Iran says intelligence shows US girding for war - state TV

The latest assessment, which showed that Fordow was set back as long as two years, was briefed to US lawmakers, Defense Department officials and allied countries in recent days.

NBC also reported that an initial plan presented to US President Donald Trump involved three more sites, but the operation would have taken weeks, leading him to scale back the scope due to the risk of casualties on both sides and the fact that it was at odds with his foreign policy to extract the US from conflicts abroad.

“We were willing to go all the way in our options, but the president did not want to,” one of the sources with knowledge of the plan said.

The US strikes targeted three enrichment sites in Iran, Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

Trump was quick to call the strikes “a spectacular military success” and said, “Iran’s key enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated."

Israel has not ruled out further attacks on the two less damaged sites. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Fox News last week that “it’s not over”.

Iran is the only non-nuclear weapon state enriching uranium to 60% U-235, a level that causes "serious concern," according to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi.

The IAEA has consistently maintained that there is no credible civilian use for uranium enriched to this level, which is a short technical step from weapons-grade 90% fissile material.

Iran has always said its nuclear program is purely for peaceful, civilian purposes.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said the strikes on the Fordow nuclear site caused severe damage.

A former top UN nuclear official told Eye for Iran podcast that a nuclear Iran is still possible despite US and Israeli strikes on key nuclear sites as the whereabouts of Tehran's near-weapons grade uranium remains unknown.

Around 400 kilograms—more than 900 pounds—of uranium enriched to 60% purity is unaccounted for and now with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) barred from the country, it is unsure if the location can ever be known.

Former Deputy Director General of the IAEA, Olli Heinonen, warned: “One should not relax because this material as such is enough for 10 nuclear weapons if it is enriched further to 90%. So in a big picture, yes, Mr Trump was correct, but it should have had this caveat that it's not yet over.”

"I’m not an expert, but I assume Iran could still get a bomb easily. I hope Iran does some symbolic strike on a base, then everyone stops,” Dr. Jonathan Brown, the chair of Islamic Civilization at the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, posted on X in June after the US struck Iran's three main nuclear sites.

The university’s Interim President Robert M. Groves testified to the House Education and Workforce Committee that Brown had been removed as chair of the department and placed on leave following the tweet while the university is now reviewing the case.

"Within minutes of our learning of that tweet, the Dean contacted Professor Brown, we issued a statement condemning the tweet. Professor Brown is no longer chair of his department, he’s on leave, and we’re beginning the process of reviewing the case," Groves testified.

It was part of a hearing titled "Antisemitism in Higher Education: Examining the Role of Faculty, Funding, and Ideology”. Other testimonies were made heard from top experts including CUNY Chancellor Dr. Félix V. Matos Rodríguez and Berkeley Chancellor Dr. Rich Lyons.

It comes in the wake of anti-Israel protests at US campuses since the outbreak of the Gaza war.

Last year in May, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei wrote an open letter to US university students, saying they “now formed a branch of the Resistance Front,” referring to the Iran-backed militias around the Middle East seeking to destroy Israel and kill American troops.

Brown was criticized by fellow academics online. Jewish People Policy Institute fellow Dr. Sara Yael Hirschhorn went to school with him. In an angry post on X, she said: "I'm appalled to see him calling for Iran to attack US troops and his awe at attacks on Israeli civilians. Georgetown- enough!”

In the wake of the outrage following his post on X, he told Fox News Digital: "I was calling for de-escalation as I am very opposed to American involvement in foreign wars.”

“I know that he expects them to begin to negotiate because that's in their best interest,” Bruce said in an interview with Fox News. “He has believed and continues to believe that diplomacy will work here."

Bruce said the US negotiating position has remained consistent throughout, adding, “To negotiate…has been our posture from the start as indicated and led by President Trump.”

The Iranians know what our posture is, she said adding that Trump has shown patience and generosity even in the wake of recent hostilities.

“The fact of the matter is they should be very grateful that President Trump is as generous of a man as he is because of the nature of what's going on in the Middle East,” Bruce said.

Bruce’s comments came the same day independent journalist Laura Rozen reported on X that a senior US official told a source there was “no prospect for the resumption of US-Iran negotiations anytime soon.”

Iranian officials dig in

On Wednesday, Iran’s parliament said negotiations should not resume until preconditions are met, according to a statement carried by state media.

“When the US use negotiations as a tool to deceive Iran and cover up a sudden military attack by the Zionist regime (Israel), talks cannot be conducted as before. Preconditions must be set and no new negotiations can take place until they are fully met,” it said.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has previously demanded guarantees against further military attacks.

Last month, Israeli and US forces struck multiple nuclear facilities in Iran, citing concerns over a weapons program.

Iran maintains that its nuclear work is civilian in nature.

Tehran and Washington had conducted five rounds of indirect negotiations through Omani mediation prior to the June strikes, which brought talks to a halt. US demands that Iran cease uranium enrichment but the Iranian officials have repeatedly rejected it.

European pressure builds

Despite Trump’s insistence he is “in no rush” for a deal, the US and three European governments have agreed to push for an agreement by the end of August. If no progress is made, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said Paris, London and Berlin will trigger the UN sanctions snapback mechanism.

The snapback mechanism is part of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. It allows any participant in the nuclear agreement to reimpose sanctions if Iran is deemed non-compliant. If no resolution to maintain sanctions relief is passed within 30 days, all previous UN measures return automatically.

The sanctions were lifted as part of a nuclear deal in 2015, which effectively unraveled in 2018 when the United States, under President Donald Trump, withdrew from it.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot announced on Tuesday that the E3 (France, Britain, and Germany) would trigger the so-called snapback mechanism built into that deal unless tangible progress is made on a new nuclear agreement.

“If the snapback mechanism is activated and the suspended resolutions reimposed, all UN member states—including China and Russia—will be obligated to cooperate in enforcing sanctions against Iran, and cannot opt out of compliance,” Jahan-e Sanat, Iran’s leading economic daily, warned in an editorial quoting international relations expert Ali Bigdeli.

Escalation and uncertainty

Such warnings are dismissed as signs of weakness by more hardline voices in Iran—who are instead ramping up combative rhetoric.

IRGC-affiliated Tasnim News on Tuesday warned that Iran could raise uranium enrichment from 60% to 90%, and may use its enriched uranium stockpile for what it called “non-prohibited military purposes.”

The report, widely circulated across Iranian media, was quietly removed within hours.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei had said a day earlier that Tehran’s response to a potential snapback would be “proportionate,” leaving the audience to guess the specifics.

Former lawmaker Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh accused Iranian diplomats of lacking expertise and slammed hardliners for propagating what he called false narratives.

“President Pezeshkian must end his passiveness in foreign policy and rescue national interests from the grip of radicals,” he wrote in the moderate daily Arman Melli, harshly criticizing the original 2015 nuclear agreement and those who signed it.

The big “if”

Prominent reformist daily Sharq quoted analyst Mohammad Irani warning of a “political earthquake” and the effective closing of the door on diplomacy.

As Europe seeks to redefine its role—after a period of watching from the sidelines—a snapback of UN sanctions would foreclose the possibility of a Tehran-Washington agreement, Irani warned.

As commentary deepens, some voices are drawing attention to the fragile assumptions behind Iran’s current posture—and the risks of miscalculation.

“The snapback poses one of Iran’s most serious challenges—politically and economically," analyst Mehdi Pazouki wrote in Arman Melli, adding that the troubled waters could be navigated if Tehran turns to “realistic and proactive diplomacy."

That “if” looms large, Pazouki warned, given the growing absence of realism in Tehran’s foreign policy.

As Congress works through the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), two prominent Democrats have pushed for legally binding disclosures related to the June 22 strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites.

Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA), who frequently crosses partisan lines to vote with Republicans, introduced an amendment requiring the Department of Defense to disclose all costs associated with the strikes. It passed on Wednesday.

“The American people deserve to know how much we spent, and how much our increased troop and force deployment to the Middle East will cost taxpayers,” Khanna wrote on X.

Another Democrat and more strident critic of President Donald Trump, Representative Jerry Nadler (D-NY), proposed an amendment calling for a full battle damage assessment (BDA) of the strikes.

His proposal would have required the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense to deliver the assessment within 90 days. It did not pass amid Republican opposition.

“The Republican majority is refusing to consider my amendment to the Defense funding bill on Trump’s failed strike on Iran and the disastrous consequences of his withdrawal from the Iran Deal. What are they trying to hide?” Nadler wrote on X, referring to a 2015 international deal from which Trump withdrew in his first term.

Lawmakers reacted swiftly to the President’s surprise announcement of the strikes last month. Republican hawks largely celebrated the move, while many Democrats voiced strong criticism.

An initial Pentagon assessment suggested the attacks had only set Iran's nuclear program back by months, but subsequent analysis released by the Central Intelligence Agency said it would take Tehran years to recover.