The smoke may have cleared from Iran’s bombed nuclear facilities, but a new kind of alarm is ringing across the international community. According to Rafael Grossi, the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran retains the technical ability to resume uranium enrichment within just a few months, despite suffering major infrastructure damage during coordinated U.S. and Israeli airstrikes this month.
In an interview with CBS News on Saturday, Grossi’s tone was measured, yet his words echoed with deep concern. “They can have, you know, in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium,” he said. For a global community eager to believe that Iran’s nuclear program had been crippled, this was a sobering dose of reality.
Rafael Grossi’s Stark Assessment
Grossi’s warning comes amid widespread confusion about the true extent of damage caused by recent military strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites. While the U.S. and Israeli governments have touted the strikes as effective deterrents, Grossi pointed out that several key facilities are “still standing.” More troubling is the uncertainty surrounding Iran’s stockpile of 60% enriched uranium — a form of uranium dangerously close to weapons-grade.
“There has to be, at some point, a clarification,” Grossi said, acknowledging that the IAEA does not currently know if this stockpile was destroyed, moved, or remains intact.
What 60% Enrichment Means in Nuclear Terms
To the average observer, “60% enriched uranium” might not sound alarming. But in the world of nuclear science, it’s a red flag. Weapons-grade uranium requires enrichment to roughly 90% purity — and Iran’s existing stockpile at 60% means they are only a short technical leap away from producing a nuclear weapon.
Grossi noted that this stockpile, if further enriched, could produce enough fissile material for more than nine nuclear bombs. This puts Iran uncomfortably close to nuclear breakout capacity — a scenario international negotiators have tried to prevent for over two decades.
Timeline for Restarting Enrichment
Despite extensive damage to centrifuge halls and infrastructure, Grossi believes Iran could resume enrichment in “a matter of months,” or possibly sooner. Why so fast? Because Iran has the technical knowledge, remaining infrastructure, and, perhaps most critically, the political will.
Iran’s advanced underground facility at Fordow, buried beneath hundreds of feet of rock, was one of the targets of the recent airstrikes. However, Grossi’s statement that some facilities are still operational suggests that the assault did not entirely eliminate Iran’s capacity.
Israeli and U.S. Attacks: Damage and Doubts
The conflict that sparked this crisis began on June 13, when Israel launched targeted strikes on multiple Iranian military and nuclear sites. The U.S. followed days later, with precision bombing campaigns focused on Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — sites long associated with Iran’s enrichment activities.
President Donald Trump declared that the joint offensive had “set Iran’s nuclear program back by decades.” But within days, intelligence leaks and international assessments started to contradict this claim. Grossi’s analysis now firmly undermines the U.S. narrative of total success.
Civilian Toll and Political Fallout
The cost of the military campaign wasn’t measured solely in nuclear capability. The Iranian Ministry of Health reported 627 civilian deaths, while 28 people were killed in Israel during retaliatory Iranian missile strikes. The most chilling revelation came on June 23, when an Israeli missile strike hit Tehran’s Evin Prison, killing 71 people — a mix of detainees, recruits, and visitors.
In response, Iran’s parliament moved swiftly to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, denying Grossi’s team access to critical sites like Fordow. The move further clouds any hope for transparent verification and signals Iran’s increasing isolation from international nuclear oversight mechanisms.
IAEA’s Role in Monitoring and Verification
For decades, the IAEA has been the world’s last line of defense in preventing nuclear proliferation. Its inspectors monitor uranium production, ensure compliance with treaties, and provide real-time warnings about potential breakout scenarios.
But with Iran suspending cooperation and Grossi being refused access to key facilities, the global watchdog is now operating in the dark. Without boots on the ground, speculation replaces science — and mistrust takes root where verification once ruled.
Geopolitical Reactions and Strategic Implications
The implications of Grossi’s warning reverberate far beyond Tehran. In Washington, it raises hard questions about the true impact of Trump’s military campaign. In Tel Aviv, it reignites debates over deterrence versus provocation.
Meanwhile, Pakistan, China, and Russia have called for restraint and diplomatic engagement, while European Union leaders fear that the ceasefire could collapse into a renewed cycle of escalation.
The possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran — or even the perception of one — could trigger an arms race in the Middle East, embolden hardliners, and weaken already fragile peace efforts across the region.
Iran’s Position and the Path Forward
Tehran, for its part, continues to insist that its nuclear program is peaceful. Iranian leaders have repeatedly denied seeking weapons and frame the attacks as violations of their sovereign rights. However, the recent decision to halt cooperation with the IAEA, combined with their advanced enrichment activities, leaves the world skeptical.
The path forward requires more than military strikes. It demands serious diplomatic engagement — a revival of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), clear communication channels, and verifiable, transparent nuclear agreements.
