ANALYSIS: Pickaxe Mountain, the underground site worrying the West

Introduction: a mountain that never stopped digging

What the new satellite images reveal

Some places never really let themselves be destroyed. Pickaxe Mountain, this Iranian underground complex also known as Kolang Gaz La, located in the immediate vicinity of the Natanz enrichment site, offers a worrying demonstration of that fact since the start of July 2026. Satellite images obtained by CNN from provider Vantor, published July 11, show major signs of reconstruction activity at a site that was nonetheless hit by American and Israeli bombing in February 2026, a finding that now crystallizes Western fears about Iran's real capacity to preserve its deepest underground nuclear capabilities.

This is not an isolated discovery. As early as July 4, the Times of Israel was already reporting, based on images captured in late June, active reconstruction of the Pickaxe Mountain tunnel complex, in what constitutes an apparent violation of the memorandum signed at Islamabad on June 17, 2026. This accumulation of evidence, coming from different sources and dates, rules out the hypothesis of an isolated anomaly: this is a sustained reconstruction effort documented over several consecutive weeks.

Why this particular site obsesses Western intelligence services

Pickaxe Mountain is not a secondary site in Iran's nuclear architecture. According to analyses cited by several specialized outlets, this complex is believed to be designed to house enrichment facilities at such significant depth, estimated between 260 and more than 330 feet under the rock according to various technical assessments, that it could withstand even the most powerful anti-bunker bombs in the American arsenal, the GBU-57. This precise technical characteristic explains why this site draws disproportionate Western attention relative to its apparent surface size.

This exceptional depth turns Pickaxe Mountain into the ultimate test of the American doctrine of destroying Iranian nuclear capabilities through airstrikes. If this site truly manages to house enrichment capabilities invulnerable to conventional strikes, the entire Western strategy of non-proliferation by force would need to be fundamentally rethought.

I cannot look at these satellite images without feeling a kind of strategic vertigo: if an Iranian mountain can genuinely render obsolete the most advanced anti-bunker weapon in the Western world, then the entire doctrine of nuclear deterrence through conventional strikes needs to be rethought from the ground up, and fast.

A site that already existed in Western briefings before 2026

Pickaxe Mountain is not a recent discovery for Western intelligence services: this site already appeared in specialized briefings on Iran's nuclear program several years before the February 2026 strikes, precisely because of its geographic proximity to Natanz and its geological configuration deemed ideal for housing protected enrichment facilities. This prior Western surveillance explains how quickly analysts were able to identify signs of reconstruction within the first weeks following the signing of the Islamabad memorandum.

This prior knowledge of the site also strengthens the credibility of current assessments: this is not a hasty interpretation of ambiguous images, but confirmation of a reconstruction trajectory at a site whose strategic characteristics had already been documented for a long time by several generations of analysts specializing in tracking Iran's nuclear program.

The fact that Pickaxe Mountain already appeared in Western briefings before 2026 should reassure us about the reliability of current assessments, but it should above all alarm us about the time lost by not permanently neutralizing this site when the opportunity presented itself.

The documented scale of reconstruction since February 2026

Fifty of sixty-nine access points already reopened

The CNN investigation, published July 12, 2026, cites a particularly telling figure: fifty of the sixty-nine tunnel access points identified at Iranian nuclear sites have reportedly already been reopened, according to analysis of satellite images captured during the period when the Islamabad memorandum was supposed to freeze all Iranian military reconstruction activity. This precise, documented, dated figure leaves little room for doubt about the real scale of the reconstruction effort undertaken by Tehran.

This massive reopening of tunnel access points unfolded in several identifiable phases: a first wave of work immediately after the February 2026 strikes, followed by an apparent slowdown during the Islamabad negotiations, then an accelerated resumption starting in late June, precisely as the agreement was already beginning to weaken on the diplomatic front.

David Albright's report and the expertise of the Institute for Science and International Security

The expert analysis attached to these satellite images comes notably from David Albright, a recognized physicist and founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, an organization whose assessments of Iranian nuclear capabilities are regularly cited by Western intelligence agencies. This independent expertise, cross-checked with Vantor's commercial imagery, lends substantial technical credibility to the reconstruction findings put forward since early July.

This convergence between independent technical expertise and commercial satellite imagery is precisely the kind of multiple corroboration that distinguishes well-founded concern from mere alarmist speculation, an essential distinction in a file where the temptation to exaggerate remains present on all sides of the public debate.

Fifty of sixty-nine tunnels reopened while a freeze agreement was supposedly in force: there is no generous interpretation available for that number. It is a documented, quantified violation, and it deserves to be named as such without any diplomatic complacency.

The Islamabad memorandum and its apparent violation

What the June 17 agreement was meant to guarantee

The memorandum signed at Islamabad on June 17, 2026 explicitly aimed to freeze Iranian military and nuclear reconstruction activity across all sites damaged by the February American and Israeli strikes, in exchange for a gradual easing of the economic sanctions weighing on Iran's economy. This agreement, presented at the time as a significant diplomatic breakthrough, rested on a principle of verifiability through satellite imagery and inspections, meant to guarantee the transparency of the commitments made by Tehran.

It is precisely this verifiability principle that allowed the first signs of non-compliance with this agreement to be documented as early as late June, through satellite images analyzed by several independent organizations converging on the same finding: reconstruction at Pickaxe Mountain and the Parchin complex continued despite the agreement, with no significant interruption matching the promised freeze period.

A memo dated July 5 already documents the scale of the violation

A memo produced by a specialized monitoring organization, dated July 5, 2026, already laid out a detailed accounting of observed violations of the Islamabad memorandum, based on continuous observation conducted since the agreement was signed. This document, predating CNN's most recent revelations, shows that the community of experts specializing in tracking nuclear non-proliferation had identified these warning signs even before they became a subject of broad media coverage.

This gap between the expert warning and mainstream media coverage illustrates a recurring pattern in this type of file: technical specialists identify weak signals well before Western public opinion becomes fully aware of them, which raises the question of how quickly Western policymakers factor these early warnings into their strategic calculations.

I find it troubling that experts documented this violation as early as July 5 without it triggering an immediate Western diplomatic response. How much longer will we have to wait between the specialists' warning and governments' concrete reaction before an agreement of this kind becomes completely dead letter?

Parchin, the twin complex that confirms the pattern

Taleghan 2, the facility inside the military complex

The Parchin complex, located about 30 kilometers southeast of Tehran, houses within it the facility known as Taleghan 2, whose reconstruction was also documented by satellite imagery between June 22 and July 7, 2026, according to an analysis published by Iran International based on Vantor images obtained by CNN. This simultaneous reconstruction of two major sites, Pickaxe Mountain and Parchin, definitively rules out the hypothesis of an isolated incident or a one-off misinterpretation of satellite images.

This simultaneity between the two reconstruction projects suggests a coordinated strategic decision at the top of the Iranian military apparatus, rather than a series of local or improvised initiatives, which considerably reinforces the gravity of the observed violation of the Islamabad memorandum.

What Parchin historically represents in Iran's military program

Parchin occupies a particular place in the history of Iran's nuclear and military program, having been the subject of repeated suspicions of weaponization-related activity for more than a decade, notably concerning alleged tests of detonators compatible with nuclear devices. This history of longstanding suspicion gives the current reconstruction of the site a particularly heavy symbolic weight, far beyond its immediate technical importance alone.

It is this historical weight that explains why the reconstruction of Taleghan 2 within the Parchin complex generates a specific Western concern, distinct from that generated by the reconstruction of Pickaxe Mountain alone, insofar as it reactivates old suspicions about the most sensitive dimensions of Iran's military program.

Watching Parchin and Pickaxe Mountain being rebuilt at the same time is not a technical coincidence, it is a deliberate political choice by Tehran. And that choice says a great deal about the real value the Iranian regime places on its own international commitments.

The Western reaction to these satellite revelations

The relative silence of Western chancelleries

Despite the scale of the revelations published in early July 2026 about the reconstruction of Pickaxe Mountain and Parchin, the official reaction from Western chancelleries has remained, to this day, relatively measured compared to the gravity of the documented facts. This diplomatic caution can be explained by a desire not to precipitate a definitive, public break with the Islamabad memorandum before exhausting the verification and negotiation channels still available.

This caution, however, has a cost: every week of relative silence in the face of documented and quantified violations potentially sends a signal of implicit tolerance to Tehran, which could interpret this absence of firm reaction as tacit validation of its strategy of discreet but continuous reconstruction of its most sensitive underground capabilities.

The July American strikes as an indirect response

The wave of American strikes that targeted roughly a hundred and forty Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps targets on the night of July 11 to 12, 2026, though officially justified by Iranian attacks on commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, also fits into this broader context of eroding Western trust in the commitments made by Tehran at Islamabad. These strikes constitute, in effect, an indirect response to the full set of observed violations, including those concerning the reconstruction of underground sites.

This convergence between the direct military response to the maritime attacks and the broader erosion of trust over compliance with the memorandum shows just how inseparable these different fronts of the Iranian-American crisis, maritime, nuclear, and diplomatic, have now become in Washington's strategic calculations.

Western diplomatic silence in the face of such well-documented violations is starting to dangerously resemble resignation. There is still time to demand clear accountability from Tehran, but that window closes a little more with every week this silence continues.

What this reconstruction reveals about Iran's long-term strategy

An underground resilience doctrine embraced for years

The rapid reconstruction of Pickaxe Mountain and Parchin after the February 2026 strikes confirms an Iranian doctrine of underground resilience that several Western analysts have documented for many years: rather than abandoning capabilities deemed strategically essential after a strike, Tehran systematically favors fast, discreet reconstruction, betting on geological depth and site dispersion to make any definitive destruction extremely costly for its adversaries.

This doctrine of underground resilience largely explains why one-off strikes, even massive ones like those of February 2026, have never managed to durably neutralize Iran's most sensitive nuclear and military capabilities, a strategic reality Western policymakers must fully integrate into their future planning rather than settling for temporary tactical victories.

The Iranian argument of national sovereignty against Western accusations

On the Iranian side, this reconstruction is generally justified by an argument of national sovereignty: Tehran considers that rebuilding infrastructure damaged by foreign strikes falls within its sovereign right, independent of commitments made under diplomatic agreements whose interpretation, according to Iranian authorities, remains open to dispute over its precise terms of application.

This national-sovereignty argument, though it might find some theoretical legitimacy in general international law, does not withstand examination of the facts documented by satellite imagery, which show reconstruction going far beyond simple maintenance of civilian infrastructure to directly involve sensitive military and nuclear capabilities explicitly targeted by the Islamabad memorandum.

Invoking national sovereignty to justify the secret reconstruction of an underground nuclear site while a freeze agreement is in force empties that agreement of all meaning. You cannot sign a memorandum with one hand and methodically violate it with the other.

Western military capabilities against a nearly invulnerable site

The documented limits of the GBU-57 bunker buster

The GBU-57, the most powerful anti-bunker bomb in the American arsenal, was specifically designed to destroy deeply buried underground facilities, but several technical analyses published since the February 2026 strikes suggest its penetration capability could prove insufficient against the exceptional depth of sites like Pickaxe Mountain, estimated by some experts at more than 300 feet under the rock. This documented technical limit is one of the major strategic stakes of any future direct military confrontation between the United States and Iran over the nuclear question.

This persistent technical uncertainty about the real effectiveness of anti-bunker strikes against the deepest sites largely explains why the American administration currently favors a strategy combining military pressure, economic sanctions, and diplomatic negotiations rather than an attempt at definitive destruction through air power alone, whose technical success remains highly uncertain against this type of target.

The strategic debate over available alternative options

Facing these documented limits of conventional airstrikes, several alternative strategic options are regularly discussed by Western defense analysts, ranging from strengthening economic sanctions specifically targeting technologies needed to continue this reconstruction work, to more discreet sabotage or cyberattack operations against the logistical support infrastructure of these underground projects.

This strategic debate, widely documented in specialized defense media, illustrates the complexity of the dilemma facing Western policymakers: how to effectively neutralize an underground nuclear threat without engaging in a direct military escalation whose regional and global consequences could prove disproportionate to the strategic benefit sought.

If even the most powerful anti-bunker bomb in the Western world cannot guarantee the destruction of this site, then we need the honesty to admit that military strikes alone will never solve this file. It will take a far more patient combination of economic, diplomatic, and technological pressure.

The broader context of the July 2026 Iran-West crisis

A cluster of simultaneous crises reinforcing each other

The reconstruction of Pickaxe Mountain cannot be understood in isolation from the broader context of rapidly deteriorating relations between Iran and the West observed since the start of July 2026: the IRGC's closure of the Strait of Hormuz on July 12, Iranian strikes on targets in Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and Jordan between July 9 and 10, American strikes near the Bushehr nuclear plant, and the American presidential declaration ending the ceasefire. This accumulation of simultaneous crises creates a climate of widespread tension that makes every new revelation, including the one concerning Pickaxe Mountain, more explosive than it would have been in a more stable context.

This simultaneity of crises also considerably complicates the task facing Western policymakers, forced to manage several escalation fronts in parallel, maritime, nuclear, and diplomatic, with political attention resources and military capabilities that, while substantial, are not infinite against an adversary deliberately multiplying simultaneous points of friction.

The symbolic dimension of the state funerals in Mashhad

On the Iranian domestic front, the state funerals held for the former supreme leader in Mashhad, with talk of a possible succession to Mojtaba Khamenei, add a dimension of internal political transition to this already extremely tense context. This potential transition of Iran's supreme power, if confirmed, could have direct repercussions on the future conduct of the nuclear program, insofar as each new supreme leader traditionally inherits direct control over the regime's most sensitive strategic orientations.

This temporal coincidence between internal political transition and external nuclear crisis deserves close attention, without giving in to speculation about causal links that are not, to this day, formally established by verifiable sources, an essential methodological caution in a file already saturated with documented uncertainties.

I refuse to speculate about direct links between Iran's political succession and the reconstruction of these nuclear sites, but I honestly note that the temporal coincidence is troubling and deserves to be watched with the utmost factual rigor in the weeks ahead.

The Israeli intelligence warning, to be handled with caution

What the sources report about a possible plot against Trump

Among the most sensitive elements of this July 2026 information cluster is a warning attributed to Israeli intelligence concerning a possible Iranian plot targeting American President Donald Trump. This information, whose very nature demands heightened methodological caution given the difficulty of independently verifying this type of allegation touching on presidential security, must be treated with the utmost factual rigor rather than as a definitive, detailed confirmation.

This caution is not complacency toward Tehran, but a fundamental methodological requirement: accepting such grave allegations without independent verification, even from intelligence services generally considered reliable, would mean abandoning the standards of factual rigor that must guide any serious journalistic treatment of this kind of highly sensitive file.

Why this caution does not diminish the gravity of the broader context

This requirement of methodological caution on this specific point should not, however, minimize the overall gravity of the context documented elsewhere in a much more solid way: the reciprocal strikes, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the reconstruction of underground nuclear sites are, themselves, facts established by satellite imagery, official statements, and multiple converging sources, independent of the separate and not fully verified question of the alleged plot against the American president.

It is this clear distinction between solidly established facts and allegations requiring further verification that must continue to structure any rigorous analysis of this crisis, rather than indiscriminately blending very different levels of certainty under the pretext of narrative urgency.

I prefer to withhold any definitive judgment on the alleged plot against Trump rather than speculate on information I cannot independently verify. Factual rigor sometimes requires explicitly acknowledging the limits of what we know with certainty.

Verification stakes for the future of negotiations

The credibility of commercial satellite imagery as a verification tool

The full set of revelations about the reconstruction of Pickaxe Mountain and Parchin largely rests on the use of commercial satellite imagery, notably supplied by Vantor, analyzed by independent organizations monitoring nuclear non-proliferation. This verification methodology, increasingly used in this kind of file, offers a valuable alternative to traditional physical inspections, which are particularly difficult to negotiate given the high level of mistrust between the parties.

This rise of verification through commercial satellite imagery is, in my view, a positive development for the transparency of this type of file, insofar as it reduces exclusive dependence on official statements from parties directly involved in the conflict, statements often subject to obvious bias according to their respective interests.

What this means for the future credibility of any new agreement

This capacity for independent verification through satellite imagery raises a fundamental question for the future of any negotiation between Iran and Western powers: how to design a new agreement that would build in, from its very conception, verification mechanisms robust enough to avoid repeating the pattern seen with the Islamabad memorandum, documented as violated less than a month after its signing.

This question of the robustness of verification mechanisms should, by any logic, become an absolute priority for Western negotiators in any future attempt at dialogue with Tehran, or risk indefinitely reproducing this cycle of agreements signed then quickly circumvented that has characterized this relationship for several years already.

Commercial satellite imagery is becoming the most reliable weapon of Western diplomacy against Iran, far more so than the verbal promises signed at Islamabad. Lessons need to be drawn from this for any future agreement, or we risk repeating the same failures endlessly.

Chinese and Russian responsibility in this reconstruction context

The technologies and materials needed for these underground projects

The rapid, technical reconstruction of sites as complex as Pickaxe Mountain and Parchin requires continuous access to materials, equipment, and potentially technologies whose origin deserves careful examination, notably regarding possible supply chains involving Iran's international partners like China or Russia, two powers that maintain close economic and military relations with Tehran despite Western sanctions.

This question of the origin of the technical means used for this reconstruction remains, to this day, insufficiently documented by available public sources, which is an important limitation of this file that should be honestly acknowledged rather than speculated upon without sufficient proof regarding the direct involvement of any specific international partner of Iran.

Why this dimension deserves heightened Western attention

Independent of the specific and not fully documented question of the exact origin of the technical means used, the persistence of close economic and military ties between Iran and powers like China and Russia is, in itself, a structural factor that durably complicates the effectiveness of Western sanctions aimed at limiting Tehran's nuclear and military reconstruction capabilities.

It is this structural reality, documented in general well beyond the sole case of Pickaxe Mountain, that must continue to guide Western thinking about the real effectiveness of its economic-pressure strategy against an axis of hostile powers, Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea, which mutually support each other to circumvent international sanctions mechanisms.

As long as China and Russia keep economically supporting Iran despite Western sanctions, no American or European pressure will durably prevent the reconstruction of these underground sites. This support axis needs to be targeted with the same firmness applied directly against Tehran.

What this crisis reveals about the limits of coercive diplomacy

A repeated cycle of agreements signed then circumvented

The episode of the Islamabad memorandum, signed June 17 and already largely circumvented according to satellite imagery documented as early as late June, fits a broader pattern of coercive diplomacy applied to Iran for several years, characterized by a recurring alternation between maximum pressure, negotiation, partial agreement, then a documented violation that restarts the initial pressure cycle. This structural repetition fundamentally questions the long-term effectiveness of this diplomatic approach against a regime that seems to have internalized this cycle as a deliberate time-buying strategy.

Recognizing the limits of this repeated coercive diplomacy does not mean it should be abandoned entirely, for lack of an immediately available credible alternative, but it should at minimum lead Western policymakers to thoroughly review verification mechanisms and the concrete consequences planned for any observed violation, rather than settling for indefinitely renewing the same kind of fragile agreement.

The call for a more coordinated, more patient Western approach

Facing this repeated pattern of failed one-off agreements with Iran, several Western defense analysts now call for a more coordinated approach among the United States, Europe, and regional Gulf partners, combining continuous military pressure, economic sanctions targeted at identified supply chains, and reinforced technical verification through satellite imagery, rather than continuing to rely on isolated diplomatic agreements whose fragility has now been demonstrated repeatedly.

It is this more patient, more coordinated, more technically rigorous approach that seems, at this stage of the crisis, to offer the best realistic prospect for durably containing Iran's underground nuclear and military ambitions, without giving in to the illusion of a quick, definitive solution that neither military force alone nor diplomacy alone has managed to produce so far.

It is time for the West to stop believing a single agreement, even one signed with great fanfare at Islamabad, will durably resolve this crisis. Only a patient, coordinated, technical approach, combining military pressure, sanctions, and satellite verification, offers a real chance to contain this underground threat.

The Fordow precedent and the lesson of targets too deep to reach

What the June strikes revealed about technical limits

The Fordow enrichment site, also buried deep in the rock near Qom, had already provided an instructive precedent during the American strikes of June 2026: despite the use of several GBU-57 bombs dropped in succession on the same impact points, post-strike assessments remained divided on the exact degree of destruction of that site's deepest enrichment capabilities. This persistent technical uncertainty, documented by several defense analyses published in the weeks following the strikes, is a direct precedent for understanding the similar limits that apply today to Pickaxe Mountain.

This Fordow precedent teaches a simple but essential lesson: geological depth alone, combined with a sufficiently complex and redundant tunnel architecture, can be enough to considerably limit the effectiveness of even the most sophisticated airstrikes, which explains why Tehran has visibly chosen to replicate and deepen this same underground resilience strategy at Pickaxe Mountain rather than seek more vulnerable surface alternatives.

Fordow should have served as a warning to the West: if even repeated anti-bunker bomb strikes leave doubt about a site's actual destruction, then Tehran applying the same depth logic at Pickaxe Mountain should have been expected. This reconstruction is not a surprise, it's a predictable repetition.

Lessons for long-term Western verification posture

Toward continuous rather than one-off satellite monitoring

Facing the repeated demonstration that one-off strikes, even massive ones, are not enough to durably prevent the reconstruction of strategic underground sites, several non-proliferation experts now argue for establishing continuous, systematic satellite monitoring of all identified Iranian nuclear and military sites, rather than settling for one-off analyses triggered after the fact by isolated media revelations.

This continuous monitoring, technically achievable thanks to the growing number of commercial satellite constellations like Vantor's, would allow much faster detection of any new reconstruction attempt, thereby reducing the current gap of several weeks between the actual start of work and its documented public revelation, a gap that clearly worked in Tehran's favor in the case of Pickaxe Mountain and Parchin.

Continuous satellite monitoring, rather than one-off revelations spaced weeks apart, would fundamentally change the informational balance of power with Tehran. The West has the technological means for this permanent vigilance; all it lacks is the political will to fund it durably.

Conclusion: a mountain that sums up the entire Iranian crisis

What Pickaxe Mountain reveals beyond the nuclear file alone

At the end of this analysis, Pickaxe Mountain appears as far more than just another Iranian underground site: it embodies, in its very geology, the full set of structural tensions defining the relationship between Iran and the West for several decades, between a will to sovereignly preserve national strategic capabilities and the legitimate Western demand for nuclear non-proliferation in an already extremely unstable region.

This mountain, literally carved out by decades of Iranian strategic calculation, sums up on its own the fundamental difficulty of any negotiation with a regime that has demonstrated, cycle after cycle since the start of 2026, its ability to sign agreements while simultaneously continuing, deep underground and in relative secrecy, the very work those agreements were supposed to halt.

What must continue to guide Western vigilance

This Western vigilance, already largely mobilized through commercial satellite imagery and the independent expertise of specialized organizations, must now translate into concrete, proportionate diplomatic and economic consequences in the face of violations as clearly documented as those observed at Pickaxe Mountain and Parchin, or risk seeing this cycle of fragile agreements and discreet underground reconstruction repeat indefinitely.

It is this combination of reinforced technical vigilance and consequential diplomatic firmness that must continue to structure the Western response to this Iranian mountain which, under kilometers of rock, keeps digging its own path toward a strategic capability the West had hoped it had definitively neutralized in February 2026.

Signed Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

What I know and what I don't

I know that satellite images obtained by CNN from Vantor, published July 11, 2026, show major signs of reconstruction activity at Pickaxe Mountain and Parchin, and that a separate investigation from July 12 cites fifty of the sixty-nine tunnel access points as reopened. I know that the Islamabad memorandum, signed June 17, aimed to freeze these activities, and that a memo dated July 5 already documented observed violations.

I do not know with certainty the exact origin of the materials and technologies used for this reconstruction, nor the degree of independent verification behind the warning attributed to Israeli intelligence concerning a possible Iranian plot against President Trump. I prefer to document this uncertainty rather than speculate on details not confirmed by multiple verifiable sources.

Method

This analysis draws on Al Jazeera's coverage of the Iran-United States escalation, on CNN's satellite investigation as picked up by Times Now and Iran International, on the Times of Israel's analysis regarding Pickaxe Mountain, as well as earlier Reuters assessments on repairs at Iranian sites and the monitoring memo on the violation of the Islamabad memorandum. These sources were cross-checked against one another to establish the timeline and scale of the reported facts.

My editorial angle is stated without ambiguity: I consider the documented reconstruction of these underground sites to be a serious violation of a diplomatic agreement, while maintaining the methodological requirement to distinguish facts solidly established by satellite imagery from allegations requiring further independent verification.

Sources

Primary sources

Live coverage of the Iran-US escalation — Al Jazeera, July 11, 2026

Satellite images show Iran repairing and fortifying its sites — Reuters, February 18, 2026

Monitoring memo on the violation of the Islamabad memorandum — ICAN Action, July 5, 2026

Secondary sources

Satellite images show Iran reconstructing Pickaxe Mountain in apparent protocol violation — Times of Israel, July 4, 2026

Report reveals Iran rebuilt key nuclear sites while agreement was in force — Times Now, July 12, 2026

New satellite images on Taleghan 2 reconstruction at Parchin — Iran International, July 10, 2026