With tensions mounting between the US and Iran, the need to rekindle responsible dialogue on nuclear compliance and non-proliferation grows more urgent. The fallout from another US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities could be devastating for communities and ecologies within Iran and potentially – depending on weather conditions – far beyond the country’s borders.
The situation remains volatile: the next few weeks will be a crucial chapter in US, Iranian, and global nuclear diplomacy.
Now is the time for a return to the negotiating table, says Dr Manuel Herrera, head of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Programme at BASIC. It is vital that states respect the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), that the US refrains from strikes, and that Iran complies with the country’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) nuclear Safeguards Agreement, he adds.
Known Unknowns
Estimating the extent of likely impacts is difficult. Iran, a signatory to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state since 1970, has not disclosed the location of its uranium stockpiles since moving its nuclear materials in 2025. This relocation was prompted by two waves of missile attacks that struck Iran two months into its renewed negotiations with the US: Israeli missile strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and civilian areas on 13 June 2025; and US strikes on three nuclear facilities (Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan) on 22 June 2025.
Together, these attacks killed over 1,000 people and were in contravention of the UN Charter and the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions. Although Iran had moved most enrichment materials prior to the attacks, the US strikes caused substantial damage to Iran’s nuclear programme – partially, though not totally, destroying the centrifuges needed to enrich uranium. Without functional centrifuges, Iran cannot further enrich its uranium to the level required for nuclear weapons.
However, the Iranian government still has approximately 400kg of uranium enriched to 60% and thousands of kilograms enriched to 5-20%. On 12 June 2025, Iran announced the activation of a third main uranium enrichment site but has not disclosed the location and is blocking inspections in contravention of the IAEA Safeguards Agreement. As a result, the IAEA’s capacity for monitoring, verification, and oversight is inevitably limited and dependent on satellite imagery and other intelligence. Indeed, satellite imagery of Taleghan 2 (a nuclear weapons research facility), published by the Institute for Science and International Security on 6 January, indicates the new construction of a large cylindrical metal object. Such an object could be an explosive containment vessel, possibly intended to contain high-powered explosive experiments applicable to the development of nuclear weapons.
The US and Iran at a Turning Point?
“The US needs to refrain from bombing nuclear sites and give diplomacy a chance, as a way to solve controversies surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme”, says Herrera. “There needs to be a proper conversation – an opportunity for diplomacy to work. It worked in the past – there’s no reason why it shouldn’t work now.”
For its part, Iran needs to comply with IAEA rules such as allowing regular inspections.
Any future strategy also needs to recognise and respond to Iran’s concerns about the US and Israel’s alleged misuse of data gathered during IAEA inspections, Herrera says.
With the types of nuclear technologies developing and changing, the conversation also needs to shift beyond how many warheads states have to what type, he adds. In the past, limits and inspections had focused on caps on numbers. “Today, with hypersonic missiles and advances in rocket propulsion technologies, the issue is less about quantitative caps and more about qualitative limits, in other words, what kinds of technologies states possess.” Herrera explains. These considerations will need to feed into future multilateral negotiations.
Only Through Dialogue
Given how high the stakes are, the call for restraint and responsible multilateral dialogue has never been more urgent. “Open dialogue is absolutely key,” Herrera says. Only through dialogue can we make the practical, stable agreements which are necessary to lower tensions and safeguard mutual security.