A ceasefire brokered between Iran and Israel appears to be holding, even though missiles and accusations were still flying as it took effect Tuesday morning.
Meanwhile, President Trump insists that the U.S. attack over the weekend destroyed Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, hitting one underground site — Fordo — with bunker-busting bombs.
Former Energy Secretary and Iran nuclear deal negotiator Ernest Moniz shares what he knows now about Iran’s nuclear program days after U.S. missiles struck its main sites, and whether he thinks diplomacy can set limits on its redevelopment.
5 questions with Ernest Moniz
President Trump says Iran’s nuclear program is demolished and that Iran will never rebuild. Do you share that confidence?
“No, unfortunately, I don’t. I think the military strike clearly appears to have been a success in terms of its objective, certainly inflicting heavy damage on Fordo.
“As the chairman of the Joint Chiefs said we don’t really know yet the full damage assessment. But no matter what it is and even if we assume that the obliteration description is correct, the reality is, I think we just don’t know, for example, where the 10 weapons’ worth of 60% enriched uranium is. We expect that it was moved by Iran to secure locations that we don’t know where those are.
“We also have to expect that even if all the centrifuges at Natanz and Fordo were destroyed or damaged that they must have a lot of parts to reconstruct to build other advanced powerful centrifuges. And the reality is that, to make a weapon, say 25 kilograms worth of weapons-grade uranium, which is the official, international benchmark, it doesn’t take a lot of effort. It doesn’t take a lot of centrifuges. So facilities may have been taken out completely, but the program, I would say, was not taken out.”
So as long as we don’t know where that enriched uranium has gone, should we assume that Iran is still on the cusp of making a bomb?
“I would have to assume so. See, I think one of the primary objectives is to have that 60% uranium diluted essentially removed. Frankly, Iran was tempting fate, I have to say. I think they overplayed their hand by enriching to a level that has no rationale other than supporting a weapons program or at least cozying up to a weapons program. Getting rid of it is critical, but the reality is we cannot be sure how much they have now.”
If this fragile ceasefire between Israel and Iran holds, does that suggest to you that Iran would be ready to renegotiate the future of its nuclear program?
“I would hope so. I do want to remind one that the military strike by the statements from President Trump and from Israel have said that the program has been set back by at least a few years.
“As a reminder, the agreement in 2015 set back the program for 15 years. In fact, the limits on the amount of very low and rich uranium Iran could possess would not expire under that agreement until 2031. So if the ceasefire holds and we can go back to discussing what the future nuclear program would be. I would argue that there may be really an opportunity to think about a regional initiative, including the Saudis, the Emiratis, the Iranians to have a kind of a unified approach to the development of nuclear power. The Emiratis have done that in ways that everybody feels safe, secure, and gets clean 24/7 electricity.”
Trump says he pulled out of the deal that you helped broker in part because it wasn’t permanent, as you mentioned. Do you think if all sides return to the negotiating table, that the United States is in a position to actually get a better deal this time?
“Well, it’s not clear. I think the ground truth has changed a lot. When the deal was done, Iran was down to a few thousand rather primitive centrifuges. Now they have thousands of the most powerful centrifuges. As a reminder, in 2015, in reaching the Iran deal, there’s no doubt we had the full support of Russia and China, in addition to our European allies. That clearly is not something we can count on today. So there are some additional challenges. On the other hand, Iran clearly is in a much weaker position today in many ways. I would say it’s mixed, but pursuing that diplomacy and looking for a strong deal that precludes what no one wants — a nuclear-armed Iran — is certainly the next step to take.”
If you look back at recent history, dealing with the Iran nuclear threat was not really a major priority in the Biden administration. There were some early efforts to renegotiate a deal. Do you think that President Trump is making the right calculation by forcefully challenging Iran’s attempt to build a bomb in the way that he has over the last several days?
“I might have chosen a somewhat different pathway, but I think President Trump has correctly put a high priority on addressing the Iranian nuclear issue. Now, of course, President Trump is also the one who pulled us out of the agreement in 2018, as you mentioned, and the reality is that has, again, changed the ground truth.”
This interview was edited for clarity.
____
This article was originally published on WBUR.org.
Copyright 2025 WBUR
