Head of nuclear agency concedes he ‘doesn't know' whether Iran's nuclear material remains intact

News.com.au

12 hours ago

The head of the international agency responsible for monitoring Iran's nuclear development has made a troubling admission, conceding he 'doesn't know' whether the country managed to move its stockpile of enriched uranium to safety before the American strikes.
Rafael Grossi is Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Today he spoke to Face the Nation, a current affairs program on CBS News in the United States.
'People here are looking for clarity, and there's confusion,' host Margaret Brennan said.
'The Defence Intelligence Agency assesses that Iran's program was set back by a few months, but once they dig out they could resume in a number of months.
'The CIA and the Director of National Intelligence (Trump appointee Tusli Gabbard) say the facilities were destroyed and it would take years to rebuild.
'Israel says the military program is set back by many years.
'What's the truth here? What do you make of these assessments?'
Ms Brennan could have also cited President Donald Trump himself, who claimed in the immediate aftermath of the strikes that Iran's nuclear sites had been 'obliterated'. Or Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who said 'Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated'. Or White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who said the strikes 'took away Iran's ability to create a nuclear bomb'.
'You know what? This hourglass approach, with weapons of mass destruction, is not a good idea,' Mr Grossi said.
'All of that depends on your metrics. If you tell me it will take them two months or three months – for what?
'The capacities they have are there. They can have, in a matter of months I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium. Or less than that.
'But frankly, one cannot say that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there. Because first of all, it is clear that there has been severe damage, but it is not total damage. But Iran has the capacities there, industrial and technological capacities.
'If they wish, they will be able to start doing this again.'
He did concede that Iran's 'protective measures' ahead of the American strikes could have included the 'movement of materials', as suggested by a series of satellite images from the days beforehand, which showed trucks leaving the Fordow nuclear facility.
'We don't know. We saw the same images that the whole world has seen,' Mr Grossi said, referring to those satellite images.
The fear, here, is that Iran managed to move its stores of highly enriched uranium to safety.
Ms Brennan noted that Iran possessed 'just under 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium' before Israel and the United States launched their attacks.
'Do you have any idea where that was moved, and if it was moved before the attack?' Ms Brennan asked.
'We presume, and I think it's logical to presume, that when they announced they were going to be taking protective measures, this could be part of it,' said Mr Grossi.
'But we don't know where this material could be, or whether part of it could have been under attack during those 12 days.
'Some could have been destroyed as part of the attack, but some could have been moved.
'There has to be, at some point, a verification. If we don't get that verification, this will continue to hang over our heads as a problem.'
Ms Brennan said she was probing at the 'open question' of whether Iran 'could sprint towards a bomb'.
'If we don't know where the highly enriched uranium is, and cannot account for all the centrifuges, is that still a risk?' she asked.
'We don't want to be alarmist here, and I don't want to be part of a messaging that would be spreading alarm,' said Mr Grossi.
'But we need to be in a position to confirm what is there, and where is it, and what happened. Iran had a very vast, ambitious program. Part of it may still be there. And if not, there is also the self-evident truth that the knowledge is there. The industrial capacity is there. Iran is a very sophisticated country, in terms of nuclear technology.
'You can't disinvent this.'
He stressed that 'we are not going to solve this in a definitive way militarily'.
'You are going to (have to have) an agreement, and an inspection system,' he said.
Mr Grossi's point, repeated throughout the interview, was that Iran likely retains the capacity to develop nuclear weapons, despite the damage caused by America's attack.
'There is an agreement in describing this as a very serious level of damage. It can be described in different ways, but at facilities where Iran used to have capabilities in treatment and enrichment of uranium, (that has) been destroyed to an important degree. Some is still standing,' he said.
'So there is, of course, an important setback in terms of those capabilities. This is clear. Now the important issue is, what are the next steps?
'I think we have a snapshot of a program that has been very seriously damaged, and now what we need to focus on is the next steps.'
He said he 'wholeheartedly' supports Trump envoy Steve Witkoff's attempts to reach a negotiated deal with Iran, but 'it's not going to be easy' in the aftermath of the strikes.
Ms Brennan pointed out that Iran's parliament just passed a law saying it would not be co-operating with the IAEA, and the country's Foreign Minister had specifically said Mr Grossi would be barred from entering the country.
'This is why it's so important that we sit down around the table,' said Mr Grossi.
'Iran is party to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. That implies that they need to work with the agency.
'So we have been going through this law they approved, and we see that they are talking about co-operation on the basis of the security and the safety of their sites. I think that is not incompatible with the inspection work that needs to take place.
'At the end of the day, this whole thing, will have to have a long-term solution.'
Pressed on whether Iran was kicking out IAEA inspectors, Mr Grossi hinted the answer was no, though he did not say as much directly.
'An international treaty takes precedence. You cannot invoke an internal law to not abide with an international law,' he said.
'I think we have to go down into the details, because the work will have to continue. Otherwise nobody will have an idea of what is happening in Iran. Iran will continue with a nuclear program, the contours of which are yet to be seen.'