Ishaq Dar said after meetings with regional counterparts that Islamabad was ready to facilitate “meaningful talks” toward a “comprehensive and lasting settlement,” including potential U.S.-Iran negotiations. It was not immediately clear whether either side had agreed to participate.

Iran’s parliament speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf accused Washington of signalling openness to diplomacy while preparing for military escalation, saying Tehran would not accept demands amounting to surrender.U.S. officials have not publicly confirmed any agreement to attend talks.

Reports cited by U.S. media indicate the Pentagon is assessing options that could include ground operations, though no final decision has been announced by Donald Trump.

Discussions among regional powers, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt, have focused on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, where Iranian restrictions on shipping since late February have disrupted global oil flows.

The conflict has driven oil prices sharply higher and intensified risks to maritime trade, with additional threats emerging near the Bab el-Mandeb Strait following attacks by Iran-aligned Houthi forces.

Israel said it carried out more than 140 air strikes across Iran over a 24-hour period, targeting missile infrastructure and other sites. Iranian media reported damage to Mehrabad airport in Tehran and a petrochemical facility in Tabriz.

Missile and drone exchanges have extended beyond Iran, with strikes reported in southern Israel near Beersheba and damage to industrial facilities in Gulf states including the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran’s heavy water production plant at Khondab had suffered severe damage and was no longer operational, though it contained no declared nuclear material.

The U.S. military has begun deploying thousands of Marines to the region, with the first contingent arriving aboard an amphibious assault ship, according to official statements.

Washington last week proposed a ceasefire framework that included reopening Hormuz and limiting Iran’s nuclear programme, but Tehran rejected the plan.

The conflict has triggered domestic political divisions in the United States, with protests reported in multiple cities and lawmakers offering sharply differing views on the war’s trajectory.

Tehran informed the International Atomic Energy Agency in September that it was taking the step, known as de-designation. The IAEA said at the time that while Iran is allowed to do that, the way it was done was unprecedented and harmful to its work.

“It’s a very serious blow to our capacity to do that,” Grossi told a news conference when asked to what extent the move had affected the IAEA’s ability to carry out meaningful inspections in Iran. He is urging Tehran to reconsider.

Uranium enrichment is the heart of Iran’s nuclear programme, and the process by which uranium is purified to levels as high as 60%, close to the roughly 90% that is weapons-grade. Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons but no other state has enriched to that level without producing them.

The IAEA will not say how many inspectors were de-designated. Diplomats put the number at slightly more than a handful. While that is a fraction of the more than 100 inspectors assigned to Iran, they are among the IAEA’s top experts on uranium enrichment, officials said.

One diplomat put the number of inspectors barred in this wave at eight, all of them French and German. That left only one enrichment expert in the team assigned to Iran, they added.

One senior diplomat put the number of other enrichment experts available with the required know-how at probably fewer than five.

“There are not many countries with this type of expertise. And normally countries where this expertise exists are very reluctant to release the expertise. They also were inspectors that were familiar with the facilities, had been there for years inspecting the facilities,” the senior diplomat said, referring to the de-designated inspectors.

The importance of that experience was illustrated in January when an inspector noticed a subtle but substantial change to a cascade, or cluster, of uranium-enriching centrifuges that Iran had failed to inform the IAEA of. That change caused a spike in the enrichment level to 83.7%, a record.

The inspector who spotted that change, a Russian enrichment expert, was de-designated later this year, shortly before the others, numerous diplomats said.

Iran’s steady progress in enriching to very high levels while failing to provide the International Atomic Energy Agency with the cooperation it demands on a growing list of issues presents a challenge to both the agency and Western powers that have repeatedly called on Iran to reverse course.

Iran’s stock of uranium enriched to up to 60% grew by 6.7 kg (14.8 pounds) to 128.3 kg (282.9 pounds) since the last report on Sept. 4, one of the two reports to member states seen by Reuters said. That is more than three times the roughly 42 kg (92.6 pounds) that by the IAEA’s definition is theoretically enough, if enriched further, for a nuclear bomb.

“That’s quite an amount, especially if you don’t use it for anything,” a senior diplomat said, referring to the fact Iran is the only country to enrich to such a high level without producing nuclear weapons. Weapons-grade is around 90%.

Iran has enough uranium enriched to lower levels for more bombs, but it denies seeking such weapons.

The rate at which Iran is enriching to 60%, however, has slowed to around 3 kg (6.6 pounds) a month from 9 kg (19.8 pounds) earlier this year, which diplomats said is the apparent result of indirect negotiations with the United States that led to a prisoner exchange between the two countries in September.

The number of cascades, or clusters, of uranium-enriching centrifuges in operation is also unchanged, the report said. Tensions between the agency and Iran, however, have only increased.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog’s 35-nation Board of Governors passed a resolution a year ago ordering Iran to comply with an IAEA investigation into uranium traces found at three undeclared sites. Since then the IAEA has narrowed the list of sites to two but little other progress has been made.

No Consequences

The IAEA’s list of pressing issues in Iran has also grown, with a deal in March to re-install monitoring equipment including surveillance cameras removed last year at Iran’s behest having only partially been honoured, and Tehran’s so-called “de-designation” in September of highly experienced IAEA inspectors.

The second report issued on Wednesday said there had been no progress on those issues. IAEA chief Rafael Grossi wrote to Iran asking it to reconsider the de-designation, and Iran replied on Wednesday to say merely that it was “exploring possibilities to address the request”, the report said.

“This measure, while formally permitted… was exercised by Iran in a manner that directly and seriously affects the Agency’s ability to conduct effectively its verification activities in Iran, in particular at the enrichment facilities,” the second report said.

“The (IAEA) Director General (Grossi) continues to strongly condemn Iran’s sudden withdrawal of the designations of several experienced Agency inspectors,” it added.

Despite the standoffs over the inspectors, particles and monitoring equipment, Iran is unlikely to face serious consequences when the IAEA board meets next week.

While the United States and its European allies have previously threatened to pass another binding resolution against Iran, diplomats say that will not happen this time for reasons including avoiding a diplomatic escalation with Iran while attention is focused on Israel’s conflict with Hamas in Gaza.

Saudi Arabia has a nascent nuclear programme that it wants to expand to eventually include activities like proliferation-sensitive uranium enrichment. It is unclear where its ambitions end, since Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has said for years it will develop nuclear weapons if regional rival Iran does.

Riyadh has yet to fire up its first nuclear reactor, allowing its programme to still be monitored under the Small Quantities Protocol (SQP), an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency that exempts less advanced states from many reporting obligations and inspections.

IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi has been calling on the dozens of states that still have SQPs to amend or rescind them, calling them a “weakness” in the global non-proliferation regime. The IAEA has for years been in talks with Riyadh on making the switch to a so-called Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA) for years.

“The kingdom has recently taken the decision to rescind its Small Quantities Protocol and to move to the implementation of a full-scope Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement,” Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman told the IAEA’s annual General Conference, speaking through an interpreter.

If Saudi Arabia were to introduce nuclear material into its first nuclear reactor, a low-power research reactor in Riyadh that is near completion, it would void the SQP and its exemptions from regular safeguards.

Despite that, its SQP is a sensitive issue given the fears of an arms race in the Middle East. Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons, but it is enriching uranium to such high purity that Western powers say there is no credible civil explanation.

Prince Abdulaziz did not say whether on top of a regular CSA Saudi Arabia planned to sign up to the IAEA’s Additional Protocol, which allows for more wide-ranging and intrusive checks such as snap inspections.

Iran applied the Additional Protocol under its 2015 nuclear deal with major powers but stopped after then-President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the accord in 2018.

Iran’s move was a response to a call led by the United States, Britain, France and Germany at the IAEA last week for Tehran to cooperate immediately with the IAEA on issues including explaining uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

“The European Union is highly concerned by the … decision by Iran to withdraw the official designation of several experienced IAEA inspectors to monitor and verify its nuclear programme,” the spokesman for EU foreign affairs Peter Stano said in a statement.

“Particularly worrying is the direct and severe impact of this decision on the Agency’s ability to conduct its verification activities, which includes the monitoring of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The EU urges Iran to reconsider its decision without delay,” the statement said.

The warning delivered by Britain, France and Germany – the so-called E3 – and the U.S. to a quarterly International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors meeting published on Thursday comes as the West’s standoff with Iran has been complicated by secret U.S.-Iran talks.

A November resolution ordered Tehran to cooperate urgently with the IAEA’s investigation into the presence of uranium particles at three undeclared sites, since narrowed down to two.

Western powers have recently condemned Iran for stonewalling the IAEA on that and other issues like the re-installation surveillance cameras removed last year, and for enriching uranium to up to 60% purity, close to weapons grade. But in parallel diplomats say the United States has held secret “de-escalation” talks with Iran, potentially muddying the waters.

Those de-escalation talks, which Washington does not acknowledge, cover issues such as Iran’s recent slowdown of enrichment to 60% purity, frozen Iranian funds abroad, and a prisoner swap, diplomats say.

“If Iran fails to implement the essential and urgent actions contained in the November 2022 Resolution and the 4th March Joint Statement in full, the Board will have to be prepared to take further action in support of the (IAEA) Secretariat to hold Iran accountable in the future, including the possibility of a resolution,” the four Western powers said in a statement to the 35-nation IAEA board.

Iran tends to bristle at resolutions against it and respond by expanding or accelerating its nuclear activities. Iran says its nuclear programme is strictly for peaceful uses. Western powers say there is no credible civilian explanation for it.

The joint statement addressed the re-installation of monitoring equipment such as cameras but only a fraction of the cameras the IAEA wants to put in place have been set up.

Rather than seek another binding resolution against Tehran for the lack of progress on these issues at this week’s IAEA board meeting, however, the Western powers issued a non-binding joint statement with 59 other countries calling on Iran to “act immediately” on issues including explaining the uranium traces.

A total of 22 countries of the 35 on the board backed the statement, fewer than the 26 that supported the resolution in November.

Grossi also said he understands concerns remain over the plan but added that a review by the IAEA released last week found it was “in conformity with international safety standards” if executed according to plan.

Grossi met with South Korea’s opposition Democratic Party members on Sunday who expressed strong public concerns over Japan’s plan and criticized the IAEA’s findings.

“The issue at hand today has attracted a lot of interest, and this is absolutely logical because the actions and the way in which Japan will be addressing this … have important implications,” Grossi said in the meeting.

A Democratic Party member who chairs a special committee on the issue said the IAEA’s findings had “shortcomings”, and the widespread public concerns over safety in the country were “legitimate and reasonable”.

“We deeply regret that the IAEA concluded Japan’s plan to discharge contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant meets international standards,” Wi Seong-gon, the committee chairman, told Grossi.

Grossi was met with angry protests by civic groups as he arrived in South Korea on Friday from Japan and drew street rallies on Saturday criticising the plan.

South Korea’s government said on Friday it respected the IAEA’s report and that its own analysis had found the release will not have “any meaningful impact” on its waters.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin on Wednesday criticised the move towards discharging the water and threatened action if the plan should move ahead.

North Korea also criticised IAEA’s backing of Japan’s plan, calling it “unjust” and a demonstration of double standards, citing the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s work to curb Pyongyang’s nuclear programme.

North Korea has faced U.N. Security Council sanctions for its six underground nuclear tests.

Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), arrived in South Korea on Friday after wrapping up a trip to Japan, during which the watchdog approved the plan to release wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear facility into the ocean.

His arrival was met with protesters at Seoul’s Gimpo Airport, local media reported.

No expert behind the IAEA’s Fukushima report disagreed with the content, Grossi told news agency Yonhap on Saturday, hinting at his comment during an interview with Reuters one day earlier.

Prior to that, Grossi said during a Friday press conference in Japan that he wanted to also meet with the opposition party in South Korea which has been critical of the discharge plan.

South Korea’s government said on Friday it respected the IAEA’s report and that its own analysis had found the release will not have “any meaningful impact” on its waters.

The administration of President Yoo Suk Yeol has walked a fine line in its stance to Japan’s discharge proposal, as it tries to improve ties with Tokyo. But the plan has stirred anger and concern among South Koreans, prompting some shoppers to buy up sea salt.

Despite South Korea’s assent for the plan, a ban on food and seafood products from the Fukushima region would remain in place.

Opposition Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung has also said the government should try to halt the plan and take the case to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

Asked whether there was any disagreement among the experts behind the report, which included participants from 11 countries including China, the fiercest critic of Japan’s plan, Rafael Grossi told Reuters:

“I heard that being said … but again, what we have published is scientifically impeccable.”

In his first interview since releasing the report on Tuesday, Grossi said none of the experts had raised concerns with him directly and he did not elaborate on how he had heard of the issue.

China’s state-run Global Times newspaper on Thursday said Liu Senlin, a Chinese expert in the IAEA’s technical working group, was disappointed with the “hasty” report and had said the input from experts was limited and only used for reference.

Liu did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The taskforce established by the IAEA in 2021 to review the safety of Japan’s plan to release some 500 Olympic size swimming pools worth of water from the plant wrecked by a tsunami more than a decade ago, also include members from Argentina, Australia, Canada, France, Marshall Islands, South Korea, Russia, Britain, the U.S. and Vietnam, according to the watchdog.

‘Not Endorsement’

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi speaks at an interview with Reuters in Tokyo, Japan, July 7, 2023. REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon

Beijing has blasted the IAEA’s report saying the body should not be endorsing a plan which poses risks to marine life and human health, despite assurances from Japan and the IAEA that it will have a negligible environmental impact.

Grossi said the IAEA’s report did not amount to an endorsement of the plan and that Tokyo must take the final decision to release the water due to start later this summer.

“We do not endorse the plan or recommend this to be done. We say this plan is consistent with the standards,” Grossi said.

“We do not take sides. I’m not on the side of Japan or on the side of China or on the side of Korea. The standards apply to all the same way,” he added.

Some Japanese officials are worried that China, the biggest buyer of its seafood exports, may halt purchases of those items after Tokyo begins the water discharge, expected to take up to 40 years to complete.

South Korea, which has previously expressed concerns about the release, said on Friday it respected the IAEA’s review.

Before the water is released into the ocean, Japan says it will be filtered to remove most radioactive elements except for tritium, an isotope of hydrogen that is difficult to separate from water. The treated water will then be diluted to well below internationally approved levels, Japan says.

As well as varying degrees of international criticism, the plan has also met resistance at home, especially among the fishing community concerned about demand for their produce.

Grossi said he understood the concerns because “nothing identical” to this release had happened before. He added, however, there were also “certain political agendas” attached to criticisms of the plan, without elaborating.

Japan plans to release the water from Tokyo Electric Power Co’s (9501.T) Fukushima plant, which was destroyed during the 2011 nuclear disaster, into the sea this summer, raising concerns in neighbouring countries.