Greece (Brussels Morning Newspaper) The head of the UN nuclear watchdog, Rafael Grossi, has contradicted U.S. President Donald Trump’s claim that American strikes “totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear facilities, stating instead that Tehran could resume weapons-grade uranium enrichment within months. The IAEA chief said the U.S. attacks inflicted serious but not irreversible damage on three key sites—Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan—echoing a leaked U.S. intelligence report suggesting only a temporary setback to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Meanwhile, Tehran’s deputy foreign minister told the BBC that Washington must commit to halting further military action if it hopes to revive stalled negotiations. The U.S. strikes followed Israeli attacks on June 13, amid mounting concerns that Iran was nearing nuclear weapon capability.
Nearly three weeks after U.S. airstrikes targeted Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, the whereabouts of some 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium remain unknown, raising concerns over Tehran’s nuclear intentions. Israeli forces initiated the offensive with a coordinated drone and air assault on Iran’s fortified facilities, aiming to derail its suspected weapons program. The U.S., initially reluctant to intervene, joined the campaign days later, striking key sites. The escalation has sparked Iranian retaliatory attacks on Israeli cities and a U.S. base in Qatar, though President Trump announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran last week. Uncertainty lingers over whether Iran successfully relocated its uranium stockpile before the strikes and if its centrifuge network remains operational.
Warnings turned into Strikes
The world watched in alarm as Tel Aviv and Washington carried out their targeted assault on Tehran, yet the global community could hardly claim surprise. For months, the planet’s principal nuclear powers had laid the groundwork, hinting at what was to come. No nation, regardless of alliance, wants to see Iran join the ranks of nuclear-armed states. While critics often point to the West’s double standards—questioning why Christian-majority nations are permitted arsenals while others are not—the opacity surrounding the nuclear capabilities of countries like Pakistan and India serves as a reminder that mistrust of Tehran transcends religious or cultural lines.
What is clear is that few governments, East or West, have confidence in the judgment of Iran’s leadership. On December 28, the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Germany issued a joint statement condemning Iran’s latest moves as a “backwards step,” describing them as reckless and a clear indication of Tehran’s unwillingness to pursue de-escalation. The message to Iran: reverse course—immediately.
Iran did not comply—and instead doubled down with inflammatory statements against the international community. Whether the military operations by the two states that struck targets inside Iran were justified is a separate matter, one that belongs in discussions grounded in international law and addressed in other forums. What is relevant here is the extent to which Tehran, in an effort to appease its political and military elite, escalated its rhetoric with deliberate threats and provocations—ultimately providing the very pretext its adversaries may have been waiting for.
What Future Holds
The future of Iran’s nuclear program is anything but clear. What can be said with confidence is that the recent strikes have left a mark—both logistically and symbolically. Key facilities were damaged, and numerous scientists and researchers lost their lives, many of them highly skilled individuals whose deaths raise difficult and painful questions. These were not battlefield soldiers, but experts who, under different political circumstances, might have used their knowledge to serve peaceful purposes: advancing medical research, bolstering Iran’s energy infrastructure, or contributing to international scientific collaboration. That potential was squandered.
Whether they ever had the freedom to make such choices is unclear. In a regime where military priorities often override civilian needs, the line between scientific advancement and strategic ambition is blurred. The pursuit of a nuclear weapon—if that indeed was the goal—resembles less a rational strategic objective and more a vestige of Cold War-era militarism, a fixation rooted in power projection rather than practical security. For a younger generation, including those who did not live through the nuclear brinkmanship of the 20th century, this obsession with atomic deterrence feels increasingly out of step with today’s realities. And yet, as recent events have shown, it still carries a devastating human cost.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
