No sign Iran nuclear sites were hit, IAEA says, but Iran disagrees

The U.N. nuclear watchdog held an emergency meeting in Vienna on March 2 at the request of Russia and Iran to address the fallout from the U.S.-Israeli military strikes. In a statement authored by its director-general Rafael Grossi, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said it currently had “no indication” that any of Iran’s nuclear installations were damaged or hit. These include the Bushehr nuclear power plant, a research reactor in Tehran, and other nuclear fuel cycle facilities. The statement also said regional monitoring networks have detected no elevation in radiation levels above normal background levels in the bordering countries. Iran-Israel conflict updates on March 2, 2026 However, the IAEA said that its efforts to contact Iranian nuclear regulatory authorities have been met with a communications blackout and they have received no response from Tehran so far. Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA, Reza Najafi, contradicted the U.N. watchdog. Speaking to reporters outside the March 2 meeting, Mr. Najafi alleged that the U.S. and Israeli airstrikes did target and hit the country’s Natanz uranium enrichment facility. Thus far, Iran has not provided evidence to the public or the IAEA to confirm this damage. Iran has a history of using foreign strikes as a justification to halt IAEA oversight. Following the strikes in mid-2025, the Iranian government passed a law suspending all cooperation with the IAEA, citing the need to protect its territorial integrity and scientists. Now, if the Natanz facility was not actually damaged or if the damage was unrelated to the facility’s nuclear core, claiming a new attack could give Tehran domestic and legal cover to continue to bar IAEA inspectors. Iran can also potentially rally diplomatic support from allies like Russia and China and allow Tehran to accuse the U.S. and Israel of violating international law and recklessly risking a regional nuclear disaster, turning the world’s focus away from its own enrichment efforts. An unprovoked attack on nuclear infrastructure could also create rationale for Iran to enrich uranium to higher levels in “self-defense” and restrict information, framing these measures as necessary for security. Iran and its allies have often accused the IAEA of having a political agenda, with Iran maintaining for many years that the U.S., the U.K., France, and Germany weaponise the watchdog to issue “unbalanced, inaccurate, and politically motivated” reports based on “falsified” intelligence provided by Israel. In recent years, these accusations have escalated from claims of bias to outright accusations of espionage, with hardline Iranian politicians labelling the IAEA “Israel’s official spy” last year. The Iranian government also claimed its intelligence agencies had documents proving Mr. Grossi was secretly collaborating with Western intelligence and that the IAEA leaked the coordinates of Iranian nuclear sites and the identities of its scientists to help Israel and the U.S. coordinate their airstrikes during the Twelve-Day War. Ironically, the U.S. helped start Iran’s nuclear programme in the 1950s to promote peaceful energy. However, everything changed after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, when the two nations became bitter enemies. Tensions escalated in the early 2000s when the world discovered Iran had secretly built hidden nuclear facilities, including the enrichment plant at Natanz. Washington feared Tehran was secretly trying to build a nuclear bomb while Iran insisted its programme was for electricity and medicine. However, the messaging before, during, and after the 2025 conflict was confusing. Leading up to the clash, U.S. and Israeli officials strongly hinted they might bomb Iran’s nuclear sites to stop Tehran from building a bomb. But later, the two countries were unusually quiet about what they actually hit, likely trying to avoid sparking an all-out regional war. Iran’s messaging was more inconsistent. First, state media claimed Iran’s air defences had thwarted the attack and that no nuclear sites were touched. Soon after, however, officials heavily suggested their nuclear facilities were targeted. The mixed messaging could have been intentionally designed to allow Iran to look strong to its own people by claiming a military victory while playing victim on the world stage. Tehran also used the confusion to blame the West for risking a nuclear disaster. Today, the nuclear question is the engine driving the ongoing conflict: Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon is a red line for the U.S. and Israel even as U.S. President Donald Trump’s cryptic plans and Israel’s unchecked aggression have prompted Iran to act to defend the regime’s existence. And Tehran believes pushing closer to a nuclear weapon is the only way to deter foreign attacks and protect its government from being overthrown. As long as both sides hold these firm beliefs, Iran’s nuclear sites will remain the spark keeping this conflict alive. Published - March 02, 2026 04:04 pm IST ### Related Topics USA / Israel-US strikes on Iran