The Iranian nuclear crisis returned to the headlines in recent days, with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, issuing a stark warning that Tehran possesses enough enriched uranium to make several nuclear bombs.
While tense negotiations between Iran and the United States remain stuck over fundamental and potentially irreconcilable differences, a sixth round of talks is scheduled for Sunday in Oman.
The IAEA issued two critical reports on May 31. One detailed Tehran’s continued expansion of its highly enriched (60%) uranium stockpile, now possessing enough material for an estimated ten bombs (which also require separate work on warhead construction).
The second IAEA report censured Iran for its severe lack of cooperation with monitoring and inspections, when Tehran is obligated to under the International Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which it is a signatory.
This has raised the possibility of European countries (Britain, France, and Germany) and the United States citing Iranian non-compliance to justify a “snapback” mechanism, an ability enshrined in United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231.
It allows any of the parties to the original 2015 nuclear deal with Iran to unilaterally reimpose all previous international U.N. sanctions on Tehran if it is found to be in significant non-compliance with its commitments. This process is designed to be veto-proof, meaning other Security Council members like Russia or China cannot block it, making it the most powerful non-military enforcement tool available to hold Iran accountable.
Iran has warned that any snapback action against it would result in severe retaliation, a likely veiled threat to further nuclear progress, which itself could trigger military action against nuclear sites.
Brig. Gen. (res.) Professor Jacob Nagel, former acting national security adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a former head of Israel’s National Security Council who is today a senior fellow at the Washington D.C.-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told JNS on Monday there is “no real or practical significance to the enlargement of the 60 percent uranium stockpile, beyond, of course, the continued Iranian defiance and ongoing violations of all of its commitments and the number of bombs it could produce when it breaks through to the [military grade] 90% level.”
Nagel said this could be “a matter of days, when Iran decides. But the Iranians are smart enough not to do this in the meantime.” Nevertheless, he said, “As we approach the point of no return regarding the ability to activate the snapback weapon, which enables the return of all United Nations Security Council sanctions and more, the United States and Europe, and the IAEA in their wake, are indeed using tough words against Iran. But they are still not bearing their teeth.”
He added, “It is interesting to know what they are waiting for. Perhaps this is due to the continued negotiations with the United States. Hence, this is not a strategic turning point in the crisis, unless the nuclear talks collapse.”
Nagel highlighted the ambiguity in the U.S. negotiating position as a key problem. “There is indeed a fundamental gap between Iran’s demand and the American proposal, but the Iranian demand is clear and simple according to all open-source publications: They do not intend to give up their basic right to enrichment. Iran might be willing to make compromises on the level of enrichment, its scope, and the scope of enriched material that would remain in Iran,” said Nagel.
“On the other side, the American position, at least the one that is published, is not so clear,” Nagel asserted. “When President Trump, or his envoy [Steve] Witkoff, says that Iran will not be allowed to enrich, what exactly do they mean? Especially when reports are published that the intention is perhaps for the final status, but in the meantime and until the regional consortium facilities are established, Iran will be able to continue enriching.”
The regional enrichment consortium was a concept proposed by the United States during the negotiations, proposing the creation of a multinational facility located outside of Iran to handle all uranium enrichment, aiming to meet Iran’s purported energy needs while preventing a domestic enrichment capability on Iranian soil.
“Does this mean that Iran will be forbidden to enrich in [several] years? What will happen in the meantime to all the enrichment infrastructure at [Iran’s nuclear facilities,] Natanz and Fordow? Will the power be turned off, or will they be dismantled and destroyed?” Nagel asked.
Nagel concluded that only when these questions are answered can one assess if a diplomatic bridge is still possible or if a military clash is the only remaining path.
When asked about a potential military strike, Nagel deferred to Netanyahu’s repeated statements that Israel will not allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons capabilities.
“What is important to emphasize again is that in order to block all of Iran’s paths and channels to a nuclear capability, it is necessary to handle all the components that enable the development of a bomb: the fissile material, the development of the weapon system, and the connection between the weapon system and the delivery means, mainly missiles. Without comprehensive handling of all components, our gain could turn into our loss,” he warned.
On Monday, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi told i24NEWS that “the Iranians have told me that if there is an attack on the nuclear facilities, they will abandon the Non-Proliferation Treaty.” He also accused Iran of having “fraudulently obtained” confidential IAEA documents two decades ago to help it evade investigations into its nuclear program.
The diplomatic process appeared to be on the verge of collapse. On June 9th, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman officially stated that Tehran had refused the US proposal (the “Witkoff proposal”) because it was “not a product of the negotiation process,” and announced Iran would present its own “reasonable, logical, and balanced” counter-proposal via Oman.
This stood in stark contrast to U.S. President Donald Trump’s statement on the same day, following a call with Netanyahu, that the US had delivered a “reasonable proposal” to Iran and expected a response, adding that the Iranians are “very good and tough negotiators.”
Major crisis predicted
Danny (Dennis) Citrinowicz, a senior research fellow at the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies and former head of the Iran Branch in the IDF’s Military Intelligence Directorate, told JNS on Monday that the situation is likely heading towards a major crisis.
“Although the U.S. and Iran are interested in reaching an agreement, we are on the way to an unprecedented crisis due to the gap on the enrichment issue and moves against Iran at the IAEA. Without an agreement, escalation seems almost inevitable. These are not tactical moves but extremely significant ones,” he stated.
“Currently, there is no [diplomatic] solution without American recognition of Iran’s right to enrichment,” said Citrinowicz.
Amidst this diplomatic stalemate, the debate over military options continues. A letter in the Wall Street Journal on June 8, 2025, by Reuel Marc Gerecht, resident scholar at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and Ray Takeyh, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, suggested conversations in Israel now favor strikes that “needn’t destroy the ‘totality’ of the nuclear weapons program. Partial destruction with the threat of further escalation, which could include Iran’s oil industry, could nullify Tehran’s nuclear aspirations for years if not forever.”
This calculation, they noted, would depend on whether Israeli means are sufficient to severely damage the enrichment sites at Natanz and Fordow.
Iran has responded to the increased pressure with its own direct threats. On June 9, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council stated that any Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities would be met with a direct response against Israel’s “hidden nuclear infrastructure,” claiming a detailed database of Israeli targets was available to its armed forces.
The tense atmosphere is further compounded by Russia’s plan to build eight new nuclear power plants in Iran, according to the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Mohammad Eslami.
Andrea Stricker, nonproliferation and biodefense program deputy director at the FDD, stated on Monday, “The IAEA issued its long-awaited finding: Iran is in non-compliance with its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations and is hiding nuclear material and equipment today. As Tehran inches closer to nuclear weapons, the agency also said it cannot determine whether Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful. To hold the regime to account, the West has a short timeline to censure Iran at the IAEA Board of Governors and trigger the snapback of suspended UN Iran sanctions before their expiration in October.”