Thailand to hold trade talks with US next week amid Trump's tariffs threat
BANGKOK: Thailand's finance minister will travel to the United States next week for trade talks, local media reported Friday, as the kingdom seeks to secure a deal with Washington over US President Donald Trump's threatened tariffs.
Thai exports face a 36 percent levy on key exports to America under the US president's raft of "Liberation Day" measures if no agreement is reached to head them off before next month's deadline.
Finance Minister Pichai Chunhavajira told reporters he has scheduled talks with a US representative and plans to depart next week, according to local media outlet Thai News Agency MCOT.
His remarks followed online speculation that the tariffs would be cut to 18 percent after the talks, which he dismissed in a post on X.
"It's just a projection made by economists," he told reporters at Government House, as quoted by local media.
In May, Pichai said the proposal aimed to reduce the trade imbalance and expand US export access to Thailand's market.
America's goods trade deficit with Thailand hit $45.6 billion in 2024, up 11.7 percent from the year before, according to US Trade Representative data.
The Thai government last month cut its 2025 economic growth forecast to 2.3-3.3 percent, from 3.2-4.2 percent, citing uncertainty over "reciprocal tariffs."
AFP has reached out to Pichai's party representative who was unable to confirm details of the trip.
Many Southeast Asian nations were threatened with the highest "reciprocal" tariff rates: 49 percent on Cambodia's exports, 46 percent on Vietnam's and 44 percent on Myanmar's.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
5 Features Android borrowed From iPhone!
Hamas Rains Rocket On Israel From Gaza After Iran War; 'FURIOUS' IDF Warns Palestinians | Watch The Israel Defense Forces issued a warning for Palestinians to evacuate parts of Central Gaza after a rocket was launched from the area at Israel. The IDF said it will destroy all terrorists in the area from where the rocket was fired. Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump said a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas could be achieved within the next week. 4.1K views | 1 day ago
Economic Times
33 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Need a machete, not a memo: NITI Aayog's Arvind Virmani on why MSME reform needs more than new laws
Arvind Virmani says that one of the roles of NITI Aayog is to get information that the ecosystem is completely unaware of and therefore not searching for. Arvind Virmani, Senior Economist and NITI Aayog Member, uses the analogy of a jungle to explain that the 'jungle of control' cannot beeliminated just by changing the laws for the MSME (micro, small and medium enterprise) sector. Although the governments have made efforts to reduce the time and cost of compliance, there is still a long journey ahead, he notes. In an exclusive interaction with ET Digital, Virmani talks about the crucial role of states, the advancement made by Southeast Asian countries, the future path for Indian MSMEs to become global champions, and more. Edited excerpts: Economic Times Digital (ET): The MSME sector in India plays a crucial role in the country's economic growth. Despite various government schemes, why do Indian MSMEs continue to face challenges in scaling their operations? Arvind Virmani (AV): There are two sub-segments in the SME segment. There are SMEs, which are basically 10 or more workers, and there are household and micro enterprises. We call them micro, but within them, the household part is much larger at 80-90%, which are just one-person terms of the issues that they face, one is basic infrastructure, which applies to both these two categories. The general point is that just the basic infrastructure in industrial areas is not up to the we think of urban development and cleanliness, we think of residential areas, but to get enterprises of high quality and functioning at the levels we expect, the basic infrastructure has to exist. They cannot be worrying about overflowing sewage pipes every other day if they are getting people from outside to buy things or getting an export order. The second is land use laws. For example, the conversion of agricultural land into industrial land: how will you get entrepreneurs in rural areas if that process is very difficult? The third is demand risk; a lot of small enterprises are single products, single buyer profiles. So, the risk is higher. So, when we say—why can't they get credit easily it is because they are riskier; due to their small scale, they are restricted. And finally, the critical one which is overlooked is the level of skills. The skill part has been neglected for decades, but I think it's getting more attention now, and one of my efforts has been to make sure the quality of that is improved. ET: A large portion of small businesses in India operate informally. Do you see the informality as a symptom of over-regulation, or is it more due to a lack of incentives to formalise?AV: So, this links us back to those two sub-segments: 10 or more workers versus 10 or less; so less than 10 is informal. So again, if laws, rules, and regulations are more complicated, procedures also reflect that. But efforts have been made to simplify the laws and rules, digitise the forms, and comply. But as I have asserted many times in the last several decades, the jungle of control, which was built up, just doesn't go away by changing the have to dig into every little thing. There's a whole structure that was built over 30 years of wrong policies, which is very hard to reverse. It's not just a matter of laws and rules; it's also how the whole system operates. So, with the analogy of a jungle, one has to go through every area and cut the jungle. And that's companies are more effective, and that is where the below 10 and more than 10 divide actually works; the compliances are lower for less than 10. That has the perverse effect of not wanting to grow. So, in that threshold, they just divide into two units. If they are going to go eleven, they will just divide up. In the longer term, this prevents you from attaining second type of cost primarily involves owner-managers, including SMEs, except for the highest, which we call the medium. They are owner-managers. So, their time is limited. If they spend more time on compliance, they will have less time for other things, including innovation, etc. So, there is a challenge, and the only way, and perhaps the best way, to do it is to reduce that time and other costs of has been the effort of the government, but it's a long road. And it also has to stretch it down to the states. Every state has to do its bit because much of this appliance actually happens at the ground level, at the local level, actually. That is the state's purview. ET: What steps is NITI Aayog considering to facilitate the transition from informal to formal structures for micro and small enterprises? AV: It is one of the roles of NITI Aayog to get information that the ecosystem is completely unaware of and therefore not searching for. So that is one, but also that applies to information to states and officials. One state may be doing better, but the other state is not aware of how it is done. Obviously, it depends on their own willingness and motivation as have independent states. So, supporting states and providing them with information is crucial. The other thing that we are doing is to build an index for investment. One of the initiatives that NITI is doing is to see how we can define the strengths and weaknesses of different states in attracting investment, infrastructure, and manufacturing. So that index is now in phase two and will be completed in the coming months. Once that index is ready, a state that is not doing well will have a roadmap to follow. They have a chance then to improve and, therefore, attract more investment and role of states is 100% integral. The ease of doing business, or what used to be called 'Inspector Raj', occurs at the local level, with those inspectors being responsible to the state government, not to the central government. So, clearly the role of the states is critical in attracting FDI in producing and exporting quality goods. To be in the international market, you must produce international-quality goods. ET: NITI Aayog's latest report on medium-sized enterprises highlights their vital contribution to India's GDP, particularly within the manufacturing sector. How can their potential be fully harnessed? AV: This is important because medium-sized enterprises are capable of advancing to the next level. That means the materials, equipment, tools, skill levels of those who run these things, knowledge and information of the owner manager—all that is of a certain quality. The medium-sized enterprises are the ones who are operating at a much higher quality and, in principle, have the potential to compete globally. For example, recently, we did a report at the NITI Aayog on hand tools. There were a whole bunch of hand tool manufacturers. They are in a whole different category. And those are the ones which will be this new medium sector. They have the capability to upgrade the quality chain because the gap is not so one would look at this medium sector in that context, that they are both labour-intensive and have the potential quality and competitiveness to compete are the ones who are capable of scaling. And then, of course, there is the 10 barrier, as well as the 100/300 worker barrier, among others. All these need to be simplified and made less onerous. ET: India's spending on R&D is among the lowest compared to its international counterparts. This is also applicable to medium enterprises. How can we bridge these gaps to foster the growth of MSMEs in general and medium units in particular? AV: The competitive system and export competitiveness are critical for R&D to happen. So, if there is too much protection in an industry, I would not expect anybody to do R&D. So, the first thing is, what is the incentive from their side to do R&D? Why do you do R&D? If you feel that a competitor is going to get something better, a product or a process, which will reduce the cost, and he'll be able to wipe you out. Or he'll produce a new product and get all the market away from you. So that is the basic driver of private sector R& issue is, what can the government do to facilitate it? This is indeed a controversial issue. I believe that we should bring back the R&D subsidy and give a focused subsidy to encourage it. I think it is still very important. Many countries across the world give incentives for R&D. We withdrew it because of a bad experience. I think we need to re-evaluate. ET: Many Asian countries have successfully scaled their SME sectors. What lessons can India learn from countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, or China? AV: This is a very important question. If you look at Southeast Asia in general, the big lesson is they went all out there to attract FDI. They laid out the red carpet for them to set up the supply chain. They didn't do this in one or two years; first they attracted the FDI, and when a large company with US supply chains came in, they rolled out the red carpet to help them build that supply is what has transformed them. That is what enabled them to surpass our per capita income. So, all the Southeast Asian countries who did that and did it successfully now exhibit a much higher gap in per capita income than us. So the big lesson is—FDI and supply chains; if you can get them even now, when things are so bad, it's a different world. That will be a huge driver for the medium and small there are 100 companies engaged in this activity nationwide, that means we have representation in 28 states. If every state brings in one anchor investor, it will transform manufacturing in every state in the next 10 years. We are progressing towards Atmanirbhar Manufacturing. So that is the lesson, a very clear lesson. ET: India was unable to capitalise as much as it had hoped in the China-Plus-One strategy. How can there be a turnaround for India, especially with some inherent strengths, such as a large market and demographic dividend on its side? AV: It is not true that we have not benefited. India is in the top three or five gainers, as per some studies. Some studies show we are third; others show we are fifth. In simple terms, the US imports from China have gone down; they have gone up from other countries, including Taiwan and Vietnam, which is always mentioned. Clearly all these studies indicate that we are the third-largest the question is, how can we gain more?Given our size, we should be gaining 10 times what we are now. So, that is the real issue, and that is connected to what I said about FDI and supply chains. But what is the policy we are pursuing? The policy is having FTAs with countries that are the source of FDI and demand for manufacturers. That is what the supply chain is all about. So, the FTA with the UK is done; the UK is one of the largest importers of manufactured goods in the world. The US and the EU are the top two if you treat the EU as a single the FTAs are part of our strategy to achieve this comprehensive and much bigger shift in the next 5-10 years; [we should] not just be satisfied with being number three or five; we should be number one by a big stretch. India's 64 million MSMEs are vital to India's goals as an economic powerhouse. However they are often constrained by issues relating to scale, diversification and digital infrastructure. Elevating their stature and empowering such businesses is crucial, especially in the context of unpredictable global trade dynamics at play. In this interaction, Niti Aayog member and senior economist Arvind Virmani tells ET Digital how MSMEs can learn from international peers, the role of medium enterprises in unlocking growth and what needs to change for small businesses to become global champions of the future. Watch this video for more. ET: What should the MSME sector's strategy be in the backdrop of recent tariff and trade developments, and how can they safeguard themselves in light of such an unpredictable economic landscape?AV: So, as we know, the tariff was suspended. And based on all the information that came in the next couple of weeks—a month or so after that—a lot of US companies were desperately looking for Indian suppliers of the same products. So, I think the opportunity is much greater than the threat. So, in engineering goods, in household items, and in many others, there were reports, textiles, and many other things; they were looking for suppliers in India. So, I think the advice is very clear. MSMEs should be out there. This is the time. Look for buyers. They are looking. Find them. The MSMEs who feel they want to expand—this is an opportunity. ET: What is your vision for Indian MSMEs over the next decade, and what must change for them to become global champions? AV: The spirit of the MSME sector is very clear. One is that we must not think only of the current situation that there is x demand and we will meet that demand; we must think of the future where we want to be and build for the future. Second is that the future means we are going to be Viksit. So, you must build for a Viksit quality. We cannot be satisfied with where we are today. If I am producing something which is 30% inferior to, say, a German or Japanese product in machinery, a machinery manufacturer must think that in five years, we must be at that quality, and they have to start doing that now. That applies to MSMEs. That applies to start-ups. The vision is that start-ups will drive this push for higher quality, the frontier of the MSME sector. They are going to be the new MSMEs. And they are the ones who will transform productivity and growth. And which is why so much emphasis has been placed on start-up infrastructure, funding, the fund of funds, etc. It's just a matter of connecting them to the that is the vision, actually. That is the future.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
How Trump's strike has escalated Iranian nuclear threat
Does Iran have the elements needed for a bomb and will it assemble one after the Israeli-US humiliation? The answer is buried deeper than Iran's under-construction deepest nuclear facility near Natanz read more If enriched to 93 per cent, uranium can be used to make nukes. The US, Israel and European powers fear that Iran can enrich uranium to that level and make nuclear bombs. Representational Image - Reuters '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.' — Donald Trump, US President, June 21, 2025 One of the several catchphrases that has stuck with Donald Trump's boastful, maverick and reckless persona is 'Nobody knows more about or does [anything] better than me.' Evidently, he knows more about Iran's plan to manufacture nukes, how the three nuclear plants were 'obliterated' by the B-2s and why WMDs are 'the last thing on their [Iran's] mind right now' regardless of what US intelligence concluded earlier and now. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Mr Know-it-all is also infamous for his erratic U-turns. After the US bombing, he warned Iran of direst consequences if it retaliated. However, after Iran's all-bluff-and-bluster response, Trump concluded it wanted to end the conflict. 'CONGRATULATIONS WORLD, IT'S TIME FOR PEACE!' he posted on Truth Social and announced a ceasefire to the '12 Day War' between Iran and Israel. Trump's about-turns are meant to mislead and hide his real intentions. On June 25, he exposed himself. Initially, he said that a nuclear pact with Iran was 'not necessary'. 'I don't care if I have an agreement or not.' A few hours later, he told the media, 'We may sign an agreement; I don't know,' after saying that the US and Iran would negotiate next week—though Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei wasn't aware of it. Now, it has emerged that Trump was using a carrot-and-stick policy to force Iran to negotiate. Trump's Middle East (West Asia) envoy Steve Witkoff and Gulf allies, including Qatar, talked with Iranians secretly even as Israeli strikes continued and after the ceasefire. A day before the US attack, Witkoff and Gulf partners secretly discussed at the White House starting talks with Iran. Of the several preliminary proposals, one is helping Iran access $20-$30 billion to build a civilian-energy-producing nuclear programme, relaxing sanctions and unfreezing $6 billion in restricted Iranian funds on one condition—no uranium enrichment. However, three important questions that remain unanswered will reset the US-Israel-Iran dynamics. First, what is the extent of damage to Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear plants? STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Second, where is the 400-plus kg of enriched uranium, and will Iran stop enrichment? Third and most important, will Iran, with its pride wounded, manufacture a nuke(s)? Iran's nuclear facilities destroyed or survived? Seven B-2 bombers dropped 12 GBU-57A/B bunker buster bombs (13,600 kg each) on the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant and two on Natanz nuclear facilities. Meanwhile, a US submarine fired 30 BGM-109 Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles at Isfahan nuclear facilities. Latest Maxar Technologies satellite imagery (June 24) and a leaked Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA)—the Pentagon's military intelligence arm—five-page classified preliminary report contradicted Trump's claim of obliteration of Iran's three N-plants. At Fordow (80 metres underground), six large craters were visible, and its tunnel entrances looked apparently collapsed. A large building apparently used to control ventilation for the underground hall was damaged but not collapsed. New Maxar satellite imagery reveals fresh damage at Iran's Fordow nuclear site from Israeli airstrikes on June 23, 2025. The images show craters and destruction to access roads, tunnels, and support buildings. — Open Source Intel (@Osint613) June 25, 2025 STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD At Natanz (enrichment halls buried 20-40 metres), two craters over the underground facility were visible. Earlier, images showed destruction of the substation, main power building and emergency supply. At Iran's Natanz enrichment facility, two craters right above the undergound buildings housing centrifuges that were visible after US strikes on 22 June have now been covered with dirt. Before: 22 June After: 24 June 📷@Maxar — Shayan Sardarizadeh (@Shayan86) June 24, 2025 At Isfahan, several large industrial buildings housing essential laboratories and a uranium conversion facility around the suspected research reactor site were destroyed, and the entry to the tunnel to the underground infrastructure was damaged and blocked. Before the Tomahawks hit the plant, Israel had bombed it twice. Pics of the Isfahan Site Above ground structures visibly extent of the below ground damage is unknown currently — Tony (@Cyberspec1) June 23, 2025 Secretary of State and NSA Marco Rubio said that Isfahan's uranium conversion facility was 'wiped out'. However, extensive damage on the ground doesn't mean the heavily fortified underground facilities at the three sites were destroyed. IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said, 'As for the assessment of the degree of damage underground [Fordow]… Neither we nor anybody else could be able to tell you how much it has been damaged.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Moreover, the DIA report—leaked to CNN, The New York Times (NYT), The Washington Post and several others—stated that the US bombing set back Iran's nuclear programme by less than six months, not years or decades, and some of the centrifuges remain intact. Democratic senator Mark Kelly (Arizona), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee who reviewed the DIA report, told reporters, 'It's one thing if it's a building above ground and you can tell if you knocked the building down, and you have a better chance of getting good imagery of it. Underground it's really hard.' The report unnerved a defensive Trump administration. A session to brief Congress on the strike was postponed. Later, the White House decided to limit sharing of classified information with the Senate and the House. Trump blasted 'fake news' CNN, which first reported about the DIA assessment, and 'failing' NYT as 'scum' for teaming up 'to demean one of the most successful military strikes in history'. 'The nuclear sites in Iran are completely destroyed!' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump claimed that the Iranian nuclear programme had been set back by 'decades'. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who said that the report was 'preliminary' and a 'low-confidence' assessment, alleged that CCN and others were trying to 'make the president look bad when this was an overwhelming success'. Rubio slammed the leakers as 'professional stabbers', while Witkoff termed the leak 'treasonous' and 'outrageous'. Soon after Trump and his top aides dismissed the DIA report, CIA director John Ratcliffe and the DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, rushed to the president's defence. Without providing evidence, Ratcliffe issued a statement saying that 'new intelligence from a historically reliable and accurate source' indicated that 'key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Gabbard, who under Trump's pressure flipped recently on her March assessment that Iran wasn't pursuing a nuke, seconded Ratcliffe. 'Iran's nuclear facilities have been destroyed,' she tweeted. New intelligence confirms what @POTUS has stated numerous times: 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. The… — DNI Tulsi Gabbard (@DNIGabbard) June 25, 2025 Even Grossi, citing satellite images and the vibration caused by the GB-57A/B, said later that the Fordow centrifuges were 'no longer operational'. However, at The Hague NATO summit, Trump and Hegseth indirectly admitted to the uncertainty about the bombing's impact. 'The intelligence was very inconclusive. … It could've been very severe. That's what the intelligence suggests,' Trump told journalists at the summit. While Hegseth described the damage as 'moderate to severe'. Even Grossi later changed his version, saying, '…to what degree there is annihilation or total destruction, I can only tell you there is very considerable damage. There are other nuclear sites in Iran that were not affected.' The Pentagon indirectly confirmed at a press briefing on June 26 that the three facilities weren't obliterated. Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Dan only mentioned Fordow and referred questions about the damage to the intelligence agencies. Without offering any intelligence, Hegseth defended Trump's obliteration claim. Even Israel's damage assessment raises questions. Initially, intelligence officials told CNN on Wednesday that the nuclear programme was set back by two years. However, one Israeli source told ABC News that the outcome at Fordow was 'really not good'. Another source said, 'Anyone who says it was a failure is pushing in the wrong direction. Anyone who says it was 100% obliterated is also pushing in the wrong direction.' In what was music to Trump's ears, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Baghaei told Al Jazeera on June 25, 'The nuclear installations have been badly damaged—that's for sure'. However, there's a huge difference between damage and destruction. N-enrichment, missing stockpile & resumption Iran's nuclear enrichment is the core of the problem, triggering Western alarm all these years and resulting in the Israeli and US attacks. Natural uranium has two isotopes: U-238 (99.3 per cent) and U-235 (around 0.7 per cent). Only U-235 is useful for powering nuclear reactors or making nukes. To remove U-238 and increase the concentration of U-235, natural uranium is converted into uranium hexafluoride gas and fed into centrifuges. These machines spin at a high speed and separate U-235, which is extracted in highly concentrated form. The process is called nuclear enrichment. Enriched uranium can be used both as fuel for power plants and for making nuclear bombs. Only 3.67 per cent enriched uranium is needed for nuclear power plants. However, Iran, which has always said that its N-programme is only meant for civilian use, has been enriching uranium for years to 60 per cent. If enriched to 93 per cent, uranium can be used to make nukes. The US, Israel and European powers fear that Iran can enrich uranium to that level and make nuclear bombs. In the early 2000s, the IAEA found traces of highly enriched uranium at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility, the main enrichment site. Though Iran halted enrichment, it resumed in 2006, triggering years of international sanctions. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) capped enrichment at 3.67 per cent and asked Tehran to drastically reduce its uranium stockpile and phase out the centrifuges. In 2018, Trump withdrew from the JCPOA and called for a new deal. Subsequently, Iran stopped complying with the JCPOA, removed IAEA surveillance and monitoring equipment and started enriching 149 kg of uranium up to 3.67 per cent using advanced centrifuges like the IR-6 and IR-9. According to the IAEA, the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control's Iran Watch and the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), in 2019, Iran breached the stockpile limit and had 213 kg of 3.67 per cent enriched uranium and 160 kg of 4.5 per cent. In 2020, the stockpile of 3.67 per cent enriched uranium was 215 kg and 2,228 kg of 4.5 per cent. By 2021, Iran's stockpile of 2 per cent enriched uranium was 560 kg, 5 per cent 1,622 kg, 20 per cent 114 kg and 60 per cent 18 kg. In 2022, Iran ramped up enrichment with more centrifuges. Two per cent enriched uranium was 1,845 kg, 5 per cent was 1,030 kg, 20 per cent was 386 kg and 60 per cent was 62 kg. In 2023, the IAEA found traces of 83.7 per cent enriched uranium at a nuclear facility. Two per cent enriched uranium was 1,217 kg, 5 per cent was 2,218 kg, 20 per cent was 567 kg and 60 per cent was 128 kg. By 2024, the stockpile of 60 per cent enriched uranium neared 180 kg, with the US saying that Iran could produce a nuke in one or two weeks. Two per cent enriched uranium was 2,191 kg, 5 per cent was 2,595 kg, 20 per cent was 839 kg and 60 per cent was 182 kg. Till May this year, Iran had 2,221 kg of 2 per cent enriched uranium, 5,509 kg of 5 per cent, 275 kg of 20 per cent and 408.6 kg of 60 per cent. In 2022, Iran removed the IAEA's surveillance and monitoring equipment. One year later, the West was alarmed when the IAEA found 83.7 per cent enriched uranium particles in samples taken at Fordo in January 2023. Whether Iran intends to produce one nuke or several is dependent on the stock of 60 per cent enriched uranium. The biggest concern is the untraceable 408.6 kg stockpile of 60 per cent enriched uranium. Iran has around 20 nuclear facilities. There's a high possibility that the enriched stockpile was already dispersed before the strikes. Grossi confirmed it saying that the stockpile at Isfahan was last seen by the IAEA a week before the Israeli attacks. Before the US bombing, a Pentagon intelligence assessment speculated that Iran may have removed the stockpile from Fordow. Even the DIA report indicates the same. Two Israeli officials told NYT that intelligence suggested Iran had moved equipment and a part of the stockpile from Fordow. The US is still in denial mode about Iran moving the stockpile. At the press briefing with Caine, Hegseth said, 'I'm not aware of any intelligence that I've reviewed that says things were not where they were supposed to be, moved or otherwise.' For Iran, enrichment is non-negotiable. At The Hague summit, Trump said that he would bomb Iran again if it restarted enrichment. However, Iran's deputy foreign minister for political affairs Majid Takht Ravanchi told Germany's national television Das Erste that Iran will continue enrichment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). 'No one can tell us what we should or should not do…' A close aide of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told AFP that the 'game is not over'. The rubble blocking the entrances to the tunnels to the underground chambers can always be cleared, damaged nuclear facilities repaired and centrifuges replaced to resume enrichment. June 24 satellite imagery shows Iran has already started repairing the Natanz plant. The two craters are covered with dirt, many roads above the complex have been cleared by heavy machinery, and a few temporary structures have been erected at one of the impact sites. New satellite imagery from June 24 of the Natanz Nuclear Site in Central Iran appears to show efforts underway to potentially repair the facility, with two holes seen on June 22 after the strikes by the U.S. Air Force, believed to have been created by GBU-57A/B MOP (Massive… — OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) June 25, 2025 Mohammad Eslami, the head of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran, earlier said, 'Plans for restarting (the facilities) have been prepared in advance, and our strategy is to ensure that production and services are not disrupted.' Iran proved over the years that it could rebuild its nuclear facilities despite damage. For example, the 2009 US-Israel Stuxnet cyber attack on Natanz disabled one-fifth of the centrifuges. Iran installed more advanced centrifuges, with 19,000 in operation before the Israeli strikes. Iran's deepest N-underground facility intact The most concerning development in the Iranian N programme is the ongoing construction of a new centrifuge assembly facility 150 metres deep near Natanz. The IAEA was supposed to inspect the site on the first day of the Israeli strikes, but it was cancelled. Satellite imagery taken between October 25, 2022, and January 15, 2024, showed construction and excavation at the tunnel complex under Mt. Kolang Gaz La, south of the Natanz plant. According to a March 25, 2024, , Iran has constructed tunnels and is working on underground rooms that could contain enrichment halls. In our latest story, I break down some of the recent construction at the Natanz nuclear facility, #Iran. Using satellite images, we identify likely new tunnel entrances for an apparent new underground facility. — Christoph Koettl (@ckoettl) December 9, 2020 ISIS concluded that four tunnel entrances were largely complete as of October 2022 while the main western tunnel entrance continued to be strengthened and reinforced. According to ISIS, the site is 'slated to hold a new, large, advanced centrifuge assembly facility that replaces the Iranian Centrifuge Assembly Centre destroyed in an attack in July 2020'. 'In fact, the tunnel complex is more deeply buried than the Fordow underground enrichment plant with more entrances and no apparent ventilation shaft, making it harder to destroy than Fordow and certainly harder than a surface facility.' Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Washington-based Foundation for Defence of Democracies (FDD), a nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy, said, 'The time is quickly running out as Iran moves into a zone of nuclear immunity to deny the regime permanent use of this deadly site.' FDD senior adviser Richard Goldberg said, 'If Tehran is allowed to complete this facility and move its enrichment infrastructure inside, we will enter a new and potentially irreversible era of the Iranian nuclear threat.' A wounded Iran and a nuclear bomb The Israeli and the US strikes have shattered Iran's image of a West Asian power and invincibility. Iran is reduced to issuing only threats and fake victory claims against Israel and the US. Iran's weak response to the US bombing and its amenability to the ceasefire exposed the reality of its threats. Almost all of the 14 missiles Iran fired at Qatar's US-run Al-Udeid Air Base—evacuated days earlier—after giving hours of warning was a face-saving exercise. Iran responded in a similar fashion to the US assassination of IRGC's Quds Force commander Major General Qasem Soleimani in January 2020 and the Israeli elimination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in July 2024. However, the dangerous events in West Asia in the last several days wouldn't have unfolded if Iran had nuclear bomb(s). The attacks jolted Iran. It wasn't developing a nuke. It's still an NPT member. It cooperated with the IAEA to a large extent despite Trump exiting JCPOA. Yet, it was attacked. After the humiliation, Iran might clandestinely develop a nuclear bomb to negotiate from a position of strength and prevent such massive military strikes. Nuclear weapons are the highest form of deterrence. Some hard-line voices inside Iran have been calling for manufacturing a nuke to deter Israel and the US. Foreign minister Abbas Araghchi told Qatar's Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, 'I think that our view on our nuclear programme and the non-proliferation regime will witness changes, but it is not possible to say in what direction.' In March, when Trump threatened to bomb Iran, Khamenei's adviser and former Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said, 'If at some point you (the US) move towards bombing by yourself or through Israel, you will force Iran to make a different decision.' Iran has also hinted at quitting the NPT. During the Israeli strikes, Baghaei told reporters that 'such a proposal [Bill] is just being prepared'. On June 22, Araghchi told reporters in Istanbul that the 'NPT is not able to protect' Iran. 'So, why a country like Iran or other countries interested to have a peaceful nuclear energy should rely on NPT?' In the latest sign of Iran's changing stance and defiance, Parliament has approved a bill to suspend cooperation with the IAEA. Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf slammed the IAEA for putting Iran's 'international credibility up for sale' and added that Iran will 'move at a faster pace with the country's peaceful nuclear programme'. The big question is how much time Iran needs to produce a nuke. According to the IAEA, Iran has enough material to produce at least 10 nuclear bombs if it enriches its 60 per cent stockpile to 93 per cent. Iran can produce one nuke in 2.5 days, 5 in 11 days, 9 in 21 days, 11 in 30 days, 15 in 2 months, 19 in 3 months, 21 in 4 months and 22 in 5 months. However, producing weapons-grade uranium (WGU) is one thing, and building a deliverable nuke is another. According to nuclear experts, Iran would take months or a year to build a deliverable nuke. Only advanced metallurgy and engineering can machine WGU into the core of an atom bomb. The IAEA reports only mention the increase in 60 per cent enriched uranium and the number of centrifuges, not atomic purification, engineering, manufacturing and testing. Besides, Iran would need to test the complete warhead rigorously and explode the bomb underground. A March 2024 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report states that Iran 'has not mastered all of the necessary technologies for building such weapons'. The CRS mentioned former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley's March 2023 testimony in which he said that Iran would need 'several months to produce an actual nuclear weapon'. Even the IAEA reports 'suggest that Iran does not yet have a viable nuclear weapon design or a suitable explosive detonation system'. Echoing the assertion of nuclear experts, CRS said that Iran 'may also need additional experience in producing weapons-grade HEU metal for use in a nuclear weapon, which is first cast and machined into suitable components for a nuclear core'. If Iran has a secret and advanced nuclear programme and wants to manufacture a nuke, it wouldn't have hidden the components at Fordow, Natanz or Isfahan. Only 20 kg of 93 per cent enriched uranium is enough for making one nuke. The 408.6 kg of untraceable enriched uranium could have been transported in a minitruck to any unknown place. Does Iran have the elements needed for a bomb, and will it assemble one after the humiliation? The answer is buried deeper than Iran's under-construction deepest nuclear facility near Natanz. The writer is a freelance journalist with more than two decades of experience and comments primarily on foreign affairs. He tweets as @FightTheBigots. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the writer. They do not reflect Firstpost's views.
