Nuclear watchdog head: Iranians say Israeli strike may push state to build nuke - exclusive

Iranians told IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi that if Israel strikes its nuclear facilities, this could push them over the edge and they will try to create nuclear weapons, Grossi said on Monday in an exclusive interview with The Jerusalem Post.

“A strike could potentially have an amalgamating effect, solidifying Iran’s determination – I will say it plainly – to pursue a nuclear weapon or withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,” Grossi said.

“I’m telling you this because they have told me so directly,” he added.

This is a typical Iranian refrain that could easily be dismissed as psychological warfare. However, hearing it directly from the world’s number one nuclear inspector, who has met with three Iranian presidents and many other top Iranian officials, is sobering.

Further, while several Israeli officials have assured the Post that Israel can strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, Grossi openly expressed doubt about this possibility.

“But one thing is certain,” he continued, “The program runs wide and deep. And when I say ‘deep,’ I mean it. Many of these facilities are extremely well-protected. Disrupting them would require overwhelming and devastating force.”

By “deep,” Grossi was referring to the claim made by many military experts that Israel, lacking the American 30,000-pound mega bunker buster MOAB (the Mother of All Bombs), does not have the capability of destroying Iran’s nuclear facility under the mountain at Fordow and the new one being built beneath a mountain at Natanz.

Unprecedented dialogue on pthe ossibility of an Israeli military strike

He has been asked many times over the years about the possibility of Israel attacking Iran’s nuclear sites, and he has always explicitly opposed such an idea, saying that time must be given to diplomacy to resolve the standoff.

Grossi’s readiness to analyze the possibility of a strike as a real, potentially near-future option demonstrates just how much the discourse surrounding this issue has changed following Israel’s successful elimination of all of Iran’s S-300 advanced antiaircraft missile systems on October 24, 2024.

Of course, the whole conversation originates from a significantly escalated nuclear threat level from Iran.

It is one thing to see reports from the IAEA about how close the Islamic Republic is to obtaining several atomic bombs. It is an entirely different one to hear directly from Grossi himself that Tehran has enriched sufficient uranium to produce around 10 nuclear weapons, should it decide to finish the other “nuclear weapons group” tasks, such as resolving special detonation issues.

“They have been accumulating enriched uranium at a very, very high level of enrichment, which is 60%,” Grossi said.

“To have a functioning nuclear device, you need 90% enrichment,” he continued. “So, as you can see, there is a very narrow gap between what they already have and weapons-grade material.”

However, Grossi is eager to clarify an important point: The fact that Iran possesses enough enriched material to produce about 10 bombs, according to last week’s IAEA report, does not mean it can assemble or use a nuclear weapon.

“This is a big ‘but,’ especially when speaking to an Israeli audience: None of this means that they have the bomb. There are numerous activities, technologies, and developments still needed to turn this material into something that can actually function as a weapon.”

Grossi added that more time might be required before Iran is able to develop something with the actual effect of a nuclear weapon.

Israeli and US intelligence, as well as top nuclear experts, have told the Post that the timeline Iran needs to resolve other issues related to using atomic weapons could take anywhere between several months and a year from now.

Grossi, who was appointed to lead the IAEA agency in December 2019, has had one primary focus since taking office – just like his predecessors: Iran’s nuclear program (though the Ukraine nuclear crisis has taken up much of his time as well).

He assumed the role around 18 months after US President Donald Trump announced the US withdrawal from the JCPOA Iran nuclear deal, but only a few months after Tehran began to openly violate the agreement, enriching uranium to newly high levels.

Since then, Grossi said he has had to work hard to persuade the Iranians to continue cooperating with the agency.

“In recent years, I have met with the Iranian president, and I’ve told them they should let us do our work so we can dispel all doubts. They assure me very eloquently that they have nothing to hide. Well, if that’s true, then they should allow us the access we need to do our job properly,” Grossi said.

Since 2021, Iran has restricted the IAEA’s ability to monitor its nuclear sites, and since 2022, it has expelled certain nuclear inspectors. Grossi admitted that there was a discrepancy between the agency’s knowledge and what was happening on the ground.

“We have a knowledge gap because when Iran stopped giving the IAEA access to several sites, facilities, and activities, we lost visibility,” he said. “But the activities did not stop. So, a lot has happened in the past two years.”

Still, Grossi emphasized that the agency retains a certain degree of oversight at key sites, such as uranium enrichment facilities, and inspectors can track how much uranium Iran is enriching.

“We know exactly how much they are enriching, and we regularly inspect these facilities. Where does the problem lie? It lies in the fact that all of this depends on the capacity to produce the necessary centrifuges for uranium enrichment,” Grossi said.

“And in recent years, Iran has developed highly advanced centrifuges – far more sophisticated than those covered by the original JCPOA,” he added.

Last week, Grossi submitted a particularly severe report to the agency, summarizing that Iran’s nuclear program has not paused and that there are serious concerns about findings the agency has uncovered in Iran.

“We discovered traces of enriched uranium in places where there shouldn’t have been any nuclear activity. So my question is simple – it’s not an accusation, just a logical question: If we found those traces, what was happening there? Where is the uranium that left those traces? Show us. Explain it,” he said.

“We will always find out,” Grossi continued. “You can build whatever you like, but with just one swipe, we’ll know exactly what was happening – even if it happened 25 years ago.”

When asked whether Iran had responded to these findings, Grossi replied: “We’ve received some answers, but they have not been satisfactory.”

Grossi elaborated at length about the issue of trust in dealings with Tehran.

“I trust everyone, but I need to verify everything,” he said. “Sometimes, people understandably ask me: ‘How can you talk to these people? How can you engage with them, shake hands, smile?’ First of all, I’m a diplomat. I have to talk to them. If I don’t, what am I supposed to do?”

When asked by the Post about Israeli criticism that the agency is being naïve in its dealings with Iran, Grossi responded: “If there’s one thing we are not, it’s naïve. We know exactly what we’re doing. We are not in the business of sweeping things under the rug. For us, transparency is crucial. We must get to the bottom of things.”

Currently, the US and Iran are engaged in efforts to negotiate a new nuclear agreement.

The gaps between the two sides appear wider than ever. While Trump insists there will be no deal unless Iran gives up its uranium enrichment capabilities, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, makes it clear that Iran will never relinquish its right to enrich uranium.

Despite the rhetoric and vast differences, Grossi believes an agreement is still possible.

“I think we need to find a convergence point between the Americans and Iran on the issue of enrichment. The JCPOA is obsolete. It has been overtaken by the evolution of Iran’s nuclear program. This is a different Iran. Ten years have passed. A decade,” he said.

Grossi continued, “I see a lot of merit in President Trump’s outreach to Iran, saying, ‘Listen, we need to sit down and address this issue. Otherwise, this might escalate into another military conflict.’ My impression – and I say this cautiously because I don’t want to intrude on the negotiators’ territory – is that it is not impossible to find common ground.”

Grossi said that the negotiations were being conducted between Trump’s Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, and Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, but insisted that any agreement must include strict oversight by the IAEA.

“There are new technologies, more facilities, and more development. Without the ability to fill the current knowledge gap, how can I, as the director-general of the IAEA, sign off on a document guaranteeing what Iran has or does not have? I cannot be expected to offer credible assurances,” he said.

Grossi added that if the two sides were to reach an agreement, he was certain that there would come a time when the IAEA must no longer remain behind the scenes but sit directly at the table.

“Wherever I go, I hear the same thing: ‘Iran must not have a nuclear weapon,’” he added.

Grossi’s overall message is that “there is an international consensus. The Iranians know this, too. And there’s also a domino effect to consider – if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, this will have consequences for the entire region and beyond.”