Nuclear watchdog yet to regain access to key Iranian sites, Grossi says

His speech on Iran was his most extensive in months and indicated efforts had stalled on resuming talks after a 12-day military campaign started by Israel and joined by US forces.

"The Atomic Energy Commission said it's like 'gonzo,' one person actually used the term obliterated, but Iran actually said that they probably can never go there again," he told reporters. "They can probably never start there again. If they ever started, they'd probably choose a new site."

"They can try, but it's going to take them a long time to come back. But if they do want to come back, and they want to come back without a deal, then we're going to obliterate that one, too," Trump said.

Trump’s remarks came hours after Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei dismissed speculations about a possible fresh round of war on Iran, calling it part of “enemy propaganda”.

“Today, beyond these military confrontations — which have existed, as you have seen, and whose likelihood is constantly being talked up, with some even deliberately fanning the flames to create anxiety, though they will not succeed, God willing — we are facing a propaganda and media confrontation,” Khamenei said.

“We are confronted with a broad front in a propaganda war; we are in a spiritual war. The enemy has realized that seizing this land, this soil, this divine and spiritual territory, is not possible through pressure or military tools.”

Trump has long said the June 22 missile and bunker-buster bomb attacks on three Iranian nuclear sites took out Iran's nuclear capabilities. Still, Tehran and Washington do not appear set on resuming two months of talks they had before the war.

Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon but the United States and Western countries want Iran to end uranium enrichment, curb its missile power and rein it aid for armed groups in the region like Hamas and Hezbollah. Tehran has rejected the conditions.

"Their nuclear capability would have been there in about two months," he said of Iran's timeline to build a nuclear weapon before the war. "I think it looked like it was—some people say two weeks. I don't know if it's two weeks, but a very short period of time."

Iran's Supreme Leader has said dealing with Trump is beneath the dignity of the Islamic Republic and that the US approach to talks amounted to dictation.

Trump insisted on Thursday that Iran could have been spared the attacks if it came to a deal through talks, and that it must.

"Forget about the nuclear. The nuclear is gone. But look at the damage they've suffered, the death that they've suffered. They could have had a deal where nobody would have died."

"They missed that opportunity. But they would like to make a deal right now," Trump said. "Yes, please."

Speaking at The Jerusalem Post Conference in Washington DC on Wednesday, Fetterman questioned Iran’s official line that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful.

“There is no peaceful purpose for ninety percent enriched uranium,” he said. “If Iran continues, I will consistently support attacking and destroying those facilities.”

The UN nuclear watchdog has not reported such levels of enrichment, though its experts warned this year that Iran’s stockpile of 60 percent material can be further purified to weapons grade with relative ease.

Fetterman’s remarks come months after surprise US strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites on June 22, which Trump says “obliterated” its enrichment capability. Trump has vowed to attack Iran again should it revive nuclear activity.

Iranian officials have also confirmed damage to the facilities but the extent of damage has not been independently assessed and some Democratic members of Congress have challenged Trump’s assertion.

Fetterman described the strikes as necessary deterrence against the United States’ arch-foe in the region.

“I was the only Democrat calling to bomb the nuclear facilities as well,” he added.

‘All in’

Elsewhere in his interview, Fetterman reiterated his unyielding support for Israel, especially after the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack which he called a defining moment.

“If the shit hits the fan,” he said, “I would go all in with Israel. And I meant it.”

The Pennsylvania senator, who was honored this year by the World Jewish Congress for his support of Israel, has often faced criticism from within the Democratic Party which has been divided over policy on Israel.

He hit back at colleagues who refused to attend Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress earlier this year.

“When the prime minister spoke to Congress and people turned their backs on him, that was astonishing,” he said. “That was outlandish.”

Across the political spectrum, officials and commentators now speak less about breakthroughs and more about the constraints that make a return to the negotiating table unlikely.

“This is a structural lock that has evolved out of developments in recent years,” international relations professor Mohsen Jalilvand told the moderate outlet Fararu.

The deadlock, Jalilvand argued, stems from Tehran’s red lines: uranium enrichment and missiles—which he said form the core of Iran’s “security architecture and deterrence doctrine,” and therefore “cannot even be part of preliminary talks.”

The Trump administration last month responded to a message from Iran conveyed through the Saudi crown prince by saying three US conditions for any negotiations with Tehran remain unchanged, sources told Iran International.

These include Iran completely halting uranium enrichment, ending support for armed allies in the Middle East and accepting curbs on its ballistic missile program. Tehran has long dismissed the demands as a non-starter.

Many in Tehran believe previous rounds of bargaining delivered few tangible gains while reinforcing a cycle of pressure and concession that Iran cannot afford to repeat.

Washington’s messaging has done little to shift these perceptions.

US Middle East envoy Tom Barrack insisted last week that President Donald Trump wants an agreement with Iran—but on his terms.

Jalilvand warned that the upcoming visit of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to Washington will likely raise the political cost of any rapprochement with the United States.

‘Like before June war’

Inside Iran’s parliament, the view is similarly bleak.

MP Beitollah Abdollahi told the reformist outlet Rouydad24: “There are no negotiations with the United States on the horizon,” warning that the situation was similar to the period before a surprise Israeli military campaign in June.

In the six months since that conflict, Tehran has rebuilt parts of its regional posture, tightened internal discipline, and recalibrated its rhetoric.

What once looked like an emergency phase has settled into a colder equilibrium: no active escalation, no meaningful diplomacy, and a widening perception inside Iran that neither side is prepared to assume the political risk required for movement.

Iranian officials are increasingly portraying US expectations as calls for fundamental transformation rather than technical compromises.

A December 8 commentary on Rouydad24 said this shift in mood was evident in Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s recent emphasis on “managing hostilities” instead of avoiding conflict or resolving the standoff.

MP Ali Hashemi had one of the more sobering assessments.

“(Araghchi) knew that talks with the US had reached a deadlock at least three weeks before the war with Israel,” he said on Tuesday. “This explains his shift.”

Kamalvandi said the current safeguards agreement under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was written for “normal circumstances” and provides no clear mechanism for facilities that have come under attack. “The safeguards agreement was not designed for wartime situations and therefore needs to be updated,” he told IRNA.

He added that Iran remains committed to the NPT and its verification framework but said the agency’s political approach has complicated cooperation. “When a country is attacked, it cannot be expected to immediately allow inspectors into damaged sites, because that could mean handing sensitive information to its enemies,” Kamalvandi said.

The spokesman said Tehran would continue cooperating with the IAEA over undamaged facilities, but for those hit during recent strikes, “a new legal understanding is needed.” He said the safeguards regime allows for such revisions under its articles 20–22, which permit amendments in exceptional circumstances.

IAEA 'accepted Iran’s point' in Cairo talks

Kamalvandi also revealed that during recent discussions in Cairo, IAEA officials had effectively acknowledged Iran’s legal argument, accepting that the existing safeguards framework does not fully address post-conflict conditions. “Their agreement in Cairo shows that they understood our point — the current text cannot respond to the realities after the 12-day war,” he said.

He stressed that any future cooperation with the agency must ensure that Iran’s security and classified information are protected, saying Tehran is prepared to propose new verification methods “compatible with the realities of a conflict environment.”

“Our main goal is to find a path within the law,” Kamalvandi said. “We are not closing the door to cooperation, but the rules must reflect the conditions that Iran — or any country under attack — faces.”

Foreign minister warns of radiation risk at bombed nuclear sites

Meanwhile, earlier this week Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran faces “security threats and safety concerns” after strikes on its nuclear facilities during the 12-day war in June, warning of potential radiation leaks from damaged sites.

In an interview with Japan’s Kyodo News published on Sunday, Araghchi said the attacks had created “serious dangers,” including possible contamination and unexploded ordnance.

Araghchi added that while Tehran remains open to new nuclear talks if Washington shows “a logic of confidence-building,” IAEA inspections cannot resume at damaged facilities until “clear protocols” are established to protect both safety and sovereignty.

In an interview with Japan’s Kyodo News on Sunday, Araghchi said strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities had created serious dangers, including possible radiation exposure and unexploded ordnance.

“We are now facing security threats and safety concerns,” he said.

Following the joint US-Israeli attacks, Iranian authorities refused to evacuate surrounding towns and repeatedly dismissed public fears.

In late June, deputy health minister Alireza Raeisi said enrichment “does not involve nuclear fission” and therefore cannot generate harmful radiation, adding that measurements around Natanz and Fordow showed the areas were completely safe.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) likewise reported in June that it had detected no radiation increase around Natanz.

Conditional openness to new talks

Before the 12-day conflict, Tehran and Washington held five rounds of talks that broke down over Iran’s refusal to end domestic enrichment as demanded by US President Donald Trump.

Tehran, Araghchi said, could restart talks with Washington “as soon as they accept a logic of confidence-building” that trades sanctions relief for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program.

He insisted any framework must recognize Iran’s “right to enrichment.”

Iran, Araghchi added, is prepared to accept supervisory mechanisms “beyond the NPT” and time-limited limits on enrichment levels and centrifuge types, recalling that Tehran had accepted the 3.67-percent cap for 15 years under the JCPOA.

Still, Araghchi told Kyodo News that Iran cannot currently allow the resumption of IAEA inspections halted after the war because no protocol or guideline exists for inspectors entering damaged facilities.

IAEA director general Rafael Grossi has said most of Iran’s enriched-uranium stockpile is being kept at sites in Isfahan, Fordow and Natanz where inspectors lack access, and warned in October that monitors had observed activity around storage locations.

US officials under President Trump have demanded zero enrichment, dismantling of proxy forces and limits on Iran’s missile program – terms Tehran calls unacceptable.