Iran’s nuclear program: Where it stands after US bombing – and what comes next

TEHRAN

After directing US military strikes on three of Iran's key nuclear facilities in the middle of the Iran-Israel war last June, US President Donald Trump claimed that the country’s nuclear program had been “completely and totally obliterated.”

He described the damage inflicted by 30,000-pound GBU-57 bombers as a “virtual obliteration” of Iran’s heavily guarded nuclear infrastructure, adding that the country’s nuclear program had been pushed back “by decades.”

CIA Director John Ratcliffe, echoing Trump, said the strikes had “severely damaged” Iran’s nuclear program, while UN nuclear agency chief Rafael Grossi described the damage as “very considerable,” though adding that the use of the word “annihilated” went too far.

Iranian reactions were mixed, neither fully confirming nor outright denying the US claims. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Trump had “exaggerated” the success of Operation Midnight Hammer, insisting that the US “could not achieve anything significant.”

President Masoud Pezeshkian said the country would “rebuild” the bombed sites “with greater vigor.” Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi struck a more philosophical tone, stressing that the technology and science behind enrichment “cannot be obliterated.”

Yet seven months after the June 22 bombings – which came 10 days after Israel launched a surprise attack on Iran – Trump took to social media to announce that a “massive armada” was heading toward Iran “with great power, enthusiasm, and purpose,” warning that time was “running out” to negotiate a deal on Iran’s nuclear program.

“Hopefully Iran will quickly ‘Come to the Table’ and negotiate a fair and equitable deal – NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS – one that is good for all parties,” the US president wrote, drawing pushback from Iranian officials and, more importantly, reigniting debate over the status of a nuclear program that Trump had previously declared eliminated.

The statement fueled strategic skepticism, with many commentators arguing that the deployment of a naval fleet alongside renewed calls for negotiations suggests a tacit acknowledgment that Iran’s nuclear program still exists.

Reza Sadr al-Hosseini, an expert in West Asian affairs, told Anadolu that Trump's failure to present concrete evidence to back his claim has created "significant ambiguity" and turned into a "political vulnerability" for him, especially in the US Congress.

"The fact that the US is now pushing for negotiations on uranium enrichment levels and the nuclear program clearly demonstrates that the previous military actions had no meaningful technical or industrial impact on Iran’s nuclear capabilities," he said.

Current status of Iran's nuclear program

Iranian officials maintain that the full extent of the damage to the three nuclear sites – Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan – is still being assessed, while uncertainty continues to surround the fate of the 400 kilograms (882 pounds) of enriched uranium.

In an interview last November, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said all of the enriched uranium, which appears to have become a major sticking point between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is “under the rubble,” adding that there are currently no plans to remove it.

His remarks came after IAEA chief Rafael Grossi alleged that Iran is keeping most of its enriched uranium at nuclear facilities which UN inspectors are not permitted access to.

Kiarosh Hatami, a Tehran-based strategic affairs analyst, said it "remains unclear" what happened to the enriched uranium after the June 22 bombing.

“Most probably, it was stored at one of these three nuclear facilities that were bombed, and the bombings left massive wreckage and rubble, so they could be trapped there,” he told Anadolu. “However, there are also reports that, before the bombing, some part of the uranium stockpile was moved to a safer location. But there is no way to confirm this.”

While the fate of the enriched uranium remains uncertain, there have been reports – corroborated by satellite imagery – that reconstruction work is already underway at some of the affected nuclear sites. Iranian officials, however, have not commented on these reports.

They argue that military strikes on nuclear facilities or the assassination of nuclear scientists cannot eliminate the nuclear program, as the “knowledge wheel” continues to turn – meaning that projects may be delayed, but the underlying foundation remains intact.

In an interview, Araghchi underscored that Iran “cannot give up” on its nuclear enrichment program, describing it as an “achievement of scientists,” including those killed during the 12-day war. Grossi appeared to echo this assessment, saying the Iranian nuclear program “cannot be erased” by military force.

Ali Ahmadi, an executive fellow at the Geneva Center for Security Policy, agreed that the current status of Iran’s nuclear sites and enrichment capacity remains "unknown," adding that Tehran is justified in pursuing “a policy of ambiguity around the concept.”

“I think any future Iranian nuclear enrichment program is going to be focused on a smaller number of more advanced centrifuge models that will be less vulnerable. So, how many older model IR1s Iran is operating isn't really the critical issue,” he told Anadolu, referring to a first-generation model centrifuge for enriching uranium.

Status of IAEA cooperation with Iran

The 12-day war severely derailed the already fragile cooperation between Iran and the UN nuclear agency, particularly after Iranian officials openly accused the IAEA of facilitating the attack by adopting a “politically motivated” resolution against Iran just days beforehand.

On June 25, 2025, Iran’s parliament approved a bill calling for the suspension of cooperation with the IAEA. It mandated the government halt international nuclear oversight unless security guarantees are provided, bar UN inspectors from entering or conducting inspections, and prohibit the installation of monitoring cameras at nuclear sites.

Pezeshkian later signed the bill into law, with Tehran framing the move as a measure to safeguard national sovereignty and ensure that UN inspections take place only under secure conditions approved by the country's top security body.

In November, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi announced that UN inspectors had returned to Iran and were conducting inspections at sites not affected by the June war, but added that “more engagement” was needed to “restore full inspections,” including those at bombed sites.

Mohammad Eslami, the head of Iran’s nuclear agency, rejected inspections of the country’s bombed facilities, urging the UN nuclear watchdog to “define post-war conditions.”

“If they are not defined, our request – which we have formally communicated to them – is that it must be specified, defined, and codified what actions should be taken if a nuclear industry that is registered with and under the oversight of the agency is subjected to a military attack,” Eslami said in December.

Earlier this week, he pointed to the “political nature” of the Iranian nuclear issue and the “external pressures” on the IAEA chief, saying Tehran not only cannot expect the issue to be resolved but also anticipates those pressures to intensify – particularly at the IAEA meeting this March, with the possibility of the case being referred to the UN Security Council.

“We remain in a wartime security situation. Naturally, we have established and approved procedures for such conditions and strictly follow them,” he said, on the possibility of allowing inspections of sites that were attacked during the June 2025 war.

The issue, however, has sparked concern in the international community, with the European troika (UK, France, Germany) pushing for more anti-Iran resolutions at the IAEA.

Prospects and challenges of new nuclear talks

Following intense diplomatic activity in recent weeks – spearheaded by Türkiye – Iran and the US agreed to resume indirect nuclear negotiations in Oman starting Friday.

Hosseini said Iran would enter the negotiations under “specific conditions,” such as they must be “balanced and fair” and that Tehran must secure “tangible benefits” from the process. He also underlined that Iran would use its uranium enrichment capability as “leverage.”

According to reports, the issue of possible Iranian nuclear weapons – which Trump referred to in his recent threat of military action against Iran – will feature prominently in the talks, alongside discussions over the fate of the 400 kg of enriched uranium.

While the ambiguity surrounds the stockpile of enriched uranium, Ali Shamkhani, a senior advisor to Iran's supreme leader, on Tuesday said there is "no reason" to transfer it outside the country, dismissing media speculation about Iran planning to send it to Russia.

Eslami, for his part, has insisted that nuclear weapons have “no place” in Iran’s military doctrine and that the country already possesses "sufficient deterrence" even without nukes, a reference to the country's missile capabilities.

Ahmadi, who has worked extensively on US-Iranian relations and the sanctions regime, said Iran is “not building nuclear weapons” but added that as Western powers grow more “militarily belligerent” and the world shaped by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) begins to fade, “it feels that it (Iran) needs to keep its options open.”

“If the US cannot provide any assurances that it would stay in any future deal, then the appropriate threats need to be in place – that is how I saw Eslami's comments. Even if an actual deal comes into being, unlikely at this juncture, Iran is unlikely to see it as something permanent,” he told Anadolu.

According to sources in Tehran, Iran has firmly rejected the inclusion of its missiles or regional activities in the upcoming negotiations – a position that Araghchi reiterated during a joint press conference with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan in Istanbul last week.

The negotiations will be led by Araghchi and US Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff, effectively picking up where they left off in June, before the 12-day war.