
Iran's Arak heavy water reactor, hit by an Israeli airstrike, was part of Tehran's nuclear deal
Much of the focus on Iran 's nuclear program has been on Tehran 's enrichment of uranium, but experts also keep a close watch on the Islamic Republic's Arak heavy water reactor.
That's because the facility, some 250 kilometers (155 miles) southwest of Tehran, could produce plutonium, which can be used to make an atomic bomb.
Israel pointed to just that concern when it launched airstrikes Thursday on the reactor, following its attacks on other Iranian nuclear sites, including the Nantanz enrichment facility, centrifuge workshops near Tehran, and laboratories in Isfahan. Iran acknowledged the strikes, saying at least two projectiles slammed into the compound, without giving any specifics about damage.
Never online, the reactor had no uranium fuel and saw no nuclear release from the strike. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, has warned repeatedly that such sites — whether in Iran or Ukraine — should not be military targets.
Arak grew out of Iran's onetime military nuclear program
After Iran's devastating 1980s war with Iraq, it began a secret military program to seek a nuclear weapon and approached four nations to purchase a heavy water-moderated reactor. After getting turned down, Iran decided to build its own.
Heavy water is water in which hydrogen is replaced by deuterium and is used as a coolant for heavy water reactors.
The reactors can be used for scientific purposes, but plutonium is a byproduct of the process. Before the centrifuge technology that enriches uranium to levels high enough for use in weapons became widespread, many states used heavy water reactors to pursue plutonium-fueled bombs.
India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed states, have heavy water reactors, as does Israel, which has never acknowledged having atomic weapons but is widely believed to have them.
Though Iran ultimately embraced uranium-enriching centrifuges as the main driver of its program, it built the reactor, which never went online.
Iran has long maintained its program is for peaceful purposes. However, it also had been enriching uranium up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. Iran was the only non-nuclear-weapon state to enrich at that level.
Arak was part of Iran's nuclear deal with world powers
Iran agreed under its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers to redesign the facility to alleviate proliferation concerns. That included pouring concrete into part of it, though the overall work never was completed.
The Arak reactor became a point of contention after U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal in 2018. Ali Akbar Salehi, a high-ranking nuclear official in Iran, claimed on Iranian state television in 2019 that Tehran bought extra parts to replace the portion of the reactor into which officials poured concrete.
Due to restrictions Iran has imposed on inspectors, the IAEA has said it lost 'continuity of knowledge' about Iran's heavy water production — meaning it could not absolutely verify Tehran's production and stockpile.
Israeli strike likely heavily damaged the inert reactor
On Thursday morning, Israel carried out an airstrike on the reactor. Black-and-white footage of the strike it released showed a bomb dropping on its dome and sending up a massive plume of fire and smoke. The U.N. nuclear watchdog noted that since it was not in operation and contained no nuclear material, there was no danger to the public after the strike from any 'radiological effects.' The IAEA said it had no information on whether the facility nearby where heavy water is produced had been hit.
Israel's military said its fighter jets targeted the Arak facility and its reactor core seal to halt it from being used to produce plutonium.
'The strike targeted the component intended for plutonium production, in order to prevent the reactor from being restored and used for nuclear weapons development,' the Israelis said.
___
The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
___

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
37 minutes ago
- Reuters
Insight: How Trump, a self-proclaimed "peacemaker," embraced Israel's campaign against Iran
WASHINGTON, June 19 (Reuters) - Roughly one month ago, from the stage at an investment forum in Saudi Arabia, U.S. President Donald Trump issued a warning to Iran that would prove prophetic. "We'll never allow America and its allies to be threatened with terrorism or nuclear attack," Trump told the crowd, sending a message to the leadership in Tehran. "The time is right now for them to choose. Right now. We don't have a lot of time to wait. Things are happening at a very fast pace." That May 13 ultimatum received little attention at the time. But behind the scenes, the president already knew an attack on Iran could be imminent - and that there might be little he could do to stop it, according to two U.S. officials. By mid-May, the Pentagon had begun drawing up detailed contingency plans to aid Israel if it followed through on its long-held ambition to strike Iran's nuclear program, the officials said. And the U.S. had already diverted thousands of defensive weapons away from war-torn Ukraine toward the Middle East in preparation for potential conflict, according to a Western source familiar with the matter and a Ukrainian source. The Pentagon declined to comment for this story. This account of the weeks and days leading up to Trump's decision to throw his support behind Israel's bombing campaign is based on interviews with over a dozen administration officials, foreign diplomats and Trump confidantes, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations. The picture that emerges is that of a long, secretive preparation process and a president who for weeks found himself torn between diplomacy and supporting military action - and was ultimately persuaded in part by an ally whose actions he did not fully control. While Trump has long described himself as a peacemaker - dispatching Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff to the region several times to try to seal a diplomatic accord - he had several trusted political allies pushing him to back an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. And U.S. intelligence had indicated a unilateral Israeli strike was possible, even likely, even if Trump wanted to wait, according to two U.S. officials. While it is unclear if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Trump's more hawkish allies ever got him to a "yes" to Israel's plans, by the days leading up the strike he was at least not a "no," according to two senior U.S. officials and a senior Israeli source. That stance, people familiar with the dynamics said, helped tip Israel into action. Seven days into the Israel-Iran conflict, Trump is left with a dilemma, said Aaron David Miller, a veteran diplomat who has advised six secretaries of state on Middle East policy. He can try again to pursue a diplomatic resolution with Iran, allow Iran and Israel "to fight it out," or he can enter the war with U.S. airstrikes on the deeply buried Fordow enrichment plant, a step that would have unknown consequences for the region. Trump "let it (the Israeli attack) happen," said Miller. "He got on the tiger and he's riding it." The White House, the Israeli prime minister's office and Iran's delegation to the United Nations did not respond to a request for comment. Tehran has consistently said its nuclear program is designed for peaceful purposes only, a conclusion Washington has rejected. One of the first hints that Trump might sign off on an Israeli bombing campaign came in April. During a closed door meeting on April 17, Saudi Arabia's defense minister delivered a blunt message to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian: Take Trump's offer to negotiate an agreement seriously because it presents a way to avoid the risk of war with Israel. Reuters could not determine whether the message was sent at Washington's behest, nor whether Iran's leaders took that message seriously. With hindsight, they should have. The Israel Defense Forces and the head of U.S. Central Command, General Michael "Erik" Kurilla, were discussing detailed intelligence about Iran's missile buildup and nuclear program and steps that could be required to defend U.S. troops and Israel itself in any conflict with Iran, according to a U.S. official and senior Israeli official. Meanwhile, the U.S. was funneling weapons to Israel that would be useful for an air war with Iran. In one instance in early May, a large shipment of defensive missiles originally meant for Ukraine were diverted to Israel instead, according to the Western source and the Ukrainian source. The diverted shipment caused consternation in Kyiv and sparked continued fears that additional weapons needed to defend against Moscow will instead be used to defend U.S. interests elsewhere, the Ukrainian source said. In the opening months of Trump's term, Israel had already proposed to Washington a series of options to attack Iran's facilities, according to sources. While Trump had rebuffed those ideas, saying he preferred diplomacy for the time being, several people close to him said he was never dead-set against using military force against Iran. He had done so before. In 2020, despite a foreign policy during his first term that was otherwise marked by restraint, Trump ordered a drone strike that killed major general Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' division responsible for its international operations. The Iranian government has since sought to murder Trump in revenge, U.S. prosecutors have said, an allegation Tehran denies. Behind the scenes, Trump had been pulled in multiple directions on the Iran issue since before he even took office. On one side, many supporters - including conservative media personality Tucker Carlson - and administration officials saw Trump's Make America Great Again movement as an antidote to decades of foreign wars that cost thousands of American lives without significantly advancing American interests. On the other, several close Trump allies - from conservative commentator Mark Levin to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham - were portraying a nuclear Iran as an existential threat that must be removed at any cost. Trump himself took pride in being a broker of peace. "My proudest legacy," he said during his inauguration address, "will be that of a peacemaker and unifier." Ultimately, no U.S. official, Trump confidante or diplomat Reuters talked to identified an epiphany that tipped the scales for the president. One senior administration official said that after months of sitting on the fence a lack of diplomatic progress, a push from the Israelis and appeals by hawkish allies likely wore him down. Trump aides and allies have noted that Israel's attack unfolded just after the expiry of a 60-day deadline the Trump administration had set for a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran. The senior U.S. official said another dynamic was at play: As U.S. intelligence consistently showed Israel might go ahead with an attack with or without U.S. support, the administration could look caught off guard if they did not get behind it. Worse, it could appear that the U.S. was opposing a longtime ally. Although Trump had appeared to some to snub Netanyahu as he pushed for a peaceful solution to the crisis, privately, Israel understood that Washington would stand by it, said a separate official. By the time Trump talked to Netanyahu on Monday, June 9 - one of many phone calls in recent days - his stance was one of tacit, if not explicit approval, according to one U.S. and one Israeli official. The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had said he would like more time to see diplomacy play out. But the U.S. official said that he did not explicitly veto Israel's plans. By Wednesday, June 11, it was clear to Washington that Israel's plans were a go. That day, Reuters reported that the U.S. was preparing a partial evacuation of its Iraqi embassy amid fears of reprisals from Iran following an imminent attack. The next day, June 12, Washington sent a formal diplomatic note to several regional allies, warning them that an attack was imminent. That evening, Israel launched its overnight barrage, an attack that almost immediately escalated into an air war. Trump and some key cabinet members watched the events live from the wood-paneled "JFK room," part of the White House Situation Room. Other officials watched the events nearby. On the menu, per one official: stone crabs from a local restaurant. The initial attack appeared to be a success, with several close advisers to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei killed and key nuclear sites seriously damaged. Over the weekend, the Israelis considered killing Khamenei himself, but were waved off by Trump, according to two U.S. officials. Almost immediately, a political civil war erupted in Trump's Republican Party, with several high-profile conservatives, including members of Congress, accusing his administration of fanning the flames of war. Seven days on, the U.S. intelligence community believes the strikes have set Iran's nuclear ambitions back by only months, according to a source familiar with U.S. intelligence reports, confirming a CNN report. A significant blow to Iran's nuclear ambitions, most analysts say, will require dropping bunker-busting bombs on the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, the crown jewel of Iran's nuclear program. Only the U.S. has that capability. Trump has said he is considering such a strike, which would represent a major escalation for the United States. As of Thursday, his intentions were still unclear.


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Auburn basketball coach Bruce Pearl backs Donald Trump over ICE controversy and Israel-Iran war
College basketball coach Bruce Pearl has backed Donald Trump over his illegal immigration crackdown, insisting that the president is 'making America safe again.' On Tuesday, the White House shared data claiming that zero illegal immigrants were released into the United States in May. That figure was more than 62,000 a year ago under the Biden administration, the White House said. And Auburn coach Pearl, who has been an outspoken supporter of Trump, was thrilled to see how Trump is handling the country's border security. 'We didn't need new laws, we just needed a president that would enforce the ones we already had! President @realDonaldTrump is making America safe again!,' he wrote on X. Pearl, who previously slammed Kamala Harris for her ' woke progressive beliefs,' expressed his support for legal immigration in November after Trump had won a second term in office. 'President Trump won big because more Americans believed he will fix Inflation, secure our border, support legal immigration, bring peace to the world through strength and put America first,' he said on X. The White House claimed that zero illegal immigrants were released into the US in May 'I pray and I believe he will work for all Americans, uniting us as one nation under God!' Pearl's latest remarks on immigration came as he also praised Trump's 'instincts' in regards to the Israel-Iran conflict. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Trump didn't rule out US military intervention as missile attacks continue in both countries. Nonetheless, Pearl trusts that Trump will make the right decision as he mulls deploying US forces to take out Iran's Fordow nuclear facility. 'He's got incredible instincts, like instincts that I think historically will be down as one of the greatest leaders in the history of the world,' Pearl said on Dont @ Me with Dan Dakich. 'That's a strong statement… I think the vast majority of it is incredibly calculated. Every now and then, it may be a little bit off the cuff, but I trust him.' Pearl also said that the world was 'about to become a safer place' with ' a non-nuclear Iran', and gushed about Trump's handling of the Middle East. 'If the Middle East gets safer and stronger, look at what dynamic country Israel is. Look at all the unicorns that are there. Look at all the high tech and development. Look at all the wealth,' he said. 'If you began to spread that to some of these other Middle Eastern countries, who are they going to partner with? The United States, Russia, China? It's going to be the U.S. because Donald Trump has led the way to create peace and prosperity for everybody in the region.' Pearl, who is Jewish, has especially outspoken in his support of Israel since the October 7 terrorist attacks by Hamas in 2023. Following his team's win over Creighton in March Madness, he campaigned for the return of Israeli-American hostage Edan Alexander, who was ultimately held in captivity for 584 days before his release in May. Trump, however, received a frostier reception from different sports figures on Wednesday as he hosted select Juventus players in the Oval Office. Several players - including Americans Timothy Weah and Weston McKennie - visited the president ahead of their Club World Cup clash in DC, but Trump seemingly baffled them as he spoke about trans athletes and the Israel-Iran situation with them in the room. 'It was all a surprise to me, honestly - they told us that we have to go and I had no choice but to go,' Weah said after Juventus' 5-0 win later that night. 'I was caught by surprise, honestly. It was a bit weird. When he started talking about the politics with Iran and everything, it's kind of like, I just want to play football man.'


Times
an hour ago
- Times
How close is Iran to actually building a nuclear bomb?
One key issue underlying the debate over whether to attack Iran in Tel Aviv, Washington and beyond is the long-running question of how determined the regime is to actually build a nuclear weapon, and when it could do so if it chose to. For well over a decade most western intelligence services have held two paradoxical but not contradictory positions on Iran's nuclear programme. The first is that Iran, as a result of a nuclear agreement with European powers in 2003, had formally halted its nuclear weapons programme, and has not since made an actual attempt to build a nuclear weapon. The second is that it has continued work on enriching uranium and other potential components of a nuclear weapons programme, sometimes deliberately misleading the recognised nuclear monitor, the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, in doing so. That has led, over the years, to regular reports, resulting from some new revealed advance in the programme, that Iran is 'a matter of months' away from building a bomb. That refers to an assessment of how long it might take for Iran to succeed, if it did actually decide to build a bomb. It had not changed much in recent years, at least since Iran began installing high-speed centrifuges, the devices that enrich uranium, in 2013. But in the past year those reports have surfaced again. Tulsi Gabbard, President Trump's director of national intelligence, who has a record of opposing military intervention in the Middle East, reiterated the formal position to the US Senate select committee on intelligence in March. 'The IC [intelligence community] continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons programme that he suspended in 2003,' she said. The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and, below, Tulsi Gabbard, President Trump's director of national intelligence OFFICE OF THE SUPREME LEADER OF IRAN/GETTY IMAGES Nevertheless, in the past five years, Iran's nuclear advances have changed in their nature in key aspects. The most important is that it has enriched uranium in significant quantities to a much higher degree of purity than it has ever done before, certainly before the Obama-era nuclear deal of 2015. That limited enrichment to 3.67 per cent purity — the level needed for generating nuclear power. Previously, it had reached 20 per cent, the level required for certain medical uses. As part of the deal, Iran would be allowed to continue to enrich to 3.67 per cent, but not beyond, and be supplied with medical-use enriched uranium from abroad. Since 2020, once it became clear that the deal, which Trump tore up in 2018, would not be restored, the regime began to enrich uranium to 60 per cent, well beyond the level needed for any peaceful use. Weapons-grade uranium is of 90 per cent purity, not a difficult extra step. As of May this year, it had enough 60 per cent-enriched uranium for 233kg of weapons-grade uranium — which could make nine 25kg weapons, according to an analysis of IAEA assessments by the Institute for Science and International Security (Isis). That extra enrichment would take about three weeks to achieve. 'Breaking out in both Fordow and the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant, the two facilities together could produce enough WGU (weapons grade uranium) for 11 nuclear weapons in the first month, enough for 15 nuclear weapons by the end of the second month, 19 by the end of the third month, 21 by the end of the fourth month, and 22 by the end of the fifth month,' Isis said. EPA Iranian commentators have explained that this higher enrichment was done purely as a negotiating tactic, to put pressure on the United States to restore a nuclear deal. If so, it was a dangerous bluff. Whether that is true or not, obtaining weapons-grade uranium is just one component of a nuclear weapons programme. Others include turning 90 per cent enriched uranium from a gaseous state to a metallic form that can be fashioned into a warhead; designing the warhead; attaching it to a missile; and creating the trigger mechanisms to detonate it. That is where Iran is said to be still many months or more than a year away from building a bomb — and according to the published US intelligence report not making a co-ordinated effort to do so. Netanyahu reportedly presented Israel's latest intelligence on Iran's trigger-mechanism advances to President Trump last month, in particular a 'multi-point initiation system', according to the Wall Street Journal. It is also where the most controversial aspects of Israel's decision to bomb Iran may be found to be, as it is examined with the benefit of hindsight. According to reports in Israeli media — clearly briefed by the Israeli military or intelligence apparatus — Iran was in fact making significant strides 'up to the point of no return', as the Israel Defence Forces put it in a statement. The precise details, though, are murky. Israeli intelligence claimed that Iran was indeed working on a trigger mechanism, and also that it was modifying its standard missiles to take nuclear warheads. Iran was 'working to secretly develop all components needed for developing a nuclear weapon,' the IDF said. According to the fuller media reports, the Taleghan 2 installation at Parchin, a recognised Iranian missile development site near Tehran, had conducted 'detonation experiments'. One problem with this analysis is that the Israelis had already bombed Taleghan 2, in November 2024. Israeli reports of recent developments are more vague — saying that weaponisation efforts had taken place 'in recent days'. The other problem is that there were competing assessments of what Iran might have been doing in Parchin. The US intelligence assessments did, however, change to reflect its belief that Iran had 'undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so'. Netanyahu reportedly presented Israel's latest intelligence on Iran's trigger-mechanism advances to Trump last month. Trump's intelligence advisers still concluded, however, that this represented only research and not an active decision to build a bomb. It is agreed by intelligence agencies and the IAEA that Iran's refusal to fully comply with inspections and secrecy about some aspects of its nuclear-related work leaves much room for concern. The IAEA report concluded: 'While safeguarded enrichment activities are not forbidden in and of themselves, the fact that Iran is the only non-nuclear-weapon State in the world that is producing and accumulating uranium enriched to 60 per cent remains a matter of serious concern, which has drawn international attention given the potential proliferation implications.' That does not, however, reflect a qualitative change in the assessment of the Iranian programme from a year ago, when Trump was campaigning. The change is to the speed with which Iran has been building up its stocks. Trump said, in a typically unorthodox intervention, that he was choosing to disregard Gabbard's statement on behalf of the US intelligence community. 'I don't care what she said, I think they were very close to having them,' he said on Tuesday. In terms of the speed of Iran's development, even Netanyahu does not differ much from other estimates. Iran 'would achieve a test device, and possibly an initial device, within months, and certainly less than a year', he said in a Fox News interview. No one doubts that Iran is developing the technical ability to build a bomb, only whether the decision has been taken to proceed — and what that decision would look like.