Name: 核能專家如何看待伊朗核設施損毀？ (Nuclear energy experts react to Iran nuclear facility damage)
Uploaded: 2026-03-04T21:40:54.000Z
Duration: 9 min 11 s

Rafael Grossi, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

國際原子能總署總幹事拉斐爾·葛羅西。

It's good to have you, sir, and thank you for joining us.

很高興您能來，先生，謝謝您加入我們。

Your organization has confirmed damage to the Natanz fuel enrichment plant.

您的組織已經證實納坦茲燃料濃縮廠受損。

I just want to get some details view of the damage.

我只想對損壞情況有個詳細的瞭解。

We've got an aerial image here showing the damage.

我們這裡有一張空拍圖像顯示了損壞情況。

It is hard to understand what we are looking at.

實在有點難以理解我們看到的是什麼。

So if you could just take me through that.

所以，如果您能為我說明一下。

Well, yes, it's good to talk to you today, Becky.

嗯，是的，很高興今天能和妳談話，貝琪。

Since the beginning, of course, of this episode of confrontation between Israel, the United States and Iran, we have been following very, very closely the situation with regards to the nuclear facilities.

當然，從以色列、美國和伊朗之間這場對峙的開端，我們就一直非常、非常密切地關注核設施的相關情況。

Of course, you may remember that last year the whole campaign was actually, I would say very focused on the nuclear facilities, which has not been the case this time around with less focus on them.

當然，您可能還記得，去年的整個行動，我會說，其實非常聚焦在核設施上，但這次情況就不同了，對它們的關注度比較低。

But between yesterday and today we finally got images that we have been analyz some partial strikes on as you say, on Natanz.

但昨天到今天，我們終於拿到了一些圖像，我們可以分析，正如妳所說，納坦茲燃料濃縮廠遭受了部分襲擊。

They seem to be rather limited, aiming at one portal and one access to them and something perhaps also on Isfahan.

看起來襲擊的規模相當有限，目標似乎是一個入口和一個通道，還有艾斯法罕的某些地方。

So this is as far as we can say it's not at the scale and dimension of what we saw last year.

所以，就我們目前所知，這次的規模和範圍不像去年我們看到的那麼大。

For now, of course, because the conflict is ongoing, can change very rapidly.

當然，因為衝突仍在進行中，情況隨時可能迅速改變。

Let me just, let me just ask you about one other site or another site before we move on and find out what your sort of lines of communication are with Iran at the moment, Russia raising alarm over the impact on Bushehre nuclear plant.

在我問妳關於與伊朗的溝通管道之前，我想先問妳另一個地點，俄羅斯對布什爾核電廠可能受到的影響發出了警報。

Now, this is a plant that sits opposite and in close proximity to Gulf countries and has been a constant source of concern for many in the part of the world where I am.

這個核電廠就位在海灣國家對面，距離很近，一直以來都是我所在區域許多人擔憂的來源。

Should it be targeted either intentionally or accidentally.

萬一它遭到蓄意或意外的攻擊。

Well, of course we should say first of all that there has been no impact or no attack registered on the Bushehr nuclear power plant, which is an operating nuclear power plant.

首先，當然要說的是，布什爾核電廠這個正在運轉的核能發電廠，並沒有受到任何影響或攻擊的記錄。

So completely different in dimension and possible consequences to a place where you have some nuclear material stored here there would be an impact.

所以，這跟儲存核材料的地方，如果發生影響，其規模和可能造成的後果是完全不同的。

And I remember and we discussed that at the time there was a lot of concern in the area where you live and other countries.

我記得，當時我們討論過，在你居住的區域和其他國家，都有很多擔憂。

We were giving a lot of advice and indication and guidance to the nuclear safety regulatory agencies in all the region in case something occurred.

我們當時給了該區域所有核安全監管機構很多建議、訓示和指導，以防萬一發生什麼事。

我們並沒有看到那樣的事情發生。

I was very clear last Monday the board of governors of the IEA indicating of course that nuclear facilities should never be attacked and in particular this one because it's the one that really would pose a serious environmental risk.

我上週一已經非常清楚地向國際原子能總署理事會表明，核設施絕對不應該受到攻擊，特別是這個核電廠，因為它確實會造成嚴重的環境風險。

So let's just talk about what you know and what you don't know at this point.

所以，我們就來談談你現在知道和不知道的事情吧。

I mean, do you currently have any direct lines of communication with Iran and how often are you actually talking to them about inspections and nuclear safety at this point?

我的意思是，你目前有和伊朗有任何直接的溝通管道嗎？關於檢查和核安全，你現在實際上多久和他們談一次？

Well, I don't think we can have a normal dialogue at time of war.

嗯，我認為在戰爭時期，我們無法進行正常的對話。

There is a sense of, I would say common sense that indicates that we could not be discussing with Iran inspections or anything like that.

有一種，我會說是常識，表明我們不能和伊朗討論檢查或類似的事情。

We have a contact with Iranian diplomats and other informal channels with people in Tehran.

我們有跟伊朗外交官以及德黑蘭其他非正式管道保持聯繫。

this is regrettable, we have lost communication with the nuclear safety and regulatory authorities in Iran since the beginning of the hostilities there.

自從那邊戰事開始以來，我們就失去了與伊朗核安全監管機構的溝通管道。

It might be an issue of communication, but

we haven't been in touch with them, which would be very, very important.

我們沒有和他們聯繫，這其實非常非常重要。

That has been part of the narrative in the run up to this war.

這一直是這場戰爭前奏中，敘事的一部分。

CNN reporting indicates that Donald Trump and his top officials overstated just how close Tehran was to developing a nuclear weapon before beginning this round of strikes over the weekend.

CNN 的報導指出，唐納·川普和他的高層官員，在週末開始這波襲擊前，誇大了德黑蘭擁核武器的接近程度。

What was the status of that program as you understand it before those strikes began on Saturday?

在你理解中，在週六襲擊開始前，那個計畫的狀態是什麼？

Well, the program was very slow, I would say because the attacks last year were very important.

嗯，我認為那個計畫進展非常緩慢，因為去年的襲擊非常重要。

The damage was considerable on all the main nuclear facilities, Fordow or Esfahan and Natanz, on all these places where they have the main activities.

福爾多、艾斯法罕和納坦茲等主要的核設施，所有這些有主要活動的地方，都遭受了相當大的破壞。

There are other places in Iran, of course you mentioned Bushehr, but

伊朗當然還有其他地方，你提到了布什爾，但

there is the terror Iran research reactor and there's a number of facilities there.

還有伊朗的德黑蘭研究反應爐，以及那裡的一些設施。

But these were the main, that was the core of the big nuclear program there.

但這些是主要的，那是他們龐大核計畫的核心。

And that was of course perhaps we could say frozen, if not almost stopped.

而那當然，或許我們可以說是被凍結了，如果不是幾乎停止的話。

So Rafael, I'm just going to ask you this.

所以拉斐爾，我只想問你這個問題。

Were the Iranians days or weeks away from, from building a bomb, from having a bomb?

伊朗人距離製造炸彈、擁有炸彈還有幾天或幾週的時間嗎？

I repeated it again this time that while there are many elements there that were of serious concern, accumulation, unjustified accumulation of huge amounts of almost military grade material, lack of transparency in inspections and so on, I could enumerate a list of things.

我這次再次重申，雖然那裡有很多令人嚴重擔憂的因素，像是大量累積、不合理的累積了幾乎軍用級的材料，檢查缺乏透明度等等，我可以列出一長串。

We never had information indicating that there was a structured systematic program to build, to construct a nuclear weapon.

我們從未收過任何顯示有系統性計畫來製造、建造核武的資訊。

Yes, many reasons for concern, but there wasn't to be a bomb tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.

是的，有很多理由令人擔憂，但並不是明天或後天就會有炸彈。

that is the case for the United States or Israel and perhaps others may have the impression that all these activities are aimed directly and straight into the manufacturing of a nuclear weapon.

像是美國或以色列，或許還有其他國家，可能會認為所有這些活動都是直接且明確地朝著製造核武的方向進行。

We from the IAEA are not in the business of judging intentions.

我們國際原子能總署不是在判斷意圖的。

But yes, there were reasons for concern, but these timelines are perhaps a bit subjective.

但是的，確實有令人擔憂的理由，但這些時間點或許有點主觀。

To talk about these facilities, obviously all of them were part of the massive strikes last summer.

談到這些核設施，顯然它們都是去年夏天大規模襲擊的目標。

That supposedly obliterated Iran's nuclear program.

那些襲擊據說摧毀了伊朗的核計畫。

Now we're seeing these additional strikes.

現在我們看到這些額外的襲擊。

Are you able to tell anything from this image as you look at it?

你看這張圖像，能看出什麼嗎？

Well, it's clear that the facility itself is still intact.

嗯，很明顯，設施本身仍然完好無損。

So the amount of damage that the United States and Israel could have done clearly wasn't imposed on these facilities.

所以美國和以色列能夠造成的損害，顯然並沒有對這些設施造成。

I think there are major questions, as your lead in suggested, about whether the administration's justification for this war preventing Iran from getting access to a nuclear weapon were justified.

我認為，正如你的開頭所暗示的，關於這場戰爭的理由——阻止伊朗取得核武器——是否正當，存在重大疑問。

But if there were serious concerns, you would imagine that the first things this administration would want to destroy are all of Iran's nuclear facilities in total.

但如果真的有嚴重擔憂，你會想像這個政府首先想摧毀的就是伊朗所有的核設施。

And it's not just the satellite photographs that you've presented.

There's a headline now in the New York Times that in fact, the most likely storage facility for the 60% enriched uranium at Isfahan also appears to have been untouched.

《紐約時報》現在有一則頭條新聞，說實際上，位於艾斯法罕的 60% 濃縮鈾最可能的儲存地點，似乎也完好無損。

So I think there are a lot of questions about the administration's strategy and its justification.

所以我認為，關於政府的策略及其正當性，有很多問題。

But if you are going to go to war to prevent proliferation, you would target facilities and they appear to be intact.

但如果你要發動戰爭來阻止核擴散，你會針對設施，而這些設施似乎都完好無損。

And it looks as if both they are targeting, but they are leaving them intact.

看起來他們既有攻擊，但又讓它們保持完好。

Given what we've seen about the strike so far, it would seem.

考量到我們目前為止看到的襲擊情況，似乎是這樣。

I mean, tell me if you think I'm wrong, but it would seem that that's purposeful.

我的意思是，如果我錯了請告訴我，但這似乎是有意為之。

I mean, do you think that's purposeful and some part of some broader strategy here?

我的意思是，你認為這是故意的，是這裡更廣泛策略的一部分嗎？

Well, I think it's very hard with this administration to interpret from afar.

嗯，我認為以目前的政府來說，從遠處解讀非常困難。

If this was in the Obama administration, the Biden administration, the Bush administration, you assume some level of coordination.

如果是在歐巴馬政府、拜登政府或布希政府時期，你會假設有某種程度的協調。

I don't think we have seen that level of coordination politically in terms of when the strikes took place.

我認為我們沒有看到在罷工發生時間點上的政治協調。

And I think in terms of linking the president's stated goals for the war and the actual military operations, there are clearly something.

而且我認為，就連結總統對戰爭的既定目標和實際軍事行動而言，顯然有些東西。

Ship, air, defense, anything that CENTCOM commander would view as a threat to operations.

船艦、空中、國防，任何CENTCOM指揮官認為會威脅到行動的。

But if the goal is to prevent access to a nuclear weapon, you have to go in and strike all the nuclear facilities and obliterate them.

但如果目標是阻止取得核武，你就必須進去打掉所有核設施，徹底摧毀它們。