Visualizing Iran's 'Missing' Uranium: What We Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
In the days before U.S. airstrikes hit Iran's Fordow and Isfahan nuclear sites, satellite images captured convoys of cargo trucks leaving the facilities. Nuclear experts now believe Iran relocated more than 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium—enough for 10 nuclear weapons—to a secret location, a move that has left U.S. and international inspectors unable to verify the material's whereabouts.
A classified U.S. intelligence report reviewed after the strikes found Iran's nuclear program was set back only by several months, contradicting President Donald Trump's assertion that the program had been "completely and totally obliterated." Israeli intelligence reports have also contradicted the initial U.S. assessment, estimating more "significant" damage has been done by the bombing.
The centrifuges at Fordo, the main enrichment facility buried deep inside a mountain that was targeted last weekend, are "no longer operational," according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Who Confirms the Uranium Is Missing—and Who Denies It?
Rafael Grossi, director general of the IAEA, confirmed his team last verified Iran's uranium stockpile on June 13. Since then, he said, "We do not have information of the whereabouts of this material," in an interview with Fox News. Grossi added on CNN: "Iran has made no secret that they have protected this material."
Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Grossi at the Chancellery in Vienna on June 25, 2025.
Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Grossi at the Chancellery in Vienna on June 25, 2025.Vice President JD Vance acknowledged the uncertainty, telling ABC News: "We're going to work in the coming weeks to ensure that we do something with that fuel."
Vance did not confirm whether the United States knows where it is now.
The 60 percent enriched uranium—technically just short of weapons-grade—would be enough to produce multiple nuclear warheads if further refined. As of May, the IAEA reported Iran possessed 408.6 kilograms of the material.
What Do Satellite Images Reveal About Iran's Nuclear Movements?
Maxar Technologies confirmed it captured satellite images on June 19 and 20 showing at least 16 cargo trucks positioned outside the Fordo Fuel Enrichment Facility. The images, taken just days before the U.S. launched "Operation Midnight Hammer," revealed what defense analysts described as a likely "frantic effort" to remove sensitive nuclear material or equipment.
Satellite imagery captured by Maxar on June 19 showing cargo trucks close to the underground entrance of the Fordow fuel enrichment facility, prior to U.S. airstrikes on the underground complex.
Satellite imagery captured by Maxar on June 19 showing cargo trucks close to the underground entrance of the Fordow fuel enrichment facility, prior to U.S. airstrikes on the underground complex.
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES
According to The New York Times, two Israeli officials said Iran likely removed 400 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium in the days leading up to the U.S. attacks. A senior Iranian source told Reuters that "almost all" of Iran's highly enriched uranium had been transferred to a secret location.
What Is the Pentagon Saying?
In a Pentagon briefing Thursday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine defended the strike operation and attempted to shift focus away from whether Iran's uranium had been moved. Hegseth labeled the strikes "an historically successful attack," and challenged critics for "breathlessly" focusing on early intelligence assessments suggesting only partial destruction.
"You want to call it destroyed, you want to call it defeated, you want to call it obliterated — choose your word," Hegseth told reporters. "This was an historically successful attack."
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (L), accompanied by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Dan Caine (R), speaks during a news conference at the Pentagon on June 26, 2025 in Arlington,...
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (L), accompanied by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Dan Caine (R), speaks during a news conference at the Pentagon on June 26, 2025 in Arlington, Virginia. MoreGeneral Caine said the operation resulted from 15 years of classified research to defeat Iran's underground enrichment complex. "We were quietly and in a secret way the biggest users of supercomputer hours within the United States," he said, referring to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency's simulations.
Asked directly if uranium was moved, Hegseth responded, "I'm not aware of any intelligence that says things were not where they were supposed to be."
Still, the Defense Intelligence Agency's early assessment—leaked prior to the briefing—found the strikes had caused "significant" damage but stopped short of declaring Iran's nuclear program destroyed. According to the Associated Press, DIA officials expressed "low confidence" in determining whether all nuclear materials had remained in place.
Where Could 400,000 Kilograms of Uranium Have Gone?
To move 400,000 kilograms—roughly 880,000 pounds—of enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF₆), Iran would need around 261 specialized 30B Type B(U) transport cylinders.
Each of these cylinders is approximately 4 to 4.3 feet tall and 3 to 3.9 feet in diameter, weighing close to 6,070 pounds (2,755 lbs gross weight, including container) when filled. Each cylinder can contain about 3,380 pounds of uranium alone.
This mock-up shows how a single 30B uranium hexafluoride (UF₆) transport cylinder fits horizontally in the bed of a Ford F-150 pickup truck. Illustration created using ChatGPT and reference 3D modeling tools.
This mock-up shows how a single 30B uranium hexafluoride (UF₆) transport cylinder fits horizontally in the bed of a Ford F-150 pickup truck. Illustration created using ChatGPT and reference 3D modeling tools.
AI-GENERATED IMAGE
These cylinders are designed to lie flat during transport, typically cradled in reinforced metal racks on military or industrial-grade flatbeds. For comparison, a Ford F-150 pickup truck—one of the most common work vehicles in the U.S.—has a maximum payload of roughly 3,300 pounds.
This means it could carry only one barrel at a time due to weight restrictions, despite having the physical space to fit more. Loading all 261 barrels would require more than 260 trips by such trucks or a convoy of large-scale, purpose-built haulers.
An AI-generated aerial image shows a convoy of 261 Ford F-150 trucks, each carrying a 30B UF₆ cylinder marked with radioactive symbols, traveling through a remote mountain highway—illustrating the scale of transporting 400,000 kg of...
An AI-generated aerial image shows a convoy of 261 Ford F-150 trucks, each carrying a 30B UF₆ cylinder marked with radioactive symbols, traveling through a remote mountain highway—illustrating the scale of transporting 400,000 kg of uranium. More
AI-GENERATED IMAGE
Why Can't Inspectors Verify the Stockpile Anymore?
The IAEA has not resumed inspections since the June 22 strikes, with Iran suspending international access amid ongoing military tensions. "Continued military escalation delays this indispensable work," Grossi warned the UN Security Council, urging diplomatic re-engagement.
Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Takht Ravanchi dismissed speculation that Tehran would scale back its nuclear ambitions. "No one can tell us what we should and should not do," he said in remarks reported by Iranian media.
Ali Shamkhani, a senior adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, was more blunt: "Even assuming the complete destruction of the sites, the game is not over, because enriched materials, indigenous knowledge, and political will remain intact," he told The Telegraph.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Iran denies any meeting with US next week, foreign minister says
DUBAI (Reuters) -Iran currently has no plan to meet with the United States, Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Thursday in an interview on state TV, contradicting U.S. President Donald Trump's statement that Washington planned to have talks with Iran next week. The Iranian foreign minister said Tehran was assessing whether talks with the U.S. were in its interest, following five previous rounds of negotiations that were cut short by Israel and the U.S. attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. The U.S. and Israel said the strikes were meant to curb Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons, while Iran says its nuclear programme is solely geared toward civilian use. Araqchi said the damages to nuclear sites 'were not little' and that relevant authorities were figuring out the new realities of Iran's nuclear programme, which he said would inform Iran's future diplomatic stance.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Justice Dept to probe hiring practices at University of California
By Andrew Goudsward WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Justice Department will investigate hiring practices at the University of California system to examine whether its efforts to boost faculty diversity run afoul of anti-discrimination laws, the department said in a statement on Thursday. The probe is the latest move against colleges and universities by President Donald Trump's administration, which has also launched investigations into campus antisemitism and has sought to freeze research funding. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division alleged that the university system openly measures new hires by their race and sex. The probe will investigate whether its practices represent a pattern or practice of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bars employment discrimination. 'Institutional directives that use race- and sex-based hiring practices expose employers to legal risk under federal law," Harmeet Dhillion, the head of the Civil Rights Division, said in a statement. A spokesperson for the University of California system said it would work with the Justice Department "in good faith" during the investigation. "The University of California is committed to fair and lawful processes in all of our programs and activities, consistent with federal and state anti-discrimination laws," the spokesperson said in a statement. "The University also aims to foster a campus environment where everyone is welcomed and supported." The investigation focuses on the university's strategic plan, which identifies increasing underrepresented minority and female faculty as a university goal. The probe could begin another legal battle between the Trump administration and California, the largest U.S. state and a bastion of liberal politics. The state's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, sued after Trump took control of California National Guard troops to quell anti-deportation protests in Los Angeles earlier this month. The Trump administration has said it is investigating the state over a law allowing transgender athletes to compete on girls' teams in state schools.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What's next for Iran's nuclear programme?
Barely 72 hours after United States President Donald Trump's air strikes against Iran, a controversy erupted over the extent of the damage they had done to the country's uranium enrichment facilities in Fordow and Natanz. The New York Times and CNN leaked a preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that the damage may have been 'from moderate to severe', noting it had 'low confidence' in the findings because they were an early assessment. Trump had claimed the sites were 'obliterated'. The difference in opinion mattered because it goes to the heart of whether the US and Israel had eliminated Iran's ability to enrich uranium to levels that would allow it to make nuclear weapons, at least for years. Israel has long claimed – without evidence – that Iran plans to build nuclear bombs. Iran has consistently insisted that its nuclear programme is purely of a civilian nature. And the US has been divided on the question – its intelligence community concluding as recently as March that Tehran was not building a nuclear bomb, but Trump claiming earlier in June that Iran was close to building such a weapon. Yet amid the conflicting claims and assessments on the damage from the US strikes to Iranian nuclear facilities and whether the country wants atomic weapons, one thing is clear: Tehran says it has no intentions of giving up on its nuclear programme. So what is the future of that programme? How much damage has it suffered? Will the US and Israel allow Iran to revive its nuclear programme? And can a 2015 diplomatic deal with Iran – that was working well until Trump walked out of it – be brought back to life? In his first public comments since the US bombing, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that the attack 'did nothing significant' to Iran's nuclear facilities. Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera's Resul Serdar said Khamenei spoke of how 'most of the [nuclear] sites are still in place and that Iran is going to continue its nuclear programme'. Mohammad Eslami, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, on Tuesday said that 'preparations for recovery had already been anticipated, and our plan is to prevent any interruption in production or services'. To be sure, even if they haven't been destroyed, Natanz and Fordow – Iran's only known enrichment sites – have suffered significant damage, according to satellite images. Israel has also assassinated several of Iran's top nuclear scientists in its wave of strikes that began on June the DIA said in the initial assessment that the Trump administration has tried to dismiss, that the attacks had only set Iran's nuclear programme back by months. It also said that Iran had moved uranium enriched at these facilities away from these sites prior to the strikes. Iranian officials have also made the same claim. The UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), had accused Iran of enriching up to 400kg of uranium to 60 percent – not far below the 90 percent enrichment that is needed to make weapons. Asked on Wednesday whether he thought the enriched uranium had been smuggled out from the nuclear facilities before the strikes, Trump said, 'We think everything nuclear is down there, they didn't take it out.' Asked again later, he said, 'We think we hit them so hard and so fast they didn't get to move.' Without on-site inspections, nobody can be sure. Central Intelligence Agency director John Ratcliffe on Wednesday posted a statement saying, 'several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years'. That's a very different timeline from what the DIA suggested in its early assessment. But it's important to remember that the DIA and CIA also disagreed on whether Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in 2003. The DIA sided with the UN's view that inspections had proven Hussein didn't have such weapons. The CIA, on the other hand, provided intelligence that backed the position of then-president George W Bush in favour of an invasion – intelligence that was later debunked. In that instance, the CIA proved politically more malleable than the DIA. Amid the current debate over whether Iranian nuclear sites were destroyed, Trump's Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has also weighed in favour of the president's view. 'Iran's nuclear facilities have been destroyed. If the Iranians chose to rebuild, they would have to rebuild all three facilities (Natanz, Fordow, Esfahan) entirely, which would likely take years to do,' she posted on Twitter/X. But Gabbard has already demonstrably changed her public statements to suit Trump. In March, she testified before a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons programme that he suspended in 2003'. On June 20, Trump was asked for his reaction to that assessment. 'She's wrong,' he said. Gabbard later that day posted that her testimony had been misquoted by 'the dishonest media' and that 'America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalise the assembly'. Gabbard's clarification did not contradict her earlier view, that Iran was not actively trying to build a weapon. Asked in an interview with a French radio network whether Iran's nuclear programme had been destroyed, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi replied, 'I think 'destroyed' is too much. But it suffered enormous damage.' On Wednesday, Israel's Atomic Energy Commission concurred with the CIA, saying Iran's nuclear facilities had been rendered 'totally inoperable' and had 'set back Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons for many years to come'. Also on Wednesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the destruction of Iran's surface facilities at Isfahan was proof enough of Iran's inability to make a bomb. 'The conversion facility, which you can't do a nuclear weapon without a conversion facility, we can't even find where it is, where it used to be on the map,' he told reporters. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), negotiated with Iran by France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the US, China, Russia and the European Union in 2015, was the only agreement ever reached governing Iran's nuclear programme. The JCPOA allowed Iran to enrich its own uranium, but limited it to the 3.7 percent enrichment levels required for a nuclear reactor to generate electricity. At Israel's behest, Trump abandoned the agreement in 2018 and Iran walked away from it a year later – but before that, it was working. Even though Trump has said he will never return to the JCPOA, which was negotiated by his predecessor, Barack Obama, he could return to an agreement of his own making that strongly resembles it. The crucial question is, whether Israel will this time back it, and whether Iran will be allowed to have even a peaceful nuclear programme, which it is legally entitled to. On Wednesday, Trump didn't sound as though he was moving in this direction. 'We may sign an agreement. I don't know. I don't think it's that necessary,' he told reporters at The Hague. Any JCPOA-like agreement would also require Iran to allow IAEA inspectors to get back to ensuring that Tehran meets its nuclear safeguard commitments. 'IAEA inspectors have remained in Iran throughout the conflict and are ready to start working as soon as possible, going back to the country's nuclear sites and verifying the inventories of nuclear material,' the IAEA said on Tuesday. But Iran's powerful Guardian Council on Thursday approved a parliamentary bill to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, suggesting that Tehran is at the moment not in the mood to entertain any UN oversight of its nuclear facilities.'If Iran wants a civil nuclear programme, they can have one, just like many other countries in the world have one, and [the way for] that is, they import enriched material,' Rubio told journalist Bari Weiss on the Podcast, Honestly, in April. 'But if they insist on enriching [themselves], then they will be the only country in the world that doesn't have a weapons programme, quote unquote, but is enriching. And so I think that's problematic,' he said. Ali Ansari, an Iran historian at St. Andrews University in the UK, told Al Jazeera that 'there have already been calls to cease uranium enrichment from activists within the country'. But the defiant statements from Iranian officials since the US strikes – including from Khamenei on Thursday – suggest that Tehran is not ready to give up on enrichment. Trump has, in recent days, suggested that he wants Iran to give up its nuclear programme altogether. On Tuesday, Trump posted on TruthSocial, 'IRAN WILL NEVER REBUILD THEIR NUCLEAR FACILITIES!' He doubled down on that view on Wednesday. 'Iran has a huge advantage. They have great oil, and they can do things. I don't see them getting back involved in the nuclear business any more, I think they've had it,' he told reporters at the end of the NATO summit in The Hague. And then he suggested the US would again strike Iran's facilities, even if it weren't building a bomb. 'If [Iran] does [get involved], we're always there, we'll have to do something about it.' If he didn't, 'someone else' would hit Iran's nuclear facilities, he suggested. That 'someone' would be Israel – which has long tried to kill any diplomatic effort over Iran's nuclear programme. At the NATO summit, Trump was asked whether Israel and Iran might start a war again soon. 'I guess some day it can. It could maybe start soon,' he said.
