Iran says its enriched uranium is “under the rubble.” Now what?

Iran just offered the first concrete clue about the fate of its most sensitive nuclear material since June’s air campaign leveled parts of its program: officials say the stockpile is literally buried.

In a late-night TV interview, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said all enriched nuclear material is “located under the debris of the bombed installations,” adding that the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran is assessing “whether these materials are accessible or not.” It’s a striking admission after weeks of guesswork about the whereabouts of roughly 408 kilograms of uranium enriched close to weapons-grade—the piece of the program Western capitals worry about most.

Israel’s 12-day war with Iran in June — briefly joined by the US — hit marquee sites: Fordow and Natanz, plus another facility and a storage site near Isfahan. Satellite images of Fordow showed blast scars and damage around the mountain-buried complex. In the immediate aftermath, Tehran suspended cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, leaving inspectors blind to both the extent of the damage and the status of the stockpile.

Western assessments have been all over the map. President Donald Trump declared the program “obliterated.” Many diplomats and nuclear experts weren’t convinced, suspecting Iran moved its highest-enriched uranium before the strikes.

Europe is now forcing the issue. On August 28, the UK, France, and Germany (the E3) triggered the “snapback” mechanism embedded in the 2015 nuclear deal, citing Iran’s refusal to let the IAEA resume full inspections or clarify the stockpile’s status. Snapback automatically reimposes UN sanctions after 30 days — unless diplomacy finds a way to pause the clock. That window closes at month’s end.

“Iran is obfuscating the status and location of this material,” the E3 told the IAEA’s board this week, arguing Tehran has blocked verification.

There is a glimmer of movement. IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said the agency and Tehran reached a preliminary pact in Cairo to resume cooperation—an “important step,” he said. But details are thin: no dates, no site list, no guarantees inspectors will get back into Fordow or Natanz.

Tehran’s conditions are explicit. Araghchi said “no inspection is currently on the agenda,” and warned the new framework “will be halted” if the E3 follow through on snapback or if there’s any new “hostile action.” He also noted that Iran’s parliament passed a law curbing mandatory cooperation, routing inspection approvals through the Supreme National Security Council. Grossi’s response was blunt: domestic law can’t override Iran’s safeguards obligations.

Why admit the uranium sits under rubble at all? Analysts read it as calculated ambiguity. The European Council on Foreign Relations’ Ellie Geranmayeh says the E3 reaction will be simple — “Prove it” — but argues Europe’s demands are “detached from the realities” after June’s strikes. For Tehran, she says, keeping the status of the highly enriched stockpile murky is one of its last bargaining chips—a way to keep options open and, more likely, pull Washington back to the table.

Araghchi is signaling just that. He’s linking inspections to security guarantees and sanction relief, while insisting Iran’s program remains peaceful under the NPT—a claim complicated by the fact that Iran is the only non-nuclear-armed state enriching to such high levels.

Right now, the IAEA has access only to Bushehr for a scheduled fuel swap. Everywhere else is off-limits. That means no independent read on:

• How much enriched uranium survived the strikes (or was moved).
• Where that material is now.
• What operational capacity remains at Fordow/Natanz.

Grossi warned governors this week that without restored access, the agency faces “the real possibility of Iran failing to observe and comply with its safeguards obligations” — a diplomatic way of saying: we’re flying blind.

Barring a swift breakthrough, snapback brings back the full UN sanctions architecture from the pre-2015 era, isolating Iran’s economy further and narrowing room for talks. Tehran says if that happens, the Cairo understanding collapses, inspections stay frozen, and the standoff deepens.

Which is why Araghchi’s line about uranium “under the rubble” matters. If true, it implies Iran didn’t spirit the most sensitive material away before the bombs fell—potentially lowering immediate proliferation risk but raising thorny questions about recovery, contamination, and control. If false — or only partially true — it’s a signal that the stockpile is somewhere else, and the ambiguity is deliberate.

For now, the ball is back in Europe’s court. As Geranmayeh put it, “Prove it” is the refrain. But without inspectors on the ground, proof is exactly what no one has.

With input from the Financial Times, Newsweek, and the Times of Israel.