1:50
So, there are a lot of reasons to worry about events in Iran right now, but I guess top of mind for many is 440 kilos of highly enriched uranium that your agency estimated was there. Do you know where that uranium is now? Well, we were inspecting that material as part of our regular um program of inspections in Iran. And we were actually inspecting up to just a few days before the 12th day uh war. So, uh our estimations were quite accurate to the gram. Uh we don't know now, and this is why we need to go back. Uh I think uh the overall uh um evaluation assessment is that this material is where it was um at that time, and there hasn't been a move of it. So, should we all calm down because we
we have had reassuring messages. So, President Trump says that there are satellites watching it. It's deeply buried uh nuclear dust, I believe is the phrase he uses, and it's under very exacting surveillance. So, we should all calm down. Are you calm about not knowing exactly where it is right now? I'm never calm nor anxious. I think this is uh material that almost weapon grade, and it has to be checked. Uh Iran until today is a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It has to account for it. All its nuclear material and facilities. And it hasn't been doing that. There are logical reasons for that. There was the 12-day war.
After that war, we were trying to negotiate our way back to Iran. And of course, this new episode unsuccessfully, I should say. And this new uh a military episode or war uh has prevented us from doing so, but that doesn't mean that we should not go uh back uh and inspect this material because this material, if diverted, if we lose uh knowledge of it or its whereabouts, uh it could end up uh in a program which is not peaceful. So, uh as I say, we have a duty to account for it, and of course when conditions allow, Iran should be facilitating uh the access of the IAEA inspectors. The IAEA is the nuclear referee. A central claim going into this latest war in Iran from America and Israel was that there was an imminent chance that Iran
was on the point of having a nuclear weapon. Is that right? Well, again, uh when it comes to evaluations or assessments, uh this is in the eye of the beholder, as we would say. Uh countries, and in this case the United States or Israel, may have uh an a judgment on where this is going. Mhm? And this I cannot dispute that. From our side, we said two things, and it's important because sometimes people have a tendency to focus on one part of the comment and not the other. We said, and even in my reports to the Board of Governors of the IAEA and things like this, we've been saying that whilst there was not no systematic, organized, uh um institutionalized program that we could uh see uh for the production of nuclear
weapons, at the same time you have all this material, we had uh limited access to um other places where we had found traces of uranium. I mean, the mosaic was quite complicated. So, we were saying and we were insisting on Iran that they, in order to clarify, to dispel any doubts, that they should cooperate with us. That did not happen or at least in the way it should have happened. So, clearly, some concerning elements there. And then, of course, the judgment of countries is for them to judge and to see whether it was accurate or not. Do you worry that this regime now has a huge incentive to get about to go over the threshold because being at the threshold did not save them?
Well, I think it's the contrary. I think when you see what has been happening, uh, I believe that, uh, if anything, this, uh, should be an incentive to cooperate. They continue to argue and I've had long conversations with the foreign minister and others. They continue to argue that, uh, it is not in their intentions, it is not in their plans, etc., etc. But, one thing still is missing. Uh, in this, uh, area, promises are not enough. Statements are not enough. Even with due respect, fatwas are not enough.
You have to be, uh, able to show what you have and what you are, uh, developing. And when you don't do that, then, of course, you enter into an area of uncertainty. I was just talking to, uh, an ambassador who said, "Look at the Middle East. Look at the leaders who negotiated with the West on their nuclear programs. Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. They're all now dead. Mhm. Who's still alive? The North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-un, because he got a nuclear bomb. So, isn't the lesson for every despot on Earth, get a bomb and you won't be attacked?
Well, you could argue that those who died in the effort, maybe, of getting there. Uh so, uh yeah, uh the Kim Jong-un's uh example uh should be uh or the North Korean example should be an incentive for all to go back to the negotiating table. Well, why isn't it an incentive to get a bomb? I mean, it's not that I would like to see all these countries get bombs, but really genuinely, the countries that survive are the ones that get a bomb. We even saw the Russian foreign minister in Pyongyang last summer saying he totally understands the timely decision by North Korea to get a bomb, and that is why they're not being attacked. I mean, that's it's horrible, but it's true, isn't it? Get a bomb and you're safe.
Uh I don't believe that. Why not? Well, because I think that uh the uh argument that nuclear weapons are going to be getting you uh safety and protection is not valid. The case of uh the this valid for North Korea, isn't it? It's valid for North Korea, which is in a geographical, political environment which is completely different from the Middle East. Is there a way out of this Iran crisis? I mean, if you're a hawk in Washington, you say we're going to have to bomb them. We're going to have to bomb this if needs be this program out of existence. Can you, as a technical matter, Yeah.
as the nuclear policeman, can a program like Iran's be bombed out of existence? Not completely. No. And this is something that uh that it's obvious because you cannot unlearn what you've learned. But if I was a hawk, I'd say, "Okay, so then kill all the scientists with this knowledge that they had. Bomb all of the sites." There will be people saying that in maybe Israel or in America. would be unique in contemporary history. This idea that you can destroy completely a country. Uh I don't think that is realistic as an option, honestly. Apart from moral considerations and ethical considerations, which of course would in my personal view deem it unacceptable and then maybe horrific. Uh but um I don't think a country in the with the
dimension and with the economic maturity of Iran can simply be uh you know, um prevented from doing this. And mind you, this for example, the area of enrichment Mhm. uh has its complexities, but it's not something that it is, you know, of a level of sophistication that and they reached that. If you compare between the JCPOA Mhm. time The old Obama era nuclear agreement. Exactly. Yeah. That was looking at a very simple type of centrifuge machine there. Well, in a in the space of three to four years since the JCPOA was abandoned, well, Iran very quickly developed uh ultra centrifuges of you know, of much
uh better performance and accuracy and output. So, uh and that is there. And that is something that can be done in workshops, in many cities, in So, you cannot stop that militarily. So, then if you can't bomb it completely out of existence, if you can't kill everyone who has the knowledge in their heads, what is the way out of this? What Is there a way of stopping this nuclear program? Is there a way of stopping Iran getting a nuclear bomb? What you need to stop is uh nuclear weapons program. A nuclear program any country So, how do you stop a nuclear weapons program?
Well, by having an inspection regime, by allowing the IAEA to do its job. Are we closer or further from that since this latest war? Has that latest war helped you or hurt your job? Well, I think it makes it more complex.
