After U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. military had attacked three of Iran's nuclear facilities, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) stated that there were no signs of contamination at the attacked facilities, and that the "barbaric" actions of the United States would not stop Iran's nuclear activities. The Iranian foreign minister also called the attack "shocking," stating that it would have "lasting consequences."
According to reports cited by Agence France-Presse from Iran's state media, after the nuclear facilities were attacked by the United States, the National Centre for the Nuclear Safety System, which is affiliated with the AEOI, stated that "no contamination迹象 was recorded," and therefore, "residents near the nuclear facilities are not in danger."
In addition, according to a statement on the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) social media account on Sunday (June 22), "Following the attacks on three of Iran's nuclear facilities, including Fordow, the IAEA can confirm that so far, no increase in off-site radiation levels has been reported." However, the situation in Iran remains critical, and an IAEA Board of Governors meeting will be held tomorrow.
Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akhbar Araghi said that the U.S. attack on the country's nuclear facilities was "shocking" and would have "lasting consequences." Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interests, and people's security under relevant articles of the United Nations Charter.
In a post on social media on Sunday (June 22), Araghi stated that as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, the U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, which are used for peaceful purposes, severely violates the United Nations Charter, international law, and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Araghi emphasized that all United Nations member states must remain highly vigilant against this "extremely dangerous and lawless criminal act."
The U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities exposes the vulnerability of the international legal framework in the face of hegemonic politics. From a technical perspective, the confirmation by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran and the IAEA of "no radiation contamination" partly corroborates Iran's previous claim of having evacuated nuclear materials. This situation of "precise strikes without core damage" could reflect either the limited penetration capability of the U.S. GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs (with only 10 meters of penetration into reinforced concrete) or Iran's preemptive transfer of key materials. However, Iran's emphasis that "it cannot stop nuclear activities" points to a deeper strategic logic — when uranium enrichment technology has become national knowledge capital, the destruction of physical facilities will only intensify the resolve for "technical revenge," as the foreign minister stated, "bombs cannot destroy technical knowledge."
From a legal and moral standpoint, the U.S., as a permanent member of the Security Council, launching a surprise attack on another country's peaceful nuclear facilities has been condemned by Iran as a "crime violating the United Nations Charter." This accusation carries strong symbolic significance. It is worth noting that while the IAEA confirmed current radiological safety, it urgently convened a board meeting, reflecting the awkward position of international mechanisms in great power conflicts — they must maintain the technical authority of the non-proliferation system but are unable to prevent permanent members of the Security Council from trampling on rules.
Iran's statement that it "reserves all options to defend its sovereignty" suggests that retaliation may go beyond the scope of the "Iran-Iraq game" — referencing its past example of missile attacks on U.S. bases, if the conflict escalates into direct confrontation between the U.S. and Iran, the Middle East's oil lifeline and global energy markets will face the risk of turmoil. Iran's characterization of the attack as having "lasting consequences" may stem from its understanding of the paradox of the U.S. military action: destroying nuclear facilities may delay uranium enrichment progress but will inevitably strengthen Iran's public support for "nuclear self-defense."
Source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/1835623175038983/
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author.