- Iran Nuclear Weapon: Half of Iran’s near-weapons-grade uranium remains at Isfahan: IAEA chief Rafael Grossi confirms that over 200 kg of 60% enriched uranium is likely still in the tunnel complex, surviving U.S.-Israeli strikes.
- Limited access hampers verification: Iran has not allowed IAEA inspectors to return to bombed sites, leaving international monitors reliant on satellite imagery and indirect observation.
- Other nuclear facilities damaged: Natanz and Fordow plants were badly hit in June attacks, though some highly enriched uranium remains at Natanz, highlighting ongoing proliferation risks.
- Strategic and geopolitical implications: Isfahan’s resilience underscores challenges in containing Iran’s nuclear program, raising regional security concerns amid the continuing U.S.-Israeli-Iran conflict.
PARIS — Nearly half of Iran’s uranium enriched to up to 60% purity — dangerously close to weapons-grade — is believed to remain in a tunnel complex at Isfahan, according to the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Rafael Grossi. The development highlights ongoing concerns about Tehran’s nuclear capabilities even as U.S.-Israeli military strikes target its facilities.
The Isfahan tunnel complex appears to have survived last June’s attacks largely intact, making it one of the few nuclear sites in Iran not severely damaged by coordinated strikes by Israel and the United States. Grossi told reporters on Monday that, based on inspections before the attacks, the facility held “a bit more than 200 kilograms” of uranium enriched to 60%, out of a total of 440.9 kilograms in Iran at the time. If further enriched, this amount could theoretically yield material sufficient for around ten nuclear weapons, according to IAEA benchmarks.
Iran War: A Regional War With Global Implications—But Not Yet a World War
Satellite imagery and monitoring suggest that the uranium stockpile has not been moved since the strikes. “The widespread assumption is that the material is still there. We haven’t seen movement indicating it has been transferred,” Grossi said. The IAEA has not had access to the bombed sites, including Isfahan, and Iran has not provided updates on the status or location of its highly enriched uranium since the attacks.
Diplomats and nuclear experts have long recognized Isfahan as a storage hub for highly enriched uranium. The IAEA confirmed its presence in a report to member states last month but did not disclose the total quantity. The facility’s apparent resilience amid military action underscores the challenges of containing Iran’s nuclear program, especially in facilities designed to withstand external attack.
Much of Iran’s near-bomb-grade uranium likely to be in Isfahan, IAEA’s Grossi says
While Israel and the United States have cited Iran’s nuclear activities as justification for their strikes, Grossi reiterated that the IAEA has “no credible indication of a coordinated nuclear weapons program” inside Iran. Still, the concentration of near-weapons-grade uranium at Isfahan — combined with limited access for inspectors — leaves the international community with little visibility over Tehran’s capabilities.
All three of Iran’s known uranium-enrichment plants — Natanz, Fordow, and another site — were either destroyed or heavily damaged during the June strikes. Grossi noted that some 60% enriched uranium remains in Natanz as well, though much of the rest of Iran’s stockpile may have been affected by the attacks.
Iran Employing Foreigners: Pakistani Accused of Plot Against Trump Raises Global Security Concerns
The U.S.-Israeli operations last year targeted Iran’s enrichment infrastructure to delay any potential weapons development. Former President Donald Trump had claimed in June that U.S. strikes had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program. Yet the presence of substantial uranium stocks in surviving facilities suggests that Iran retains the capacity to continue enrichment if political or security conditions allow.
The Isfahan tunnels’ endurance has broader implications for the ongoing U.S.-Israeli-Iran conflict. As the war enters its tenth day, the site represents both a strategic asset for Tehran and a persistent point of tension for the West. Analysts warn that the inability of the IAEA to verify the status of this uranium stockpile makes it difficult to assess Iran’s nuclear timeline with confidence.
Grossi’s remarks also highlight the limits of military intervention in addressing nuclear proliferation. Even with direct strikes on infrastructure, resilient storage sites, underground facilities, and restricted access for inspectors mean that Iran’s nuclear program cannot be fully assessed or neutralized without sustained diplomatic engagement.
The current situation leaves the international community walking a fine line: preventing a nuclear breakout while avoiding actions that could escalate military conflict further. For now, Isfahan stands as a silent but potent reminder that Iran’s near-weapons-grade uranium remains a central factor in regional security calculations — a challenge that neither diplomacy nor force alone has fully resolved.