Iran's foreign minister: US strikes ‘destroyed' nuclear facilities
'It is stopped because, yes, damages are serious and severe. But obviously we cannot give up [on] enrichment because it is an achievement of our own scientists. And now, more than that, it is a question of national pride,' Araghchi told Fox News's Bret Baier.
Araghchi later added that the 'facilities have been destroyed.'
Iran's foreign minister, in an interview on 'Special Report with Bret Baier,' said Iran will be able to rebuild the facilities, insisting that Tehran would not pause enriching uranium.
'If the goal is to make sure that Iran will never have nuclear weapons, that is achievable,' Araghchi said.
President Trump and other administration officials have claimed that U.S. military strikes on June 21 'completely destroyed' Iran's three nuclear sites — at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.
A recent intelligence assessment, which was reported by multiple news outlets last week, said that the nuclear facility in Fordow was mostly destroyed, but the ones in Natanz and Isfahan were not and could potentially resume uranium enrichment.
Apart from the White House, the Defense Department (DOD) has also pushed back against the intelligence report, saying that the June attacks, carried out by B-2 bombers and Tomahawk cruise missiles, obliterated all three sites.
DOD's chief spokesman Sean Parnell said to reporters earlier in July that the Pentagon's assessments indicated that Iran's nuclear program was set back by 'one to two years.'
Israel initially attacked Iran on June 13, which led to a 12-day war between the two countries. A ceasefire was reached on June 24.
Prior to the conflict, the U.S. and Iran completed five rounds of nuclear talks, although the two countries did not reach a deal. Trump pulled out of a former President Obama-negotiated deal in 2018.
'It is developed by ourselves. It is an achievement by ourselves. The technology is there. The scientists are there, the people who have run these facilities are there. Buildings can be rebuilt. Facilities can be rebuilt. Machines can be replaced,' Araghchi said.
'I think the recent attack proved that there is no military option for our nuclear program,' the foreign minister added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
5 minutes ago
- Axios
Iran worries U.S. will use nuclear talks as pretext for new attacks: Senior official
Iran is willing to return to the negotiating table with the U.S., "the sooner the better," but must be convinced the talks aren't cover for further military action, Tehran's nuclear negotiator Kazem Gharibabadi said on Wednesday. The big picture: U.S. officials were discussing the dates for future talks with Tehran last month while simultaneously coordinating war plans with Israel, Gharibabadi said. While Tehran knows it needs to negotiate with the U.S. to get sanctions lifted and avoid new ones, he said bluntly that "we don't trust the U.S." Driving the news: Iran and the "E3" — France, Germany and the U.K. — will hold talks in Istanbul on Friday on the issue of "snapback" sanctions. The European signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal could impose those harsh sanctions for Iranian non-compliance, though Tehran denies that such a move would be legitimate. Gharibabadi, Iran's deputy foreign minister and lead nuclear negotiator, said Friday's talks were "important" but not "decisive," because even if an agreement is not reached "we still have time." Between the lines: The U.S. and the E3 jointly settled on the end of August as a deadline to impose the harsh snapback sanctions if no U.S.-Iran deal is reached by then. But Gharibabadi suggested that was a soft deadline, noting that the E3 had also called Iran's foreign minister to express their desire to come to an arrangement. The power to impose snapback sanctions expires in October, but the Europeans are expected to raise the possibility of extending that deadline. In return, they want Iran to take steps toward resuming the work of UN inspectors in its nuclear facilities and possibly move its 60% highly enriched uranium to another country. Gharibabadi said it was "premature" to discuss an extension. What he's saying: Speaking to reporters in New York on Wednesday, Gharibabadi said it was now incumbent on Iran to negotiate over snapback with the Europeans and over the broader nuclear issue with the U.S. But he made clear just how difficult that would be. The last time around, he argued, the U.S. repeatedly changed its positions in talks — making it difficult to make progress — and then turned around and bombed Iran. Gharibabadi said a military operation may always have been the true U.S. intention — something U.S. officials deny — and that could be the case once again. Concerns about future attacks are one reason Iran want assurances on the Trump administration's seriousness before returning to the table, he said. State of play: Gharibabadi said Iran had invited a technical team from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to visit Tehran in the next few weeks, but not to visit the country's nuclear sites. Iran suspended its cooperation with the IAEA due to the Israeli and U.S. attacks. Gharibabadi criticized IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi for declining to condemn those attacks, suggesting he had political motives. But he said Iran was willing to discuss "a new modality" for cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, including access to the nuclear sites that were not attacked and also those that were. The IAEA has not yet requested access to the three bombed nuclear facilities, Gharibabadi said, noting that it would be very dangerous for inspectors to enter them. The intrigue: When reporters repeatedly asked about the status of Iran's nuclear facilities and material after the strikes, Gharibabadi joked that rather than asking him they should trust President Trump's insistence that they were "totally destroyed." What to watch: The U.S. has continually proposed a resumption of talks since the war, and there have been several discussions in Tehran about the terms on which to resume them, Gharibabadi said. He insisted that any talks would be "indirect," conducted through mediators, despite the U.S. desire for "direct" talks. Asked why, he said "we don't trust the U.S." and don't think the process has reached a stage where direct talks are appropriate. Gharibabadi didn't lay out a timetable for the resumption of talks with the U.S., but suggested Friday's talks in Istanbul would be a factor.
Fox News
36 minutes ago
- Fox News
NJ showdown ensues after DOJ fires Habba's replacement
Fox News correspondent Mark Meredith reports on the Department of Justice moving to fire a newly-appointed attorney after federal judges declined to extend Alina Habba's interim appointment.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump reacts to Tulsi Gabbard reveal: ‘Irrefutable proof of Obama coup'
President Donald Trump is furious with former President Barack Obama, whom he is accusing of participating in a 'coup' against him in 2016. Trump is referring of course to recent disclosures from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who has released documents showing it was Obama who encouraged intelligence officials to reach stronger conclusions about Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 election. According to Gabbard, the intelligence community was well aware that Russia did not hack voting machines, nor did the country have much impact on the outcome, but Trump's enemies in the Democratic Party wanted to paint him as a Russian collaborator, and so they overreached. The media, of course, followed suit, publishing headline after headline suggesting that Trump was a Russian stooge. Here is President Trump reacting to the latest news: 'We found absolute — this isn't like evidence, this is like proof, irrefutable proof, that Obama was seditious. That Obama was trying to lead a coup. And it was with Hillary Clinton and with all these other people, but Obama headed it up. And, you know, I get a kick when I hear everyone talks about people I never even heard of. […] It was Obama, he headed it up. And it says so right in the papers.' These allegations are extremely serious. Now, it's far too premature to throw around the word treason; in fact, I don't like when anybody, Democrat or Republican, starts accusing their opponents of treason. This reads less like treason to me and more like political weaponization of national intelligence for partisan purposes, which has become a recurring theme. Make no mistake: There was an effort to de-legitimize Trump's election to the presidency, and the argument was made by mainstream media mouthpieces leveraging the expertise of deep-state spymasters. Hillary Clinton and Jimmy Carter both said that Trump was an illegitimate president, in response to media reporting on Russia's meddling. This was the original 'stolen election' theory, and it's only been overshadowed because Trump's false contention that the 2016 election was stolen has subsequently received much more media coverage and much more vigorous pushback. Let me be perfectly clear: Trump should have never claimed that the 2020 election was stolen from him. But he's in good company: Look at the Democrats who said the same thing about 2016! And their main theory backing that up was Russian malfeasance — something intelligence officials privately discounted, until they went to the White House and had a chat with outgoing President Barack Obama.
