Iran’s government is pushing back against claims that recent US and Israeli attacks significantly damaged its nuclear capabilities, insisting its nuclear program remains intact and fully functional. The debate over just how much was destroyed has intensified since the strikes earlier this year, with Iran’s deputy foreign minister stating that the country’s nuclear efforts continue despite extensive damage to several facilities. This claim places the phrase Iran nuclear program intact at the center of a global conversation already marked by secrecy, tension and conflicting intelligence assessments.
In an exclusive interview with CNN, Iran’s deputy foreign minister Saeed Khatibzadeh strongly maintained that the country’s nuclear infrastructure survives despite the attacks on three major facilities. He said the peaceful nuclear program is intact and remains a source of national pride, adding that Iran is prepared to protect it at all costs.
The strikes targeted critical sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan during a volatile period that included a brief conflict between Iran and Israel and subsequent US military actions. While President Trump claimed that Fordow had been completely destroyed, early assessments suggested a more complicated picture. US intelligence believed the facilities suffered heavy damage, but Iran’s nuclear program may have been set back only by months or a couple of years.
Khatibzadeh acknowledged that significant infrastructure and machinery were damaged but insisted that the core of Iran’s nuclear capability lies in its human capital and scientific foundation. With a population of 90 million and years of technical expertise, he argued that no series of airstrikes could erase the country’s accumulated knowledge or eliminate its ability to rebuild.
So far, international intelligence agencies have not reached a single conclusion about the extent of the destruction. Some assessments suggest underground areas may have survived the strikes, while others indicate that critical uranium enrichment equipment and systems were temporarily disrupted.
Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency have had limited access since the attacks, making it difficult to verify claims from either side. However, Iran has resumed parts of its enrichment activities and continues to insist that the nuclear program has not been derailed. This supports the idea that the claim Iran nuclear program intact may be closer to reality than early predictions suggested.
European intelligence agencies have reported that China is helping Iran rebuild aspects of its missile program. Shipments of sodium perchlorate, a material used in missile propellant, were reportedly delivered to Iran from China after the strikes. Khatibzadeh did not deny this in his interview, instead emphasizing Iran’s long-standing ties with China and Russia. According to him, these relationships are decades old and not reactions to current geopolitical tensions.
This international support could accelerate Iran’s recovery efforts and complicate attempts by the US and Israel to limit the country’s weapon development capabilities.
When asked what message he had for the Trump administration, Khatibzadeh pointed to Iran’s long history and resilience. He called Iran the world’s oldest continuous civilization and said it has mastered the art of survival through centuries of conflict, foreign intervention and political pressure. The message was clear: external attacks may cause temporary setbacks, but they cannot fundamentally weaken Iran’s long-term ambitions.
Iran’s insistence that its nuclear program remains intact raises important questions about the effectiveness of military strikes as a long-term strategy. While airstrikes can damage infrastructure, they cannot erase scientific expertise or halt a nation’s political determination. Diplomacy, rather than force, may ultimately decide the future of Iran’s nuclear trajectory.
Iran’s claim that its nuclear program is intact highlights the limits of military action in stopping long-term nuclear development. With strong ties to China and Russia, a widespread scientific base and a government committed to rebuilding, Tehran’s nuclear ambitions remain firmly in motion. As both sides continue to shape their narratives, the future of global nuclear diplomacy may hinge on how the world responds to Iran’s stance.
