also managed to divert attention from his own embroilment in numerous corruption charges at home.

Plus, the war on Iran is wildly popular among Israelis, which translates into big points for a prime minister who has faced significant domestic opposition.

Trump’s initial insistence on diplomacy with Iran naturally got Netanyahu’s panties into a giant bunch – but the situation has now been rectified by the midsummer night’s bombing, which, according to the president, has “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear sites.

To be sure, Iran has long occupied US crosshairs, with many an establishment figure salivating at the prospect of bombing the country to smithereens. Some have salivated more openly than others, as in the case of John Bolton – a former US ambassador to the United Nations and briefly the national security adviser in the first Trump administration – who in 2015 took to the opinion pages of The New York Times with the following advice: “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.”

That the editors of the US newspaper of record did not bat an eye in publishing such a blatant call for the violation of international law is indicative of the extent to which Iran has been thoroughly demonised in US society and media. Recall that in 2002, then-US President George W Bush appointed the nation to his infamous “axis of evil” along with Iraq and North Korea.

And yet, aside from being a persistent thorn in the side of US imperialism, Iran’s behaviour has been rather less apparently, um, “evil” than certain other international actors – like the US itself. For instance, Iran is not the one currently funding a straight-up genocide to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.

Nor is Iran the one that has spent the past several decades bombing and otherwise antagonising folks in every corner of the world – from backing right-wing state terror in Latin America to conducting mass slaughter in Vietnam.

Furthermore, the sole clandestine nuclear weapons power in the Middle East is not Iran but Israel, which has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has never allowed UN safeguards on its facilities.

Those who applaud the strikes on Iran citing the “oppressive” nature of the Iranian government would, meanwhile, do well to revisit the US track record of fuelling oppression in the country. In 1953, the CIA orchestrated a coup d’etat against Iran’s democratically elected leader, Mohammad Mossadegh, which paved the way for the extended reign of the torture-happy shah.

Historian Ervand Abrahamian notes in his book A History of Modern Iran: “Arms dealers joked that the shah devoured their manuals in much the same way as other men read Playboy.” Indeed, the shah’s obsessive acquisition of US weaponry did much to enable his rule by terror, which was put to an end by the Iranian Revolution of 1979. And the Iranian nuclear programme that Trump has now bombed? It was started by that very same shah.

Now, arms dealers are presumably not too upset over the midsummer night’s events and the general escalation of the crisis in the Middle East. For his part, Netanyahu has gone out of his way to thank Trump for his “bold decision” to go after Iran “with the awesome and righteous might of the United States”.

In Netanyahu’s words, Trump’s action will “change history” – as though making the world safe for more war is anything new. And as the US media scramble to justify illegal attacks on a sovereign nation, the sinister hypocrisy of two heavily nuclear-armed nations undertaking to police nuclear “threats” cannot be overstated.

It is anyone’s guess what Trump, who prides himself on spontaneous and manic behaviour, will do next. But rest assured that, whatever happens, the arms industry won’t be going hungry any time soon.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

United States President Donald Trump has announced the bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites, as Washington effectively joined Israel’s war against Iran.

“We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. All planes are now outside of Iran air space,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, using a different spelling for Isfahan.

In a televised address early on Sunday, he said “the strikes were a spectacular military success”.

The US decision to intervene militarily to aid the Israeli attacks on Iran has prompted fears of a serious escalation across the Middle East and brought back memories of the devastation in Iraq following the 2003 US invasion. Israel launched unprecedented attacks on Iran on June 13, targeting its nuclear sites and top military commanders.

More than 400 people have been killed in Israeli attacks in Iran, while retaliatory strikes by Tehran have killed at least 24 people in Israel.

Here is what we know so far about the US attacks on Iran:

What areas has the US bombed in Iran?

The US used bunker-buster bombs to target three key nuclear facilities – Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan – using the B2 bomber jets, according to US media reports.

“The strikes were a spectacular military success,” Trump said in his televised address. “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,” he said, adding that “our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity”.

Al Jazeera could not immediately verify Trump’s claims independently.

Here’s what we know about the three nuclear sites:

Fordow, a highly fortified underground uranium enrichment facility, is reportedly buried hundreds of metres deep in the mountains near Qom, in northwestern Iran. This site is designed to hold up to 2,976 spinning centrifuges, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Natanz is Iran’s largest enrichment complex, containing vast halls of centrifuges, some underground. It has been a key hub of Iran’s nuclear programme and the site of multiple past sabotage attempts – and was hit by Israeli strikes on the first wave of attacks on June 13.

Isfahan is an important nuclear research and production centre that includes a uranium conversion facility and fuel fabrication plants. It plays a critical role in preparing raw materials for enrichment and reactor use.

For years, Israel and the US have accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons but Iran maintains its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes.

IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has also rejected claims that Tehran was on the verge of making atomic bombs, though the United Nations nuclear watchdog has expressed concerns against Iran’s decision to enrich uranium at up to 60 percent purity.

Tehran stepped up enrichment after Trump walked out of the landmark 2015 nuclear deal – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – in 2018 that had capped Iran’s nuclear activity.

What weapons did the US use in Iran?

Trump announced “massive precision strikes” but shared no specific details about the weapons used in the attack. However, US media reports suggested the US army dropped “bunker buster” bombs and navy submarines fired multiple cruise missiles.

The GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) is the most powerful bunker buster bomb in the US military arsenal, weighing nearly 13,000kg (30,000 pounds). Bunker buster bombs can penetrate about 18 metres (59 feet) of concrete or 61 metres (200 feet) of earth, which a conventional bomb cannot reach.

The B-2 Spirit, a US stealth bomber, is currently the only aircraft designed to deploy the GBU-57 and can carry two bunker buster bombs at a time, which the air force says can drop multiple bombs sequentially, allowing each strike to burrow deeper.

The US intervention is seen as critical at this point for the Israeli campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities, especially Fordow, due to its depth. Israeli attacks had failed to destroy the site.

While nearly half a dozen B-2 bombers reportedly dropped a dozen 13,000kg bunker buster bombs on the Fordow site, navy submarines are said to have coordinated strikes by cruise missiles at the Natanz and Isfahan sites, according to media reports.

This also marks the first time that the US used MOPs in combat.

What was the impact of US strikes?

Trump claimed “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated”.

Yet there is no independent verification yet of the extent of damage at the nuclear facilities.

Mehdi Mohammadi, an adviser to the chairman of the Iranian parliament, claimed that the US attack was not surprising and that Iranian authorities had evacuated the Fordow facility in advance.

“Iran has been expecting strikes on Fordow for several days. This nuclear facility was evacuated, no irreversible damage was sustained during today’s attack,” Mohammadi said in a statement posted on X.

Confirming the attacks on Sunday, Iran’s nuclear agency said the radiation system data and field surveys do not show signs of contamination or danger to residents near the sites.

“Following the illegal US attack on the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear sites, field surveys and radiation systems data showed: No contamination recorded,” the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) said in a social media post. “There is no danger to residents around these sites. Safety is in a stable state.”

After the US bombing of its key nuclear facilities, the agency insisted that its work would not be stopped.

“The [agency] assures the great Iranian nation that despite the evil conspiracies of its enemies, with the efforts of thousands of its revolutionary and motivated scientists and experts, it will not allow the development of this national industry, which is the result of the blood of nuclear martyrs, to be stopped,” AEOI said in a statement.

The IAEA also did not find an increase in radiation levels near the targeted sites.

“Following attacks on three nuclear sites in Iran – including Fordow – the IAEA can confirm that no increase in off-site radiation levels has been reported as of this time,” the agency said in a social media post on Sunday.

“IAEA will provide further assessments on situation in Iran as more information becomes available.”

Grossi said the IAEA will hold an emergency meeting on Monday in the wake of the attacks.

What has Iran said?

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the US “has committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the NPT by attacking Iran’s peaceful nuclear installations”.

Tehran has already threatened to walk away from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and promoting peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

“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,” said Araghchi in a statement posted on X.

“In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interests, and people,” he added.

Last week, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had warned the US against joining Israeli attacks on Iran. He said it would “result in irreparable consequences” for the US.

In his first televised address since Israel began its attacks on June 13, Khamenei said Iran “will not surrender to anyone” and “will stand firm against an imposed war, just as it will stand firm against an imposed peace”.

How will Iran retaliate against the US?

Condemning the US attacks, Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Sunday it had the right to resist such “aggression”.

“The world must not forget that it was the United States that, in the midst of a diplomatic process, betrayed diplomacy” by supporting Israel’s “aggressive action”, and is now waging “a dangerous war against Iran”, the ministry said in a statement carried by the semi-official Tasnim news agency.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran considers it its right to stand with all its might against US military aggression and the crimes committed by this rogue regime, and to defend the security and national interests of Iran,” it added.

Antonio Guterres, the UN chief, said he was gravely alarmed by the US attacks on Iran.

“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,” Guterres said.

Speaking at a news conference on Sunday, the Iranian foreign minister said the time for diplomacy had passed and that his country had the right to defend itself.

“The warmongering, a lawless administration in Washington is solely and fully responsible for the dangerous consequences and far reaching implications of its act of aggression,” he said.

Stephen Zunes, the director of Middle Eastern studies at the University of San Francisco, laid out several options available to Iran in response to the US attacks unfolding. “They can attack US forces directly. There are up to 40,000 Americans within the range, not just of Iranian missiles but of drones and other weaponry,” he said.

“You have the fleet in the Persian Gulf, just off the Iranian coast. They can be vulnerable as well if they attack,” Zunes said, using another name for the Gulf, which is also referred to as the Arabian Gulf. “It could impact global shipping, impacting oil prices and indeed the entire global economy.”

Zunes also pointed towards the “proxy militias in Iraq who could target American bases there”, adding that he would be “surprised if the Iranians don’t target at least some of these”.

On Sunday, Iran deployed one of its most advanced missiles, the Kheibar Shekan, as it carried out attacks on Israel.

Iran might also move towards withdrawing from the NPT. Abbas Golroo, the parliament foreign policy committee head, said Tehran has the legal right to withdraw from the NPT following the US attacks.

Article 10 states that an NPT member has “the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country”.

Adam Weinstein, the deputy director of the Middle East programme at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said the US is now at risk of getting dragged into a prolonged war in the Middle East.

He noted that Iran has already indicated that it intends to continue with its nuclear programme.

“They’ll do it more secretly. They might exit the NPT, and, of course, the Israelis will say, ‘Well, this is why we need even more strikes.’ And there’s likely to be some sort of retaliation by the Iranians, or else the very legitimacy of their regime would be in question,” Weinstein said.

“And so this is how the escalation cycle starts. And so I’m very sceptical that it will be a one-off strike by the US. I think the US is at risk of being pulled into a war of choice with Iran that, unfortunately, it started.”

Trump, meanwhile, also issued more threats against Iran.

“Any retaliation by Iran against the United States of America will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight,” he said on social media, after the attacks against Iran.