
How much damage has Israel inflicted on Iran's nuclear programme?
VIENNA, June 16 — Israel's strikes on Iran have targeted several of its nuclear facilities, as it claims the Islamic republic is seeking to develop nuclear weapons — an accusation Tehran denies.
Experts told AFP that while the attacks have caused some damage to Iran's nuclear programme, they are unlikely to have delivered a fatal blow.
Here is an update on Iran's nuclear sites as of Monday:
What is the extent of the damage?
Israel's operation included strikes on Iran's underground uranium enrichment sites at Natanz and Fordow, and on its Isfahan nuclear site, the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said, citing Iranian officials.
A key, above-ground component of Iran's Natanz nuclear site has been destroyed, including its power infrastructure.
Agency chief Rafael Grossi said today that there has been 'no indication of a physical attack on the underground cascade hall containing part of the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant and the main Fuel Enrichment Plant'.
However, power loss at the cascade hall 'may have damaged the centrifuges', the machines used to enrich uranium.
There was 'extensive' damage to the site's power supply, according to a report from the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a US-based organisation specialising in nuclear proliferation, which analysed satellite images.
If backup power is lost, 'at the least, the enrichment plant is rendered inoperable for the time being', it said.
At Iran's underground Fordow enrichment plant, the country's second uranium enrichment facility, the IAEA observed 'no damage' following the attacks, Grossi said.
At the Isfahan nuclear site, however, 'four buildings were damaged': the central chemical laboratory, a uranium conversion plant, the Tehran reactor fuel manufacturing plant, and a metal processing facility under construction, the IAEA said.
Significant uranium stockpiles are believed to be stored around the Isfahan site.
Ali Vaez, International Crisis Group's Iran project director, told AFP that if Iran managed to transfer significant quantities to 'secret facilities,' then 'the game is lost for Israel'.
Iran's only nuclear power plant, the Bushehr plant, was not targeted, nor was the Tehran research reactor.
Can the programme be destroyed?
While 'Israel can damage Iran's nuclear programme... it is unlikely to be able to destroy it,' Vaez said, arguing that Israel does not have the massively powerful bombs needed 'to destroy the fortified, bunkered facilities in Natanz and Fordow'.
Destroying those would require US military assistance, added Kelsey Davenport, an expert with the Arms Control Association.
She also stressed that Israel's unprecedented attack cannot erase the expertise Iran had built up on nuclear weapons, despite killing nine Iranian nuclear scientists.
What are the risks to the Iranian population?
The IAEA has not detected any increase in radiation levels at the affected sites.
'There is very little risk that attacks on Iran's uranium enrichment facilities would result in a harmful radiation release,' said Davenport.
But an attack on the Bushehr plant could 'have a serious impact on health and the environment', she added.
After Israel launched its strikes, Grossi said that nuclear facilities 'must never be attacked' and that targeting Iranian sites could have 'grave consequences for the people of Iran, the region, and beyond'.
Is Iran close to developing a nuclear bomb?
After the United States unilaterally withdrew in 2018 from a landmark deal that sought to curb Tehran's nuclear activities, Iran has gradually retreated from some of its obligations, particularly on uranium enrichment.
As of mid-May, the country had an estimated 408.6 kilogrammes enriched to up to 60 per cent — just a short step from the 90 per cent needed for a nuclear warhead.
Iran theoretically has enough near-weapons-grade material, if further refined, for about 10 nuclear bombs, according to the definition by the Vienna-based IAEA.
Iran is the only non-nuclear-armed state producing uranium to this level of enrichment, according to the UN nuclear watchdog.
While the IAEA has been critical of Iran's lack of cooperation with the UN body, it says that there are 'no credible indications of an ongoing, undeclared structured nuclear programme'.
Tehran has consistently denied ambitions to develop nuclear warheads.
But Davenport warned the strikes could strengthen factions in Iran advocating for an atomic arsenal.
'Israel's strikes set Iran back technically, but politically the strikes are pushing Iran closer to nuclear weapons,' she said. — AFP
Hashtags

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


New Straits Times
2 hours ago
- New Straits Times
G7 unity tested as Trump calls Russia ouster a mistake
KANANASKIS, Alberta: Leaders from the Group of Seven nations began annual talks on Monday with wars escalating in Ukraine and the Middle East, as US President Donald Trump said removing Russia from the former Group of Eight was a mistake. The G7 leaders from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the US, along with the European Union, are convening in the resort area of Kananaskis in the Canadian Rockies until Tuesday. With an escalating Israel-Iran conflict, the summit in Canada is seen as a vital moment to try to restore a semblance of unity among democratic powerhouses. In an early sign that they may struggle to reach agreement on key issues, a US official said Trump would not sign a draft statement calling for de-escalation of the Israel-Iran conflict. Speaking alongside Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Trump said kicking Russia out of the former Group of Eight was a mistake. Members removed Russia in 2014 after it annexed Crimea. "This was a big mistake," Trump said. "You wouldn't have that war. You know you have your enemy at the table, I don't even consider, he wasn't really an enemy at that time." Canada has abandoned any effort to adopt a comprehensive communique to avert a repeat of the 2018 summit in Quebec, when Trump instructed the US delegation to withdraw its approval of the final communique after leaving. Leaders have prepared several other draft documents seen by Reuters, including on migration, artificial intelligence, and critical mineral supply chains. None of them have been approved by the United States, however, according to sources briefed on the documents. Europeans are on the same page on most issues, a European diplomat said. But without Trump, it is unclear if there will be any declarations, the diplomat said. The first five months of Trump's second term upended foreign policy on Ukraine, raised anxiety over his closer ties to Russia, and resulted in tariffs on US allies. Talks on Monday will centre around the economy, advancing trade deals, and China. Efforts to reach an agreement to lower the G7 price cap on Russian oil, even if Trump decided to opt out, were complicated by a temporary surge in oil prices since Israel launched strikes on Iran on June 12, two diplomatic sources said. Oil prices fell on Monday on reports Iran was seeking a truce. The escalation between the two regional foes is high on the agenda, with diplomatic sources saying they hope to urge restraint and a return to diplomacy and would encourage Trump to sign a declaration. "I do think there's a consensus for de-escalation. Obviously, what we need to do today is to bring that together and to be clear about how it is to be brought about," British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told reporters. RUSSIAN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM Further highlighting the unease among some of Washington's allies, Trump spoke on Saturday with Russian President Vladimir Putin and suggested the Russian leader could play a mediation role between Israel and Iran. French President Emmanuel Macron dismissed the idea, arguing that Moscow could not be a negotiator because it had started an illegal war against Ukraine. A European diplomat said Trump's suggestion showed that Russia was very much on US minds. "In the eyes of the US, there's no condemnation for Ukraine; no peace without Russia; and now even credit for its mediation role with Iran. For Europeans, this will be a really tough G7," the diplomat said. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte will attend the summit on Tuesday. European officials said they hoped to use the meeting and next week's Nato summit to convince Trump to toughen his stance on Putin. "The G7 should have the objective for us to converge again, for Ukraine to get a ceasefire to lead to a robust and lasting peace, and in my view it's a question of seeing whether President Trump is ready to put forward much tougher sanctions on Russia," Macron said.--REUTERS


New Straits Times
3 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Israel's unilateralism erodes global norms
FOR decades, Israel has argued that it is entitled to "defend itself by any means necessary". In practice, this has translated into preemptive strikes, assassinations and cyber operations, often without oversight or consequence. Iran, despite its many internal contradictions and geopolitical posturing, remains a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It has allowed international inspectors into its nuclear sites under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Although concerns about potential weaponisation persist, there is no conclusive evidence that Iran has resumed efforts to build a nuclear bomb since suspending such work in 2003, according to multiple US National Intelligence Estimates. In contrast, Israel is not a signatory to the NPT. It has never declared its nuclear arsenal and maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity. Israel possesses between 80 and 90 nuclear warheads; some even say that it has up to 400. Its nuclear capability is neither under international safeguards nor subject to any verification regime. In short, Israel operates outside the very frameworks of transparency and accountability it demands of others. This asymmetry cannot be ignored. When Israel bombs enrichment facilities in Iran — Syria in 2007 and Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981 — it does so without international authorisation. Such actions not only destroy infrastructure, but they also risk triggering chain reactions: environmental hazards, radioactive fallout and regional conflict. A strike on nuclear infrastructure is not a tactical operation. It is a strategic gamble with consequences too vast and uncertain. The international system cannot and should not tolerate a world where might makes right, and where the perception of danger becomes the only threshold for war. By acting unilaterally, Israel undermines the global norms that have kept nuclear proliferation in check. It sends a signal that treaties, verification mechanisms and diplomatic negotiations are inferior to airstrikes and firepower. It weakens the very architecture that has, despite its flaws, prevented the use of nuclear weapons since 1945. It is also worth asking — what does "security" mean in this context? Is it merely the absence of a threat, or is it the cultivation of sustainable peace through engagement, treaties and mutual accountability? History has shown that durable security cannot be bombed into existence. The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 — justified on fears of weapons of mass destruction — led to the unravelling of an entire region. Libya's disarmament in 2003, once hailed as a diplomatic success, eventually resulted in the regime's collapse, discouraging others from following suit. Similarly, every Israeli airstrike may delay but never eliminate Iran's nuclear capability. It may harden Iranian resolve, radicalise moderate factions and push Teheran further into partnerships with rogue actors. More dangerously, it validates Teheran's argument that only by acquiring a credible deterrent can it avoid the fate of Iraq or Libya. The role of diplomacy and international law cannot be shunted aside. Israel's fears, while understandable, do not give it a blank cheque to act as judge, jury and executioner. There are multilateral channels, however imperfect, that must be strengthened, not bypassed. If the IAEA and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action were sabotaged, it was partly due to the unilateral withdrawal by the United States in 2018. That decision, supported by Israel, collapsed a functioning framework for nuclear oversight. For Asean countries and the Global South more broadly, the stakes are high. The normalisation of preventive warfare undermines all regional stability. In Southeast Asia, where efforts to create the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone are always at the back of the mind of policymakers, events in Iran do not augur well. Not at all. Malaysia, Indonesia and others must not condone the notion that power permits impunity. Upholding international law, especially on the peaceful use of nuclear energy, must remain paramount. Israel's right to exist and defend itself cannot come at the expense of international order. The world cannot permit any nation, however threatened it may feel, to unilaterally strike nuclear facilities and expect no consequences. The cost of such actions is not only borne by Iran. They are borne by every civilian who lives within range of retaliatory missiles, by every region trying to contain escalation and by every global citizen who depends on a rules-based international order to keep nuclear chaos at bay.


Malaysian Reserve
7 hours ago
- Malaysian Reserve
IAEA head warns Israel-Iran tensions increase risk of nuclear radiation leaks
ATHENS — The military tension between Israel and Iran increases the risk of nuclear radiation leaks and delays efforts to prevent the possession of nuclear weapons, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) warned on Monday. Delivering an introductory statement at the agency's urgent session on the Israel-Iran conflict, Rafael Grossi informed the Board of Governors: 'There has been no additional damage at the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant site since the Friday attack by Israel,' Anadolu Ajansi reported. He said the level of radioactivity outside the Natanz site has remained unchanged and is at normal levels. Grossi confirmed the presence of radiological and chemical contamination within the Natanz facility. However, this risk can be effectively managed with appropriate protective measures, he remarked. 'No damage has been seen at the site of the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant or at the Khondab heavy water reactor, which is under construction. The Bushehr nuclear power plant has not been targeted or affected by the recent attacks, and neither has the Tehran Research Reactor. 'At the Esfahan nuclear site, four buildings were damaged in Friday's attack: the central chemical laboratory, a uranium conversion plant, the Tehran reactor fuel manufacturing plant, and the UF4 to EU metal processing facility, which was under construction,' he further added. Noting that he remains in touch with the agency's inspectors on the ground, Grossi asserted that he is ready to travel immediately and engage with all concerned parties 'to help ensure the protection of nuclear facilities and the continued peaceful use of nuclear technology.' 'Military escalation threatens lives, increases the chance of a radiological release with serious consequences for people and the environment, and delays indispensable work towards a diplomatic solution for the long-term assurance that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon,' he said. — BERNAMA-ANADOLU