MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
For more on the aftermath of the U.S. strikes on Iran, we're joined now by Farzan Sabet. He's a managing researcher at the Geneva Graduate Institute. That's an institute focused on international affairs and diplomacy. And he is an authority on Iran and Middle East security. Good morning. Thank you so much for joining us, Mr. Sabet.
FARZAN SABET: Good morning. Happy to be on.
MARTIN: So President Trump said these three nuclear facilities were obliterated. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth took it further, saying Iran's nuclear ambitions were obliterated. Based on your knowledge of Iran's sort of security apparatus and sort of framework, do you think that that's true?
SABET: I think it's a mixed picture. So of course, the impact of bombing has meaningfully set back Iran's ability to quickly acquire nuclear - to acquire weapons-grade uranium, which it would need to build a bomb. But critically, Iran still retains its roughly 400-kilogram stockpile of high enriched uranium - or HU - which is enriched to around 60%, as well as backup facilities and centrifuge capacity that could be up and running in as little as a few weeks or months. I've seen some estimates that say Iran would be able to use its 400 kilograms of HU to create enough weapons-grade uranium for nine to 10 weapons in as little as six months, should it choose to do so.
MARTIN: Wait, did you say weeks or months to recover from these strikes?
SABET: Potentially, potentially. Now, that'll depend on, you know, state capacity and kind of degradation of leadership. But yeah, certainly.
MARTIN: Interesting. So I want to hear more about that, but before we do, I wanted to know whether you thought there might have been any downside to striking these nuclear facilities. And, I mean, you can take that in whatever direction you want, either environmental or perhaps in how it might stimulate, you know, Iran's nuclear ambitions even further.
SABET: Certainly. Well, as far as I'm aware, there's no irradiated material there. So there's not necessarily going to be much radiological risk. However, material like uranium hexafluoride, which very well could've been present at these sites, could pose a chemical toxicity risk to humans and living organisms if it's dispersed into nearby water sources or if it contaminates the environment surrounding at least one or two of those facilities.
Beyond that, of course, this certainly increases the Islamic republic's motivation to attempt to build the bomb if it wasn't motivated before - right? - since the breakout of this war. And finally, just from a perspective of international law and setting a precedent, I think a lot of other countries are going to be looking at their own nuclear options and whether they should try to at least initiate the process of being able to acquire one so that they don't face a similar fate in the future.
MARTIN: Say more about that. Why do you say that?
SABET: I mean, the Islamic Republic itself has looked to past examples like Libya - right? - the case of Libya being a country which negotiated away its nuclear capacity in order to normalize relations with the West and specifically the United States. Of course, the moment that Libya became weakened following the uprisings of the Arab Spring, NATO intervened, contributing to the collapse of that regime.
The Islam Republic's own kind of approach to its nuclear option has been informed by the Libyan experience. And of course, if it had been further on the pathway to acquiring a nuclear weapon, it might've actually been able to forestall this eventuality - at least, that's kind of the narrative coming out of Tehran and many inside of Iran. And now there's a huge push inside the country to say, well, either test a weapon or let's make a deal, right? But it's put huge upward pressure. And again, a lot of other countries are going to, I think, in light of this, think that, well, perhaps the only way to really guarantee our security will be to build a bomb.
MARTIN: The Trump administration's argument seems to be it would be the other way, that the threat of this kind of response by Israel and the United States would argue against pursuing those ambitions. And you just don't buy that?
SABET: Well, if they succeed, right? And I think, while the strikes on the three facilities can be read as a success in a narrow sense - right? - we still don't know the full scale of the destruction. And I think most experts will agree that Iran retains a significant nuclear capacity.
MARTIN: And before we let you go, as briefly as you can, would Iran have made...
SABET: Yeah.
MARTIN: ...Any accommodation to the potential environmental or human hazard resulting from the destruction of those facilities? Would they have taken that into account, as briefly as you can?
SABET: I think certainly they would have.
MARTIN: That is Farzan Sabet. He's an expert on Iran. He's a managing researcher at the Geneva Graduate Institute. Mr. Sabet, thank you so much for sharing these insights with us. I do hope we'll talk again.
SABET: Pleasure to be on.
(SOUNDBITE OF LITTLE PEOPLE'S "MOON") Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
