Iran has accused the United States and Israel of carrying out two strikes on the Natanz nuclear facility in Isfahan province on the evening of March 1, according to a letter from the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) to the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In that letter AEOI chief Mohammad Eslami described the incidents as unlawful and reiterated Tehran’s long-standing line that its nuclear sites are used for peaceful purposes. He said Iran had taken defensive measures to protect its sovereign rights and would pursue appropriate legal action.
Natanz is one of Iran’s key enrichment sites and has been at the centre of international attention for more than a decade. Its infrastructure and activities are routinely monitored by the IAEA under safeguards agreements, and the facility’s security has been a sensitive flashpoint since the Stuxnet cyberattacks of 2010 and physical sabotage incidents in later years. Tehran’s public insistence on the peaceful nature of its programme is intended both for domestic audiences and to frame any foreign strikes as violations of international norms.
The announcement reprises a pattern of covert and overt operations that Western and Israeli officials have long hinted at or, in isolated cases, publicly claimed. The AEOI letter refers to a broader campaign of pressure and disruption; it also cites an incident on June 21 last year in which then‑US President Donald Trump announced a US strike called “Midnight Hammer” that he said had hit three Iranian nuclear sites, including Natanz. Whether or not Washington or Jerusalem will publicly acknowledge the most recent allegations, such incidents deepen mutual suspicion and complicate diplomatic space around Tehran’s nuclear activities.
By asking the IAEA to fulfil its duties under the agency’s Statute, Iran is attempting to internationalise the incident and put the agency in the position of either condemning the strikes or accepting Tehran’s version of events. That manoeuvre puts the IAEA in an awkward spot: it must weigh evidence, preserve its technical mandate, and avoid being drawn into overtly political judgments that could undermine its supervisory role and the fragile trust that makes inspections possible.
Strategically, attacks on nuclear infrastructure carry significant risks. They can degrade sensitive capabilities but also harden Iranian political and operational incentives to escalate, covertly diversify pathways to nuclear know‑how, or limit inspector access. Tehran’s threat of legal action and its claim to have taken defensive measures signal that the government will respond within a mix of diplomatic, legal and potentially clandestine channels rather than offering immediate public retaliation — at least for now.
The wider implications extend beyond Tehran and Washington. Recurrent strikes or sabotage allegations increase the chance of miscalculation between Israel, the United States and Iran, and they complicate efforts by other powers to revive diplomacy over Tehran’s nuclear programme. For regional neighbours and global markets, an uptick in kinetic operations around Iran’s nuclear sites raises the spectre of broader instability that could affect trade routes, energy prices and security partnerships.
What to watch next is straightforward: the IAEA’s public response and whether it can independently verify damage or interference at Natanz; any formal comments or denials from Washington and Jerusalem; and Tehran’s next diplomatic or legal moves. How each side frames the incident in the coming days will be decisive for whether this episode becomes a contained accusation or the next trigger in a spiralling cycle of covert action and counteraction.