Israel is targeting Iran's nuclear uranium enrichment plants. Here are the contamination risks
Israel has been targeting Iran from the air since last Friday in what it has described as an effort to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), five nuclear facilities have been struck, sparking fears the air strikes could raise health risks across the region.
Here's what damage has been caused so far and the safety risks of attacking nuclear sites.
Several military and nuclear sites in Iran.
Israel says the attacks are to block Iran from developing atomic weapons.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the operations were to "strike the head of Iran's nuclear weaponization program".
Iran denies ever having pursued a plan to build nuclear weapons and is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
It says the nuclear sites it does have are for peaceful purposes.
If Israel continues attacking Iran until it removes the country's nuclear capability, destroying the Fordow enrichment plant is central to its plan.
While another important facility, Natanz, has been hit, the Fordow site would be much harder to target.
This is because it's located inside a mountain, 90-metres underground and can only be reached by American "bunker-buster" bombs, which Israel does not possess.
Because Israel believes Iran is enriching uranium to levels that could allow it to build a nuclear weapon, despite the Islamic Republic's claims its nuclear work is for "peaceful purposes".
Enriched uranium, specifically uranium-235, is an essential component in many nuclear weapons.
"When you dig uranium out of the ground, 99.3 per cent of it is uranium-238, and 0.7 per cent of it is uranium-235," Kaitlin Cook says, a nuclear physicist at the Australian National University.
"The numbers 238 and 235 relate to its weight — uranium-235 is slightly lighter than uranium-238."
To enrich uranium, basically means increasing the proportion of uranium-235, while removing the uranium-238.
This is typically done with a centrifuge, a kind of "scientific salad spinner" which rotates uranium thousands of times a minute, separating the lighter uranium-235 from the base uranium.
For civilian nuclear power, Dr Cook says uranium-235 is usually enriched to about 3 to 5 per cent.
But once uranium is enriched to 90 per cent, it is deemed weapons-grade.
According to the IAEA, Iran's uranium has reached about 60 per cent enrichment, well on its way to being concentrated enough for a nuclear weapon.
Dr Cook says the process for enriching uranium from 60 per cent to weapons-grade is much easier than it is to get to the initial 60 per cent. That's because there's less uranium-238 to get rid of.
According to the US Institute for Science and International Security, "Iran can convert its current stock of 60 per cent enriched uranium into 233kg of weapon-grade uranium in three weeks at the Fordow plant", which it said would be enough for nine nuclear weapons.
In the hours after Israel attacked Iran last Friday, Netanyahu said Iran was just days away from being able to build nuclear weapons.
In a White House briefing, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Iran has all it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon.
"It would take a couple of weeks to complete the production of that weapon, which would, of course, pose an existential threat not just to Israel, but to the United States and to the entire world."
But there has been some back and forth between US authorities on whether Iran was really that close to producing nuclear weapons.
In March, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told members of Congress that Iran was not moving towards building nuclear weapons.
"The IC [intelligence community] continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons programme he suspended in 2003," she said.
On Air Force One on Monday night, after hastily leaving the G7 summit, President Donald Trump offered a direct contradiction to Ms Gabbard's claims.
"I don't care what she said," Mr Trump said.
"I think they were very close to having it."
The IAEA said Israel had directly hit the underground enrichment halls at the Natanz facility, leaving them "severely damaged, if not destroyed all together".
According to the IAEA, the Natanz site was one of the facilities at which Iran was producing uranium enriched up to 60 per cent U-235.
After the attack, the IAEA found radioactive contamination at the site, but it said the levels of radioactivity outside remained unchanged and at normal levels.
Israel Defense Forces spokesperson Effie Defrin said: "We've struck deep, hitting Iran's nuclear, ballistic and command capabilities."
A nuclear complex at Isfahan and centrifuge production facilities in Karaj and Tehran were also damaged.
Israel said on Wednesday it had targeted Arak, also known as Khondab, the location of a partially built heavy-water research reactor.
The IAEA said it had information that the heavy-water reactor had been hit, but that it was not operating and reported no radiological effects.
Experts say attacks on enrichment facilities are mainly a "chemical problem", not radiological.
Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at London think tank RUSI, says the main concern from destroying an enrichment plant is releasing the harmful uranium hexafluoride gas — highly corrosive and toxic — that's contained in centrifuges.
"When UF6 interacts with water vapour in the air, it produces harmful chemicals," Ms Dolzikova said.
The extent to which any material is dispersed would depend on factors including weather conditions, she added.
"In low winds, much of the material can be expected to settle in the vicinity of the facility; in high winds, the material will travel farther, but is also likely to disperse more widely."
Peter Bryant, a professor at the University of Liverpool who specialises in radiation protection science and nuclear energy policy, says nuclear facilities are designed to prevent the release of radioactive materials into the environment.
"Uranium is only dangerous if it gets physically inhaled or ingested or gets into the body at low enrichments," Professor Bryant said.
While there so far has been no major radiological incidents as a result of the attacks, IAEA director-general Rafael Mariano Grossi stressed the possible nuclear safety and security risks.
"There is a lot of nuclear material in Iran in different places, which means that the potential for a radiological accident with the dispersion in the atmosphere of radioactive materials and particles does exist," he said.
In a post on X, World Health Organization chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus also voiced his concern about the potential "immediate and long-term impacts on the environment and health of people in Iran and across the region".
Well that's a different story.
A strike on Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr could cause an "absolute radiological catastrophe", says James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
While most reactor vessels are protected by steel and concrete containment structures, Dr Cook says the surrounding infrastructure, like spent fuel pools and cooling equipment, would "definitely be a concern" if targeted.
For Gulf states, the impact of any strike on Bushehr would be worsened by the potential contamination of Gulf waters, jeopardising a critical source of desalinated potable water.
In the UAE, desalinated water accounts for more than 80 per cent of drinking water.
While Bahrain and Qatar are fully reliant on desalinated water.
"If a natural disaster, oil spill, or even a targeted attack were to disrupt a desalination plant, hundreds of thousands could lose access to freshwater almost instantly," said Nidal Hilal, professor of engineering and director of New York University Abu Dhabi's Water Research Center.
"Coastal desalination plants are especially vulnerable to regional hazards like oil spills and potential nuclear contamination," he said.
On Thursday, an Israeli military spokesperson said the military has struck the Bushehr nuclear site in Iran.
However, an Israeli military official later said that comment "was a mistake".
The official would only confirm that Israel had hit the Natanz, Isfahan, and Arak nuclear sites in Iran.
Pressed further on Bushehr, the official said he could neither confirm or deny that Israel had struck the location.
Bushehr is Iran's only operating nuclear power plant, which sits on the Gulf coast, and uses Russian fuel that Russia then takes back when it is spent to reduce proliferation risk.
Heavy water is H20 made up of hydrogen-2 instead of hydrogen-1.
Dr Cook says it's a little heavier than normal water.
"When you use heavy water, you can run your reactor on non-enriched uranium, avoiding the expense of enriching it in the first place, though the water does cost more.
"But the problem is that heavy-water reactors can also be used to produce plutonium, which can be used in nuclear weapons."
Israel's military said its fighter jets targeted the Arak facility and its reactor core seal to halt it from being used to produce plutonium.
"The strike targeted the component intended for plutonium production, in order to prevent the reactor from being restored and used for nuclear weapons development."
India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed states, have heavy-water reactors.
So does Israel, but it has never acknowledged having atomic weapons but is widely believed to have them.
ABC with wires
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Time to obliterate the off ramp for language's sake
This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to Truth might be the first casualty in war but language falls soon after. For 12 long days we were assailed with an unfamiliar and ugly term, which spread faster than COVID's Omicron strain. As the world held its breath over the Israel-Iran missile exchange, "diplomatic off-ramp" became the jargon du jour. It was trotted out by experts and repeated ad nauseam by journalists. For some reason, it made my teeth hurt every time I heard it. What was wrong with, say, "peaceful compromise", "diplomatic solution" or "exit strategy"? In the language of diplomacy, off-ramp means finding a way out without losing face. "Obliterated" grabbed all the attention after the US dropped its big bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities. When I first heard it uttered by Donald Trump, like many others I thought, "Hang on. How do you know?" Curious, I poked my nose into the dictionary to see what the word actually meant. "To remove all signs of something, either by destroying or covering it completely," the Oxford Dictionary told me. Fordo was out of sight before it was bombed. What it looks like after the strike is anyone's guess. Yet here we were, days later, arguing the toss over President Trump's hyperbolic language. Weekend Fox News anchor turned Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth didn't help matters when defending Trump's imprecise language by saying the facility at Fordo has been "decimated". That suggests its capacity had been reduced by 10 per cent, a far cry from "obliterated". Confusion in the hunt for a linguistic off-ramp for the President. Of course, this isn't the first war in which language has suffered. During the Vietnam War, the term "collateral damage" came into military usage, deployed as a sanitised euphemism for "civilian casualties". "Collateral damage" became a popular buzzword during the 1991 Gulf War. And in 1999, it earned the dubious distinction of being named the German Un Word of the Year after it was used by NATO forces to describe civilian casualties in the Kosovo war. And we shouldn't forget "extraordinary rendition", which entered the language after September 11. In a sane world it would mean a memorable performance of, say, a piano concerto. Somehow it became code for plucking terrorism suspects off foreign streets and flying them to black sites where the use of "enhanced interrogation" (torture) wasn't illegal. There's a host of war-related crimes against the language. "Ethnic cleansing" - in vogue during the Balkans conflict of the 1990s - seeks to sanitise genocide. "Pacification", which in military terms means eliminating an enemy. "Strategic withdrawal", a polite way of saying retreat. "Peace with honour" - Richard Nixon's favourite, which really means defeat with the dishonourable distinction of abandoning your erstwhile ally. The argument of whether or not Iran's nuclear ambitions were derailed is unlikely to last long. That's because it's only a matter of time before Donald Trump deploys another weapon of crass distraction, most likely in the dead of night from his Truth Social platform. Meanwhile, can we please obliterate the off-ramp? HAVE YOUR SAY: What are the buzz phrases and euphemisms which annoy you the most? Does military and diplomatic jargon hide ugly truths that ought to be out in the open? Are you irritated by the misuse of the word "decimated"? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The head of a man allegedly murdered and dismembered by his reality TV contestant partner is missing and police are calling on the public to help give his family "a peaceful outcome". - The online far-right extremist network Terrorgram has been listed as a terrorist organisation, with members facing decades in jail if convicted of an offence. - Carn, spew, and goon are some of the colloquialisms added to the Australian edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. THEY SAID IT: "Euphemism is a euphemism for lying." - Bobbie Gentry YOU SAID IT: Garry wants companies to sign up to his user agreement, rather than the other way around. "Having spent close to 50 minutes waiting to see my doctor recently, I was presented with the account for payment on departure," writes Brian. "Not having been amused with the wait, I suggested that my hourly rate at the time was about equal to the presented bill, so how about we call it quits and I get to see the doctor for nothing. Needless to say, I was kindly reminded that I needed to pay for my consultation." Deb writes: "Last year, after being on hold for two hours and 40 minutes trying to report an internet outage to Telstra, I decided to cancel my account. Although the recorded options list did not have a 'cancel' option, some helpful Google advice suggested just saying 'cancel' anyway, and it worked! I was put through to a human within 10 minutes. Funny how companies suddenly improve customer service when there's a threat of losing business." "Wonderful words once again," writes Sue. "Except you have made one mistake: you are not 'The User'. You are 'The Used'." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to Truth might be the first casualty in war but language falls soon after. For 12 long days we were assailed with an unfamiliar and ugly term, which spread faster than COVID's Omicron strain. As the world held its breath over the Israel-Iran missile exchange, "diplomatic off-ramp" became the jargon du jour. It was trotted out by experts and repeated ad nauseam by journalists. For some reason, it made my teeth hurt every time I heard it. What was wrong with, say, "peaceful compromise", "diplomatic solution" or "exit strategy"? In the language of diplomacy, off-ramp means finding a way out without losing face. "Obliterated" grabbed all the attention after the US dropped its big bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities. When I first heard it uttered by Donald Trump, like many others I thought, "Hang on. How do you know?" Curious, I poked my nose into the dictionary to see what the word actually meant. "To remove all signs of something, either by destroying or covering it completely," the Oxford Dictionary told me. Fordo was out of sight before it was bombed. What it looks like after the strike is anyone's guess. Yet here we were, days later, arguing the toss over President Trump's hyperbolic language. Weekend Fox News anchor turned Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth didn't help matters when defending Trump's imprecise language by saying the facility at Fordo has been "decimated". That suggests its capacity had been reduced by 10 per cent, a far cry from "obliterated". Confusion in the hunt for a linguistic off-ramp for the President. Of course, this isn't the first war in which language has suffered. During the Vietnam War, the term "collateral damage" came into military usage, deployed as a sanitised euphemism for "civilian casualties". "Collateral damage" became a popular buzzword during the 1991 Gulf War. And in 1999, it earned the dubious distinction of being named the German Un Word of the Year after it was used by NATO forces to describe civilian casualties in the Kosovo war. And we shouldn't forget "extraordinary rendition", which entered the language after September 11. In a sane world it would mean a memorable performance of, say, a piano concerto. Somehow it became code for plucking terrorism suspects off foreign streets and flying them to black sites where the use of "enhanced interrogation" (torture) wasn't illegal. There's a host of war-related crimes against the language. "Ethnic cleansing" - in vogue during the Balkans conflict of the 1990s - seeks to sanitise genocide. "Pacification", which in military terms means eliminating an enemy. "Strategic withdrawal", a polite way of saying retreat. "Peace with honour" - Richard Nixon's favourite, which really means defeat with the dishonourable distinction of abandoning your erstwhile ally. The argument of whether or not Iran's nuclear ambitions were derailed is unlikely to last long. That's because it's only a matter of time before Donald Trump deploys another weapon of crass distraction, most likely in the dead of night from his Truth Social platform. Meanwhile, can we please obliterate the off-ramp? HAVE YOUR SAY: What are the buzz phrases and euphemisms which annoy you the most? Does military and diplomatic jargon hide ugly truths that ought to be out in the open? Are you irritated by the misuse of the word "decimated"? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The head of a man allegedly murdered and dismembered by his reality TV contestant partner is missing and police are calling on the public to help give his family "a peaceful outcome". - The online far-right extremist network Terrorgram has been listed as a terrorist organisation, with members facing decades in jail if convicted of an offence. - Carn, spew, and goon are some of the colloquialisms added to the Australian edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. THEY SAID IT: "Euphemism is a euphemism for lying." - Bobbie Gentry YOU SAID IT: Garry wants companies to sign up to his user agreement, rather than the other way around. "Having spent close to 50 minutes waiting to see my doctor recently, I was presented with the account for payment on departure," writes Brian. "Not having been amused with the wait, I suggested that my hourly rate at the time was about equal to the presented bill, so how about we call it quits and I get to see the doctor for nothing. Needless to say, I was kindly reminded that I needed to pay for my consultation." Deb writes: "Last year, after being on hold for two hours and 40 minutes trying to report an internet outage to Telstra, I decided to cancel my account. Although the recorded options list did not have a 'cancel' option, some helpful Google advice suggested just saying 'cancel' anyway, and it worked! I was put through to a human within 10 minutes. Funny how companies suddenly improve customer service when there's a threat of losing business." "Wonderful words once again," writes Sue. "Except you have made one mistake: you are not 'The User'. You are 'The Used'." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to Truth might be the first casualty in war but language falls soon after. For 12 long days we were assailed with an unfamiliar and ugly term, which spread faster than COVID's Omicron strain. As the world held its breath over the Israel-Iran missile exchange, "diplomatic off-ramp" became the jargon du jour. It was trotted out by experts and repeated ad nauseam by journalists. For some reason, it made my teeth hurt every time I heard it. What was wrong with, say, "peaceful compromise", "diplomatic solution" or "exit strategy"? In the language of diplomacy, off-ramp means finding a way out without losing face. "Obliterated" grabbed all the attention after the US dropped its big bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities. When I first heard it uttered by Donald Trump, like many others I thought, "Hang on. How do you know?" Curious, I poked my nose into the dictionary to see what the word actually meant. "To remove all signs of something, either by destroying or covering it completely," the Oxford Dictionary told me. Fordo was out of sight before it was bombed. What it looks like after the strike is anyone's guess. Yet here we were, days later, arguing the toss over President Trump's hyperbolic language. Weekend Fox News anchor turned Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth didn't help matters when defending Trump's imprecise language by saying the facility at Fordo has been "decimated". That suggests its capacity had been reduced by 10 per cent, a far cry from "obliterated". Confusion in the hunt for a linguistic off-ramp for the President. Of course, this isn't the first war in which language has suffered. During the Vietnam War, the term "collateral damage" came into military usage, deployed as a sanitised euphemism for "civilian casualties". "Collateral damage" became a popular buzzword during the 1991 Gulf War. And in 1999, it earned the dubious distinction of being named the German Un Word of the Year after it was used by NATO forces to describe civilian casualties in the Kosovo war. And we shouldn't forget "extraordinary rendition", which entered the language after September 11. In a sane world it would mean a memorable performance of, say, a piano concerto. Somehow it became code for plucking terrorism suspects off foreign streets and flying them to black sites where the use of "enhanced interrogation" (torture) wasn't illegal. There's a host of war-related crimes against the language. "Ethnic cleansing" - in vogue during the Balkans conflict of the 1990s - seeks to sanitise genocide. "Pacification", which in military terms means eliminating an enemy. "Strategic withdrawal", a polite way of saying retreat. "Peace with honour" - Richard Nixon's favourite, which really means defeat with the dishonourable distinction of abandoning your erstwhile ally. The argument of whether or not Iran's nuclear ambitions were derailed is unlikely to last long. That's because it's only a matter of time before Donald Trump deploys another weapon of crass distraction, most likely in the dead of night from his Truth Social platform. Meanwhile, can we please obliterate the off-ramp? HAVE YOUR SAY: What are the buzz phrases and euphemisms which annoy you the most? Does military and diplomatic jargon hide ugly truths that ought to be out in the open? Are you irritated by the misuse of the word "decimated"? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The head of a man allegedly murdered and dismembered by his reality TV contestant partner is missing and police are calling on the public to help give his family "a peaceful outcome". - The online far-right extremist network Terrorgram has been listed as a terrorist organisation, with members facing decades in jail if convicted of an offence. - Carn, spew, and goon are some of the colloquialisms added to the Australian edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. THEY SAID IT: "Euphemism is a euphemism for lying." - Bobbie Gentry YOU SAID IT: Garry wants companies to sign up to his user agreement, rather than the other way around. "Having spent close to 50 minutes waiting to see my doctor recently, I was presented with the account for payment on departure," writes Brian. "Not having been amused with the wait, I suggested that my hourly rate at the time was about equal to the presented bill, so how about we call it quits and I get to see the doctor for nothing. Needless to say, I was kindly reminded that I needed to pay for my consultation." Deb writes: "Last year, after being on hold for two hours and 40 minutes trying to report an internet outage to Telstra, I decided to cancel my account. Although the recorded options list did not have a 'cancel' option, some helpful Google advice suggested just saying 'cancel' anyway, and it worked! I was put through to a human within 10 minutes. Funny how companies suddenly improve customer service when there's a threat of losing business." "Wonderful words once again," writes Sue. "Except you have made one mistake: you are not 'The User'. You are 'The Used'." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to Truth might be the first casualty in war but language falls soon after. For 12 long days we were assailed with an unfamiliar and ugly term, which spread faster than COVID's Omicron strain. As the world held its breath over the Israel-Iran missile exchange, "diplomatic off-ramp" became the jargon du jour. It was trotted out by experts and repeated ad nauseam by journalists. For some reason, it made my teeth hurt every time I heard it. What was wrong with, say, "peaceful compromise", "diplomatic solution" or "exit strategy"? In the language of diplomacy, off-ramp means finding a way out without losing face. "Obliterated" grabbed all the attention after the US dropped its big bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities. When I first heard it uttered by Donald Trump, like many others I thought, "Hang on. How do you know?" Curious, I poked my nose into the dictionary to see what the word actually meant. "To remove all signs of something, either by destroying or covering it completely," the Oxford Dictionary told me. Fordo was out of sight before it was bombed. What it looks like after the strike is anyone's guess. Yet here we were, days later, arguing the toss over President Trump's hyperbolic language. Weekend Fox News anchor turned Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth didn't help matters when defending Trump's imprecise language by saying the facility at Fordo has been "decimated". That suggests its capacity had been reduced by 10 per cent, a far cry from "obliterated". Confusion in the hunt for a linguistic off-ramp for the President. Of course, this isn't the first war in which language has suffered. During the Vietnam War, the term "collateral damage" came into military usage, deployed as a sanitised euphemism for "civilian casualties". "Collateral damage" became a popular buzzword during the 1991 Gulf War. And in 1999, it earned the dubious distinction of being named the German Un Word of the Year after it was used by NATO forces to describe civilian casualties in the Kosovo war. And we shouldn't forget "extraordinary rendition", which entered the language after September 11. In a sane world it would mean a memorable performance of, say, a piano concerto. Somehow it became code for plucking terrorism suspects off foreign streets and flying them to black sites where the use of "enhanced interrogation" (torture) wasn't illegal. There's a host of war-related crimes against the language. "Ethnic cleansing" - in vogue during the Balkans conflict of the 1990s - seeks to sanitise genocide. "Pacification", which in military terms means eliminating an enemy. "Strategic withdrawal", a polite way of saying retreat. "Peace with honour" - Richard Nixon's favourite, which really means defeat with the dishonourable distinction of abandoning your erstwhile ally. The argument of whether or not Iran's nuclear ambitions were derailed is unlikely to last long. That's because it's only a matter of time before Donald Trump deploys another weapon of crass distraction, most likely in the dead of night from his Truth Social platform. Meanwhile, can we please obliterate the off-ramp? HAVE YOUR SAY: What are the buzz phrases and euphemisms which annoy you the most? Does military and diplomatic jargon hide ugly truths that ought to be out in the open? Are you irritated by the misuse of the word "decimated"? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The head of a man allegedly murdered and dismembered by his reality TV contestant partner is missing and police are calling on the public to help give his family "a peaceful outcome". - The online far-right extremist network Terrorgram has been listed as a terrorist organisation, with members facing decades in jail if convicted of an offence. - Carn, spew, and goon are some of the colloquialisms added to the Australian edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. THEY SAID IT: "Euphemism is a euphemism for lying." - Bobbie Gentry YOU SAID IT: Garry wants companies to sign up to his user agreement, rather than the other way around. "Having spent close to 50 minutes waiting to see my doctor recently, I was presented with the account for payment on departure," writes Brian. "Not having been amused with the wait, I suggested that my hourly rate at the time was about equal to the presented bill, so how about we call it quits and I get to see the doctor for nothing. Needless to say, I was kindly reminded that I needed to pay for my consultation." Deb writes: "Last year, after being on hold for two hours and 40 minutes trying to report an internet outage to Telstra, I decided to cancel my account. Although the recorded options list did not have a 'cancel' option, some helpful Google advice suggested just saying 'cancel' anyway, and it worked! I was put through to a human within 10 minutes. Funny how companies suddenly improve customer service when there's a threat of losing business." "Wonderful words once again," writes Sue. "Except you have made one mistake: you are not 'The User'. You are 'The Used'."

News.com.au
3 hours ago
- News.com.au
Head of nuclear agency concedes he ‘doesn't know' whether Iran's nuclear material remains intact
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.'

ABC News
5 hours ago
- ABC News
Trump vows to find intelligence leaker
Donald Trump has signalled a possible showdown with the press over a leaked intelligence report into the impact of the US strikes on Iran. The President says authorities could attempt to force reporters to give up their sources.