The UN nuclear watchdog does not know exactly where Iran’s newest uranium enrichment plant is or whether it holds nuclear material, more than a year after Tehran declared it, according to a report seen by Reuters on Friday.
The International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran had not let inspectors examine the design of the underground Isfahan Fuel Enrichment Plant, or visit it, since declaring it in June 2025. The finding is in a quarterly report circulated to member states on Friday.
Iran notified the IAEA in June 2025 that it would build the plant at the site of the Nuclear Reactors Fuel Company in Isfahan, in central Iran. The notice named the site but not where the plant sits within it.
Tehran made the announcement right after the IAEA’s Board of Governors found Iran in breach of its safeguards obligations for the first time in almost 20 years. Mohammad Eslami, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said at the time that the plant had already been built and was being fitted with centrifuges.
“The site has been built and is secure,” he told state television, adding that enrichment would start once the equipment was installed.
Iranian state media called it the country’s third enrichment complex. The IAEA counts it as the fourth, after two plants at Natanz and one at Fordow.
Inspectors were due to make their first visit that month. It was canceled when Israel began striking Iran’s nuclear sites the same day.
Apart from the Bushehr nuclear power plant, Iran has given the IAEA no information on the state of its nuclear facilities and material and no access to them, the report said. In July 2025 Iran’s parliament passed a law suspending cooperation with the agency.
The IAEA called the gap in its knowledge of Iran’s enriched uranium a matter of “serious proliferation concern” that must be addressed with the “utmost urgency.” It said it could not conclude that no nuclear material had been diverted from peaceful use.
Director General Rafael Grossi said it was critical for inspectors to resume work in Iran “without further delay.”
Before the June 2025 strikes, the IAEA estimated that Iran held 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity, a short step from the roughly 90 percent used in weapons. By the agency’s own yardstick, that is enough, if enriched further, for about 10 nuclear weapons. Inspectors have not been able to check how much remains or where it is.
The new plant is separate from the underground tunnels at Isfahan where the IAEA believes much of that stockpile may be stored.
Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said this week that “not even a particle” of Iran’s enriched uranium would leave the country, and that Tehran had told Russia the same.
Americans have repeatedly underestimated foreign efforts to influence their politics and public opinion, leaving the US vulnerable to campaigns by China, Russia and Iran, says Sean Durns, director of the Counter Extremism Research Center at the Capital Research Center.
Speaking at Iran International's Washington studio, Durns argued that influence operations and unconventional warfare are deeply embedded in the strategies of America's adversaries but remain poorly understood by much of the US public and political establishment.
"The American people are great people. They can be a bit naive," he said. Influence operations and hybrid warfare, he added, "have been ingrained into the DNA of the Chinese Communist Party since its founding, but they're very foreign to Americans."
Durns, a former deputy commentary editor at the Washington Examiner, leads a program launched last month by the conservative Capital Research Center to investigate extremist movements and foreign influence in the United States.
"These countries have a common enemy, and that is us," he said. "They do cooperate. They do collaborate, and we've seen that with the recent war, in fact, against Iran, where both China and Russia have given aid to Iran in its war against America."
A Ukrainian intelligence assessment reviewed by Reuters in April found that Russian satellites had carried out dozens of imagery surveys of military and critical sites across the Middle East to help Iran strike US forces and other targets.
In May, the Trump administration sanctioned several China-based firms it said had supplied satellite imagery that enabled Iranian strikes on US forces.
"The Chinese Communist Party views Iran as a foil, a way to tie down the United States,” Durns said, “so that it can continue to amass its power and challenge America for hegemony," he said.
Money and influence
Durns pointed to the network of Neville Roy Singham, an American-born former technology executive living in Shanghai, as an example of what he described as foreign influence reaching Western political movements.
Singham, who is married to Jodie Evans, a co-founder of the antiwar group Code Pink, has funded organisations that have attracted scrutiny over their promotion of Chinese government narratives.
In July, the House Ways and Means Committee subpoenaed three Singham-funded nonprofits—BreakThrough News, The People's Forum and Tricontinental—over approximately $40 million in funding linked to him.
Two of the organisations said the subpoenas violated the First Amendment. No charges have been filed.
Durns suggested that some demonstrations in Europe reflected organised influence campaigns rather than entirely spontaneous public mobilisation.
"It's important to understand, when the American public looks across the Atlantic and sees streets burning in Milan, Italy, or in Paris, France, or elsewhere, in Albania, in Spain, that these are not necessarily organic protests," he said.
Durns also accused such groups of exploiting the Gaza conflict to mobilise public anger.
"Gaza has been a very effective one for them, in which, of course, they use lies," he said. "They count on the public not being aware, not being educated."
He argued that social media platforms have made it easier for foreign influence campaigns to reach American audiences.
"There's no fact-checking on TikTok, and the algorithms are distorted to work on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party," he said.
Lessons from the Cold War
Durns said American complacency about foreign influence was not new, pointing to revelations about Soviet intelligence operations that emerged after the Cold War.
Among the examples he cited was the Mitrokhin Archive, a collection of notes compiled by KGB archivist Vasili Mitrokhin and smuggled to Britain in 1992, which exposed Soviet intelligence operations across the West.
"I have met a number of individuals in the press, or who are policymakers themselves, who have never heard of things like the Mitrokhin Archive," Durns said.
He suggested that a similar failure to understand the motivations of adversaries had shaped Washington's approach to the Islamic Republic since the 1979 revolution.
Successive American administrations, he argued, had repeatedly searched for moderate figures within Iran's leadership, misreading the nature of its political system.
"There are no moderates in the Iranian regime. The moderates have been expelled," he said. "They're in Evin prison, or they're elsewhere."
An enduring challenge
Durns rejected comparisons between the recent US war with Iran and the American experience in Vietnam, arguing that claims of an American defeat were misleading.
"There's been a very popular narrative, which is that America lost the current war against Iran, or that this war against Iran was like Vietnam," he said. "That is profoundly, profoundly false."
He also argued that Iran's economic weakness left Washington with substantial leverage despite Tehran's efforts to prolong the confrontation.
Durns compared the current mood in the United States to the 1970s, when America emerged from Vietnam amid widespread predictions of decline, only to prevail in the Cold War less than two decades later.
"So never count America out," he said. "But at the same time, the hour is getting late, and there are growing threats that have been massing over the course of many years that we need to confront and combat."
Iran's Assembly of Experts, a body of Islamic jurists tasked with choosing the supreme leader, has become the first governing institution to call for a review of the country's defense doctrine, potentially paving the way for a reversal of the religious ban on nuclear weapons.
In a statement released on Thursday, the assembly called for reviewing Iran's membership in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its defense doctrine to establish adequate deterrence, describing the move as an “unavoidable necessity” and a “public and national demand.”
The intervention carries particular religious significance because the assembly comprises senior clerics, some of whom are qualified to exercise independent Islamic legal reasoning. Their support for reconsidering the doctrine could help weaken the religious justification for Iran's longstanding prohibition on nuclear weapons, based on a decree by the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
The assembly is constitutionally responsible for appointing and overseeing Iran's supreme leader. It has no direct authority over nuclear policy, but its statement gives institutional weight to demands previously voiced largely by hardline lawmakers and commentators.
Iran has long maintained that its nuclear program is peaceful, citing Khamenei's religious ruling against weapons of mass destruction.
Iran's security chief Mohsen Rezaei said last month that changing the nuclear doctrine was under discussion but that neither the government nor the broader establishment had made a new decision.
Earlier this week, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Tehran remained committed to the NPT.
Hardliners press for nuclear policy shift
Tehran's interim Friday prayer leader, Mohammad-Javad Haj Ali-Akbari, described revising the nuclear doctrine as a national demand on October 30. Lawmaker Ahmad Naderi has openly advocated acquiring an atomic bomb.
Hardliners have also urged Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei to overturn his father Ali Khamenei's religious decree prohibiting the production of nuclear weapons. Others have proposed enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels while stopping short of manufacturing a bomb.
Reformist figures have challenged claims that developing nuclear weapons enjoys broad public support. Separately, Nour News, a website close to the Supreme National Security Council, warned against allowing crowd slogans to substitute for expert assessment of nuclear policy.
Warning of retaliation
The assembly also warned that another attack on Iran would trigger an “immediate and effective response without geographical limits” from the armed forces.
Its language echoed instructions attributed to Mojtaba Khamenei in an account published by the Revolutionary Guards-affiliated Tasnim news agency on October 31. That account did not announce an order to develop nuclear weapons.
Beyond military policy, the assembly called for establishing a “war economy headquarters” involving different branches of government and operating under the supreme leader's oversight.
It also urged action against what it described as the enemy's “cultural assault,” particularly concerning chastity and hijab.
A discussion on Iranian state television signaled cautious openness to future nuclear talks with Washington, with a commentator describing flexibility over preliminary exchanges while insisting Tehran’s conditions for ending the war must first be met.
Vahid Khazab, introduced as a military and political analyst, said on the state broadcaster’s Be Vaght-e Iran (Iran Time) talk show on Monday night that a significant development amid mediation efforts was Tehran’s willingness to discuss its nuclear program through intermediaries.
His account suggested room for diplomacy, but did not amount to an official announcement of a change in Iran’s negotiating position.
Iran has insisted that Washington accept its seven demands and end the war before nuclear negotiations begin. Khazab described preliminary discussions through intermediaries as a sign of “flexibility.”
However, he said, those discussions were limited to determining the issues that could be addressed in future nuclear negotiations, once Iran’s initial conditions had been accepted and the war ended.
Proposed nuclear compromise
According to Khazab, Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, has raised the possibility of allowing Iran to continue uranium enrichment at 3.67%. His account did not establish whether Washington had accepted that provision.
In exchange, the proposals include diluting Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to 60%, which Khazab put at 400 kilograms, or converting it into fuel rods for nuclear reactors.
The proposed arrangement would also include the release of part of Iran’s frozen assets, the return of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, and ultimately the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, Khazab said.
Tehran would likely regard any US acceptance of enrichment inside Iran as a major concession, he said. However, it would seek to negotiate how its highly enriched uranium stockpile is diluted and how much nuclear material remains inside the country.
He added that some Iranian experts had suggested gradual dilution to preserve part of the country’s nuclear capabilities for the “future, post-Trump era.”
Parallel mediation efforts
Pakistan, China, Iraq, Turkey and Qatar have been pursuing diplomatic initiatives amid concerns about renewed US military strikes against Iran.
Nima Akbarkhani, also introduced as a military expert on the program, said people with what he described as “greater access” had told him that the scale of mediation efforts in recent days was unprecedented compared with previous initiatives.
China has been among the countries involved. Ali Bagheri-Kani, a deputy secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, traveled to China in early November and met with Beijing’s special envoy for Middle Eastern affairs, Zhai Jun.
Zhai subsequently traveled to Iran on November 8. According to Khazab, he met not only with Iranian Foreign Ministry officials but also with Parliament Speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf.
Iraq has also been involved. Iraqi Prime Minister Ali Faleh al-Zaydi traveled to Iran late last week on an unannounced visit.
Iran’s Tasnim News Agency, which is affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, reported that al-Zaydi met with President Masoud Pezeshkian and Ghalibaf. However, the agency said he had not obtained what it described as “a result satisfactory to the United States.”
Turkey has also been seeking to facilitate an agreement through political contacts with Washington and Tehran.
According to remarks attributed to Turkish intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke with Trump and expressed concern about renewed military attacks against Iran, urging him to refrain from further strikes.
Qatar, which has served as one of the main channels of communication between Tehran and Washington in recent months, is also attempting to bring the two sides back to negotiations.
Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani traveled to Washington on Monday and met with Trump and Vice President JD Vance.
Former Qatari prime minister and foreign minister Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani has also emphasized the need to resolve regional disputes.
Khazab interpreted his recent emphasis on cooperation to end Iran’s blockade as a possible shift in Qatar’s calculations under wartime conditions.
Iran denies plans for Vance-Rezaei meeting
Khazab also addressed reports that Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, could meet Vance in Qatar next week.
The discussion followed reports on Monday citing Kalin as saying Qatar would host the US vice president and Iran’s security chief the following week. Türkiye newspaper carried the Turkish intelligence chief’s remarks.
In his Monday night comments, Khazab suggested that reports of a possible meeting were not necessarily false, interpreting Iranian denials as a rejection of the existence of a specific arrangement.
According to the analyst, whether a meeting could take place would depend on Washington announcing its acceptance of Iran’s seven initial conditions for ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi dismissed reports of the meeting as “speculation and media fabrication” and described them as “baseless from the outset.”
“There are no plans for such a meeting,” he said.
Rezaei subsequently told Lebanon-based Al Mayadeen television in an interview on Tuesday that “the Americans’ claims about the continuation of negotiations or the holding of a meeting in Qatar are outright lies.”
He said the claims were being circulated solely to ease economic pressure and drive down oil prices.
Khazab’s argument for conditional engagement rested on Tehran’s distrust of Washington. He accused the United States of violating its commitments after an earlier agreement and memorandum of understanding, leading to renewed hostilities.
For that reason, he said, Iran did not want to enter another round of negotiations that might produce a temporary agreement followed by a return to war.
“We have no objection to negotiations, no objection to talking. But it must be done in a way that genuinely removes the threat of war,” Khazab said.
President Donald Trump’s talks with Qatar’s prime minister come amid a renewed diplomatic push to end the Iran war, but securing terms both Washington and Tehran can present as a victory remains a central obstacle, analysts told Iran International.
Trump and Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani met behind closed doors in the Oval Office on Monday, and Axios reported that their discussions focused on Iran. The Qatari prime minister also met Vice President JD Vance earlier in the day.
An Iranian official told Al-Monitor on Friday that the country’s nuclear program was “under discussion” with mediators. Tehran has said negotiations depend on Washington meeting its demands, including sanctions relief and the release of billions of dollars in frozen assets.
Trump needs a nuclear achievement to justify the war, not just the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, said Aaron David Miller, a former US Middle East negotiator now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
“It’s the nuclear issue. He needs a win to justify this war,” Miller told Iran International.
“And I don’t know whether the Iranians are prepared to make that concession or what Trump would consider to be a win that they could accept. So I think that’s a huge problem.”
Who moves first?
The new round of diplomacy has not settled the basic dispute: whether economic and military concessions should come before progress on Iran’s nuclear program, or after.
Danny Citrinowicz, a former head of the Iran branch of Israeli military intelligence and now a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, said an interest in ending the war should not be mistaken for an agreement in sight.
“I believe both sides genuinely want to find a way to end this war, but that does not mean they are close to an agreement,” he told Iran International.
Iran wants Washington to meet its conditions on Hormuz, the naval blockade, oil exports and other economic restrictions before nuclear talks begin. Washington wants movement on the nuclear issue much earlier, he said. “The problem is not simply what each side wants, but who moves first.”
A breakthrough was possible, Citrinowicz said, if Washington accepted a different sequence of reciprocal steps. “Without meaningful American flexibility, however, I see little reason to expect Iran to abandon its red lines.”
Miller criticized the interim memorandum of understanding reached in June, which was meant to open the way to nuclear talks but collapsed soon afterward. It committed Washington to a sequence that favored Iran, he said, calling it “one of the worst negotiated documents in the history of US diplomacy.”
Two definitions of victory
Even if negotiators settle the order of steps, both governments would have to defend the concessions at home as achievements.
Trump could claim victory by reopening Hormuz, lowering energy prices, ending the fighting and securing an Iranian commitment not to build nuclear weapons, Citrinowicz said. Tehran would need an outcome it could present as a success too.
“After surviving months of attacks, the Iranian leadership is not going to accept an agreement that looks like surrender,” he said.
Iran could reopen Hormuz, stop attacks on shipping and regional infrastructure, return to nuclear talks and possibly accept tighter international monitoring, he said. In return it would expect real steps on sanctions, oil exports, frozen assets and guarantees against further attacks.
Miller doubted Trump’s wish to end the war would outweigh his fear of looking beaten. “I think he’d want to be done with this, but I don’t know if he’s prepared to spend the next three years being called a loser,” he said.
Eric Mandel, founder of the Middle East Political Information Network, said a deal could let Trump declare victory while leaving the nuclear dispute open.
“The president would like to have a diplomatic solution. The president is looking for victories. He may claim victories where there aren’t,” Mandel told Iran International.
Tehran was drawing out the talks to wait Trump out, Mandel said, and economic relief in exchange for promises of future nuclear concessions could throw the Islamic Republic a lifeline without securing lasting limits.
A meeting is not a breakthrough
Conflicting reports over a possible meeting between Vance and Iran’s security chief show how uncertain direct contact remains.
Turkey’s intelligence chief, Ibrahim Kalin, said Qatar would host Vance and Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, next week, the Turkish newspaper Türkiye reported. The Tasnim news agency, which is affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, then quoted a senior Iranian security official as denying any meeting was planned and saying Washington must first act on Iran’s seven conditions.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Tuesday there were no plans for Rezaei to meet Vance. The war, he said, would end neither through military action nor through more sanctions. “The only way to end it is diplomacy and acceptance of the Islamic Republic’s conditions.”
Citrinowicz said Rezaei should not be expected to break with the Islamic Republic’s established positions. “He is deeply rooted in the Iranian political and security establishment,” he said. “He is not someone who can simply be persuaded to abandon the regime’s fundamental positions in exchange for an American offer.”
Rezaei is the subject of an Interpol Red Notice over his alleged role in the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, which killed 85 people. He and Tehran deny involvement. As commander of the Revolutionary Guards during the Iran-Iraq war, he led the failed Karbala-4 offensive of December 1986, in which Iran suffered heavy losses.
The decisive question, Citrinowicz said, is whether Vance has Trump’s authority to offer something substantially different.
“A failed meeting could be more dangerous than no meeting at all,” he said. Trump might conclude that diplomacy had run its course and order more strikes to force concessions.
Continued economic pressure, indirect talks and a limited interim deal would remain options, he said, but failure to close the gaps could raise the risk of a return to war.
New satellite imagery suggests Iran is undertaking major construction near missile bases and repairing military installations damaged by months of US and Israeli airstrikes, according to an investigation by BBC Verify.
The BBC's investigation, published Friday, drew on satellite imagery examined by analysts at MAIAR, a British intelligence analysis company. The analysts identified significant excavation and new construction at two major missile facilities, Garmdareh in Karaj near Tehran and Shahroud in northern Iran. At least 12 other military installations, including missile complexes and air bases, also showed signs of repairs.
BBC Verify identified new roofing on damaged structures at a missile base near Kermanshah in western Iran and extensive reconstruction at the Parchin military complex east of Tehran.
The findings add to growing evidence that Tehran is attempting to restore its military capabilities despite the continuing US-Israeli campaign, which began in February and targeted Iran's missile factories, launch facilities, air defenses and nuclear infrastructure.
Rebuilding a damaged military arsenal
President Donald Trump has repeatedly described Iran's military capabilities as largely destroyed. The Pentagon previously said US strikes had destroyed up to 90% of Iran's drone, ballistic missile and naval industrial base.
Other assessments, however, suggest Iran has retained significant capabilities.
In September, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing US and Middle Eastern officials, that Iran had resumed assembling ballistic missiles in underground facilities using stockpiled components. Production reportedly remained below prewar levels.
Bloomberg reported in October that Western officials believed Iran had preserved enough missile and drone manufacturing capacity to replenish its arsenals. One official also said Russia was supplying missiles, although Moscow did not confirm the claim.
An October report by the US Congressional Research Service also cited an earlier Defense Intelligence Agency assessment that Iran retained thousands of missiles and attack drones despite wartime losses and was seeking Russian and Chinese equipment and materials to replace damaged capabilities.
A separate October assessment by the Foreign Policy Research Institute offered a more cautious picture. Its satellite analysis found continued underground activity at Parchin, Khojir and Shahroud, though it concluded that major aboveground missile-production facilities remained heavily damaged.
The institute said several solid-fuel production lines were still inoperable and that substantial reconstruction and equipment replacement would be necessary before large-scale manufacturing could resume.
The latest BBC findings point to further efforts to protect surviving infrastructure.
Former CIA analyst Jim Lamson told the BBC that excavation near Shahroud could be connected to missile production, with the Revolutionary Guards potentially seeking to move manufacturing operations underground to shield them from future attacks.
At Karaj, satellite imagery appeared to show a new entrance to an underground complex, according to Sam Lair of the Foreign Policy Research Institute.
Iranian state television has also broadcast footage it said showed dozens of missiles outside an underground facility in southern Iran, although the footage does not establish the size or operational readiness of the country's remaining arsenal.
Construction near nuclear facilities
The reconstruction effort also extends to sites near Iran's nuclear infrastructure and facilities associated with past nuclear research.
BBC Verify identified excavation and new construction outside tunnel entrances near the city of Qom, close to the Fordow underground uranium enrichment complex, which has repeatedly been targeted by US and Israeli strikes.
At Parchin, satellite imagery also showed substantial work at the Taleghan 2 facility, including concrete reinforcement around an underground structure damaged by airstrikes.
The Institute for Science and International Security reported in September that Iran was rapidly reconstructing Taleghan 2, a facility associated with past nuclear weapons-related research. Its analysis documented construction vehicles, repairs to bomb-damaged sections and additional measures intended to protect the structure from future attacks.
Separately, the Center for Strategic and International Studies reported increased construction activity at Pickaxe Mountain, an underground complex near the Natanz nuclear facility.
Satellite imagery showed reinforced entrances, road improvements and activity suggesting work inside the mountain. The researchers said the available evidence could not establish whether centrifuges had been transferred there or whether uranium enrichment was taking place.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has been unable to inspect Iran's bombed nuclear installations since June 2025, leaving major uncertainties about the condition of its enrichment infrastructure and nuclear material.
The combination of new underground construction, repairs to military installations and reported weapons assembly suggests a continuing effort to restore capabilities targeted throughout the war, although the extent of Iran's recovery remains uncertain.
Military rebuilding and economic pressures
Mark Cancian, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the BBC that the construction appeared intended to strengthen Iran's defenses against future attacks.
“It also indicates a priority on rebuilding military capability rather than rehabilitating the economy,” he said.
For a military campaign intended to cripple Iran's missile and nuclear capabilities, the continuing reconstruction raises questions about how lasting its results will be. Months of bombardment have inflicted extensive damage, yet Tehran continues to direct resources toward rebuilding military infrastructure, increasingly underground, while its economy deteriorates and ordinary Iranians struggle with rising costs and declining living standards.
