What did Iran say about nuclear damage and radiation after US strikes?
As the US, Israel, and much of the world assess the fallout from the American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, Tehran has offered only limited details about the actual impact.
And for good reason: Iran's nuclear programme is not just a scientific endeavour, it's a strategic insurance policy.
The regime has spent decades building it. If it crumbled overnight, Iran would lose one of its most powerful bargaining chips in any negotiation with the west.
So, what exactly has Iran said?
Nuclear contamination
Iran's Nuclear Safety System Centre was quick to issue a statement claiming that 'no nuclear contamination' had been detected at or around the sites targeted by US strikes.
'Following the criminal attack by the US on the nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, Iran's Nuclear Safety System Centre immediately conducted the necessary investigations,' the statement read.
'Based on the safety measures and planning, as well as data recorded by radiation detection systems, no signs of contamination have been detected. Therefore, there is no threat to residents living near the mentioned nuclear sites.'
Fordow takes a hit
Iranian officials claimed that most of the uranium previously stored at the F ordow enrichment facility had been moved to an undisclosed location before the strikes took place.
An Iranian source told state media: 'The exact location of the relocated uranium is not specified.'
Satellite images, however, suggest serious damage to Fordow's entrance, evidence of what appears to be a direct hit from multiple 30,000-pound US bunker-busting bombs.
While Iranian state media acknowledged the site 'was attacked by the enemy,' it stopped short of revealing the extent of the internal damage.
Fordow was more than just a facility; it was Iran's nuclear vault, a heavily fortified centre buried deep within a mountain. Its symbolic and strategic value far exceeded its physical contents. Its fate now remains uncertain.
There has been no official word from Tehran about the level of damage to other key sites, such as Natanz and Isfahan. Notably, the nuclear reactor in Bushehr, closer to the Gulf and heavily watched by Gulf states, was not struck.
What about the nuclear stockpile?
Iran has amassed significant quantities of enriched uranium and operates thousands of centrifuges.
While Tehran claims much of the uranium was safely relocated, there is no clear information on the current condition or location of the remaining material.
It is worth mentioning that neither Iran nor the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reported any radiation leaks.
IAEA weighs in
The IAEA, which monitors Iran's nuclear activities, said the latest strikes on the Isfahan complex damaged six buildings, in addition to four previously hit.
However, it added that facilities targeted either contained no nuclear material or small quantities of natural or low-enriched uranium, suggesting that a ny contamination would have been limited to the damaged structures.
IAEA chief Rafael Grossi announced that the agency's Board of Governors will convene for an emergency session on Monday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
By striking Iran, Trump has shaken up a Biden doctrine for the Middle East
Since returning to power in January, US President Donald Trump has thrown the world into confusion with contradictory moves – issuing ultimatums and deadlines only to walk them back. This was the case on in the early hours of Sunday morning, too, when he attacked three of Iran's nuclear facilities after having earlier announced that he would give two weeks' time for the ongoing Israel-Iran war to be resolved diplomatically. Mr Trump had usually been averse to wars and their consequences. He has often been influenced by the last person to interact with him, whoever that might be, particularly if he or she offered him a political safety net. Yet on Saturday, he shed the pejorative tag 'Taco' – or 'Trump Always Chickens Out' – which he earned for his on-again, off-again tariff war with the rest of the world. The US strikes have left the international community unable to predict what its President will do next on the Iran issue, and whether he even has an exit strategy. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, faces a different predicament. The US, no matter what Mr Trump chooses, is more or less capable of weathering the fallout. Iran, on other hand, will find itself teetering on the edge of devastation if Mr Khamenei widens the war to defend his establishment at the country's expense. So who now has the initiative? Peering into Mr Trump's mind to understand how he thinks is a near impossible task. He is convinced that the art of negotiation and inducements can still help convince Tehran to abandon its nuclear and ballistic missiles programmes, as well as its doctrine of expansionism, and make peace. Deep down, the US President appears to believe that if he were to sit face to face with Mr Khamenei, he could persuade him to strike a deal. Mr Trump's demand that Iran surrender unconditionally appeared to have stirred the establishment's instinct, making it react viscerally to what it views as humiliating rhetoric. And so in the run-up to the strikes, Tehran made it clear that if Washington enters the conflict directly, all options would be on the table – from closing the Strait of Hormuz to activating its armed proxies in the region and attacking American interests. It also boasted of hitting Israeli cities with its missiles and insisted that nothing can bring down the establishment in Tehran. Yet it had to take a step back, particularly after concluding that neither Russia nor China were prepared to stand with it, despite their security pacts. It sought help from the European troika of France, Germany and the UK – countries that were involved in the 2015 Iran nuclear deal – to end the war. But the talks involving Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi failed to make a breakthrough. French President Emmanuel Macron floated a proposal involving three pillars: curbing Iran's nuclear programme, its ballistic missiles programme and its funding of regional armed groups. Those pillars still stand, should Mr Khamenei accept the diplomatic exit from this war. Mr Macron's statement marked a shift in the framework of the US-Iran bilateral talks led by Mr Araghchi and Mr Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, brokered by Oman, which focused solely on the nuclear issue. Those five rounds misled Iran – or Iran misled itself – into believing it had succeeded in excluding missiles and proxies from the negotiations. But Israel's pre-emptive military actions aborted the chances of Mr Trump and his envoy being ensnared by Iran's negotiating tactics. The hardening of public positions on all sides suggests there is little room for Iranian concessions on any of these issues. Yet what might unfold behind the scenes could force Iran's leaders into making trade-offs in exchange for silent guarantees that they stay in power, effectively thwarting Israel's effort to end their rule. Mr Khamenei now stands in the shadow of his predecessor, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who once said he had to drink from a poisoned chalice when he agreed to a ceasefire that ended Iran's eight-year war with Iraq in 1988 for the sake of regime preservation. What does Mr Khamenei intend to do to prevent its collapse? Will he decide that inflicting damage on Israel's infrastructure and rousing Iranian pride are both key to its survival? Or is a deal on the horizon after the US stepped in as a direct actor in this war? In other words, will the internal divisions between hardliners and reformists in the Islamic Republic lead to the conclusion that reforming the establishment's doctrine is the only means to ensure its survival? The Israel-Iran war of attrition has already cost both sides, and each is boasting of having inflicted serious damage on the other. Israel has made it clear that this is Mr Trump's war as much as its own. The losses Israel has suffered have made it unwilling to continue serving as a proxy in the US-led war. This is a qualitative shift in the equation. Perhaps this is now a duel between Mr Trump and Mr Khamenei. Or perhaps this is a war between the extremist ideologies that govern both Iran and Israel, and which the US seeks to tame. Perhaps it's both. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejects any fundamental solution in the Middle East because his hard-right government's ideology precludes accepting a Palestinian state, just as the ideology of the Islamic Republic precludes a normal Middle East as long as it pursues Iranian hegemony enforced by armed proxies. We will know soon if Iran's rulers are genuinely ready to compromise and secure a deal to preserve their rule, or if the hardliners within effectively embrace existential self-harm. Either way, unlike in the past, today the tactic of buying time has diminishing returns for the Islamic Republic.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
US warns Iran not to retaliate after attacks on nuclear sites
Iran says it cannot return to diplomacy while under attack Trump signals more strikes possible after attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities Israeli army says has it 'other goals' in Iran and will continue attacks Iran requests for emergency UN meeting Houthis say US strikes 'war declaration' on Iranian people Hezbollah will not intervene in conflict between Iran and Israel No signs of nuclear contamination at attack sites, says Iran
Khaleej Times
an hour ago
- Khaleej Times
Israel-Iran conflict: Did the US strikes succeed? How will Tehran respond?
[Editor's Note: Follow our live blog for real-time updates on the latest developments in the Israel-Iran conflict.] The United States' strikes on Sunday on Iranian nuclear sites raised two major questions: how effective were they, and what will Iran do next? US President Donald Trump said the air raids "totally obliterated" the main nuclear sites, calling them a "spectacular military success". So far, Tehran has given little away about its response, although Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the United States had "crossed a very big red line". Stay up to date with the latest news. Follow KT on WhatsApp Channels. AFP looks at the impact of the attacks and the possible next steps. What was the effect of the strikes? The United States targeted Iran's three main nuclear sites including Fordow, a uranium enrichment facility buried 90 metres (about 300 feet) underground. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said the strikes "devastated the Iranian nuclear programme". The extent of the damage has not been confirmed, but there is speculation nuclear material had already been moved away. Heloise Fayet, a nuclear expert at the Institut Francais des Relations Internationales, said satellite images showing activity around Fordow "suggest enriched uranium stock may therefore have been transferred to sites not monitored by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)". "We previously had knowledge, albeit imperfect, of the programme thanks to the agency's inspections; now no inspections are possible," she told AFP. "As for Iran's technical expertise, it cannot be destroyed, knowing that thousands of people have participated in Iran's nuclear programme." Andreas Krieg, a senior lecturer at King's College London, called the US action a "high-risk operation that delivers unpredictable outcomes", given the facility was deep underground. "Trump has been using OSINT (open-source intelligence) accounts to say Fordo is gone while the Iranians claim there is only surface-level destruction." Ali Vaez, Iran project director for the International Crisis Group, said destroying Fordo "won't necessarily end Iran's nuclear programme. "Tehran has produced hundreds of advanced centrifuges in the past few years that are stored in unknown locations," he said. What is Iran's next move? According to Krieg, Iran will seek a "calibrated response — loud enough to resonate, but measured enough to contain". Michael A. Horowitz, a geopolitics and security analyst, said its options included attacking US assets, closing the Strait of Hormuz — a vital conduit for the world oil trade — or even attacking energy facilities in the Gulf, which hosts several US military bases. "None of those are good options that achieve anything — this is mostly about saving face," he posted on X. "The risks, on the other hand, are great." However, Horowitz said there were other ways to respond, including a limited retaliation against the US before returning to strikes against Israel and finally negotiating a settlement. The Iranian government now realises its very existence is at stake, said Renad Mansour, senior research fellow at the Chatham House think-tank, casting it back to the days of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. "It's survival mode," he said, predicting "more violence" in the short-term with the prospect of a "managed de-escalation" and eventual negotiations. Hamidreza Azizi, visiting fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, said Iran might allow Trump a "symbolic win" and retaliate against Israeli targets instead. "This keeps Washington out of the war while intensifying pressure on Tel Aviv. The risk of drawing the US further in would now rest on Trump's next move," he posted on X. "If Trump continues to strike Iran without new provocation, it looks more like going to war on Israel's behalf. That's politically costly, given domestic opposition to war with Iran." Meanwhile, Iran could deny knowledge of what happened to its enriched uranium, avoiding IAEA inspections, and later leave the Nuclear Non-Profiferation Treaty. "Trump may have scored a tactical win, but if Iran plays this smart, they hand him a political grenade," Azizi wrote.
