U.N. Inspector Says Iran Could Be Enriching Fuel Again in a ‘Matter of Months’

The head of the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog agency has presented a starkly different view from that of former U.S. President Donald Trump regarding the extent to which recent American military actions have delayed Iran’s nuclear ambitions. According to Rafael Mariano Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran could potentially resume uranium enrichment activities in a matter of months—despite Trump’s repeated assertions that Tehran had entirely abandoned its nuclear pursuits following the U.S. airstrikes.

In an interview aired by CBS News on Sunday, Grossi stated, “To be honest, it’s not accurate to suggest everything has vanished or that nothing remains.” His comments came in direct contradiction to Trump’s portrayal of the situation, in which he claimed that the Iranian nuclear infrastructure had been thoroughly demolished.

Grossi acknowledged that the U.S. attack, which involved the dropping of 14 powerful bunker-penetrating bombs on Iran’s two key uranium enrichment centers, did indeed cause substantial damage. However, he was careful to note that while the assault was serious, it was far from completely effective. This assessment marks a significant departure from Trump’s narrative, which has portrayed the mission as entirely crippling Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Grossi had previously suggested that more than 18,000 centrifuges hidden deep within fortified underground facilities had either been destroyed or rendered inoperable. However, in his latest remarks, he walked back from the idea that Iran’s nuclear ambitions were fully dismantled, aligning instead with findings from various European intelligence sources and a recent report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).

The DIA’s preliminary evaluation, which has been widely discussed in recent days, estimates that the U.S. strike has only set back Iran’s nuclear program by several months—not years, as Trump has claimed. CIA Director William J. Burns offered a similar view, indicating that while the damage was serious, the Iranian nuclear program has not been eliminated. The intelligence community continues to analyze the long-term effects of the strike.

The DIA’s report seemed particularly focused on the nuclear fuel enrichment process at the locations targeted by the GBU-57 bombs, which are among the most powerful non-nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal. Other analysts have pointed out that some of the most significant consequences of the attack might stem not from the destruction of enrichment facilities themselves, but from the damage to infrastructure needed to convert enriched uranium into weapons-grade material.

For instance, one of the key facilities affected was a laboratory still under construction near the historic city of Isfahan. This site was intended to facilitate the conversion of enriched uranium into metal—a critical step in the development of nuclear weapons. The destruction of this lab could create a major bottleneck for Iran, significantly delaying its ability to advance toward weaponization.

Experts have observed that rebuilding such specialized infrastructure could take several years. However, the extent and pace of Iran’s recovery will likely depend on how it chooses to respond in the coming months. If Tehran allows IAEA inspectors to continue their work on-site, the international community may gain some visibility into Iran’s next steps. But if Iran expels inspectors or chooses to operate its program in secret, the risk of further military strikes remains—especially given Trump’s recent comments affirming his willingness to launch additional attacks if necessary.

Despite these complexities, Trump has continued to argue that Iran’s nuclear efforts have been completely thwarted. During a recent interview with Fox News, he doubled down on his claim that the American airstrike had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. He has even threatened to take legal action against media outlets such as CNN and The New York Times for citing the DIA report, which contradicts his version of events. On Sunday, Trump went a step further by stating that he might use the legal system to compel journalists to disclose their sources—a controversial stance that challenges long-standing protections for press freedom.

“You go to the journalist and say, ‘This is national security—who gave you this information?’” Trump stated during the Fox interview. “That’s what you have to do. I think we’re going to start doing things like that.”

In addition to dismissing the intelligence community’s findings, Trump has rejected suggestions that Iran might have secretly moved portions of its enriched uranium stockpile in anticipation of the U.S. attack, which occurred in the early hours of June 22. Trump has labeled such a scenario as implausible, citing the logistical and security challenges involved in relocating nuclear material under such conditions.

However, the IAEA has reported that the enriched uranium was stored in transportable containers, some of which could have fit in a standard vehicle. Grossi added that Iranian officials themselves had admitted to relocating some of the canisters to “more secure” locations. Supporting this claim, American intelligence agencies have tracked suspicious vehicle activity around Isfahan in the days leading up to the airstrike—an indication that at least part of the stockpile may have been moved.

Still, Trump maintains that Iran has no interest in reviving its nuclear program, although he has yet to present concrete evidence for this claim. “They were wiped out like never before,” he told Fox News. “And that, for now at least, has brought an end to their nuclear ambitions.”

He went on to say that after 25 years of pursuing nuclear capabilities, Iran had effectively given up. “They’re not going to touch nuclear again—at least not for a while,” he said. “We had to act. They were very close to building a bomb.”

Before the strike, U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded that Iran had not formally decided to produce a nuclear weapon but was just a few technical steps away from having the capacity to do so. The precision strike may have disrupted their timeline, but it likely hasn’t erased their knowledge or intent.

Trump has expressed a willingness to resume diplomatic negotiations with Iran and has stated he would consider lifting the extensive sanctions currently imposed on the country if it agrees to halt all uranium enrichment activities and fully comply with international nuclear inspections. “If they can prove to us they’re peaceful and won’t cause more trouble, I’d lift the sanctions,” Trump said, adding that such a move would greatly improve the Iranian economy.

However, his position on diplomacy has fluctuated in recent days. While he has occasionally expressed interest in reengaging Tehran, the recent military action has changed the bargaining landscape considerably. Iran now has fewer options at the negotiating table, and its main leverage comes from the lingering uncertainty surrounding its remaining uranium stockpile—particularly whether it still possesses uranium enriched to 60%, a level that falls just short of the 90% required for weaponization.

Despite his emphasis on military strength, Trump’s comments about potentially lifting sanctions may indicate a recognition that diplomacy and stringent inspections are the most viable long-term strategies for preventing Iran from rebuilding its program.

National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, speaking at the Aspen Ideas Festival on Sunday, stressed the urgent need for a new diplomatic agreement in light of the attack. Sullivan, who played a key role in the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, emphasized the importance of getting an objective assessment of the damage without political interference. “We need straight answers from both U.S. and Israeli intelligence,” he said. “From what I’ve seen so far, Iran likely still retains portions of its enriched uranium stockpile and may still possess centrifuge components or the ability to manufacture more.”

Sullivan added that if Iran were to suddenly decide to restart its nuclear program, it’s conceivable that it could mount a rapid development effort within a year, depending on the extent of the remaining infrastructure. Some Israeli analysts believe the timeline could be slightly longer—two to three years—but the risk remains.

In the end, while the U.S. strike may have disrupted Iran’s nuclear trajectory, the underlying threat persists. Experts and officials alike agree: unless a new deal is reached and comprehensive inspections are resumed, Iran’s nuclear program could rise from the rubble.