logo
Did Iran move its uranium? Opinions split on fate of 400kg stockpile

Did Iran move its uranium? Opinions split on fate of 400kg stockpile

Irish Times23-06-2025
The fate of
Iran
's nuclear programme, and attempts by the
US
and
Israel
to destroy it, could hang on the Islamic republic's more than 400kg of uranium enriched to levels just short of weapons-grade.
After US stealth bombers dropped huge 30,000lb bunker-buster bombs on Iran's main nuclear sites,
Donald Trump
claimed the 'key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated'.
There is little doubt that the sites Tehran has been using to produce highly enriched uranium – Natanz and Fordow – have suffered severe damage. A third site in Isfahan, used in the fuel cycle but also for storage, was hit by Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from an American submarine.
But as the Trump administration conducts its damage assessment, the critical question will be whether Iran's programme has been destroyed, or simply pushed into smaller, secret facilities that are harder to find.
READ MORE
The answer depends significantly on what has happened to Iran's 408kg stockpile of uranium enriched to 60 per cent purity – approaching the 90 per cent purity required for weapons.
'It comes down to the material and where it is,' said Richard Nephew, a former senior US official who worked on Iran in the Obama and Biden administrations. 'On the basis of what we've seen at this point, we don't know where the material is. We don't have any real confidence that we've got the ability to get it any time soon.'
'I think you would be foolish,' he added, 'if you said that the programme was delayed by anything more than a few months.'
[
Live updates: Trump hints at Iran regime change after US attacks on nuclear sites
Opens in new window
]
Marco Rubio, US secretary of state, said 'no one will know for sure for days' whether Iran attempted or was able to move highly enriched uranium.
'I doubt they moved it, because you really can't move anything right now,' he told CBS. 'The minute a truck starts driving somewhere, the Israelis have seen it, and they've targeted it and taken it out.'
But an Iranian regime insider said it would have been 'very naive to keep our enriched uranium in those sites', adding: 'The enriched uranium is untouched now.'
He added that Iran – which has always insisted its programme is for peaceful, civilian purposes – would not seek to weaponise its programme. As hostilities with Israel have intensified, other Iranian officials have hinted that Tehran could look to alter its nuclear doctrine.
Analysts have warned Tehran could rush to develop a bomb using clandestine facilities if it becomes desperate and feels the need to restore its deterrent.
Ali Shamkhani, senior adviser to Iran's supreme leader, said the country's nuclear abilities remained steadfast. 'Even if nuclear sites are destroyed, [the] game isn't over,' he wrote on X.
'Enriched materials, indigenous knowledge, political will remain,' said Shamkhani, who was reported to have been wounded in Israel's first round of strikes more than a week ago.
The highly enriched uranium had been held at Natanz, in central Iran; Fordow, the main enrichment facility dug deep into a mountain near the holy city of Qom; and in tunnels at the Isfahan site, Nephew said.
Once cooled, it is stored in powder form in large cylinders similar to a water heater.
A protest following US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, amid the Iran-Israel conflict, in Tehran on Sunday. Photograph: Arash Khamooshi/The New York Times
The stockpile of uranium enriched to 60 per cent – part of an overall stockpile of more than 8,400kg, the majority of it low-level purity – meant Tehran had the capacity to produce sufficient fissile material required for several nuclear bombs within days if it chose.
But the actual weaponisation process would be expected to take months or a year, experts said.
The risk was always that after Israel launched its bombing campaign on the pretext of destroying Tehran's nuclear programme, Iran would secretly take the stockpile to hidden locations, where advanced centrifuges had been covertly set up.
Nephew said the 'unknowns here are killing us a little bit'.
'If they've got a uranium conversion line set up ... and if they were able to enrich up to 90 per cent at Fordow before it was attacked, and they had eight or nine days, that's potentially enough for two bombs' worth of 90 per cent,' he said.
India, Pakistan and North Korea all successfully developed covert nuclear weapons programmes despite onerous surveillance and restrictions from the US.
[
US-Iran: What comes next after Donald Trump's risky foreign policy move?
Opens in new window
]
Sima Shine, a former Iran specialist at Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, said she was convinced Iran had moved enriched material.
'They have enough enriched uranium somewhere, and they took some advanced centrifuges somewhere, in order to enable them to some day go to a nuclear device,' Shine said. 'The programme is not destroyed completely, no matter what the Americans say.'
One Israeli official said that if Tehran and Washington resumed talks on allowing Iran to have a peaceful nuclear energy programme, Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu might insist Tehran hand over any highly enriched uranium to be transported and stored outside the country.
A second official acknowledged that Iran could have spirited away at least some of its highly enriched stockpile. But the officials added that after Israel last week assassinated at least 11 Iranian nuclear scientists, the regime would struggle to create an 'efficient, miniaturised nuclear weapon'.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has inspectors in the republic who frequently visit Fordow, Natanz and other declared facilities. But Israel's bombing campaign put a halt to those inspections.
Even before the strikes, the UN nuclear watchdog lacked oversight over all of the thousands of advanced centrifuges Iran developed after Trump in his first term pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal that severely restricted Tehran's activity.
Iran's co-operation with the IAEA had also severely deteriorated in recent years, impeding the agency's ability to conduct inspections to the level agreed in the 2015 agreement.
After Iran was censured in an IAEA resolution, days before Israel launched its attack, Iran also revealed that it had built a previously undeclared enrichment facility – the country's third.
Israel targeted the Natanz facility on the first day of its strikes and has hit it again, causing damage to its overground and underground plants, the IAEA said last week. Israel also hit the Isfahan site twice.
But it lacked the military capacity to cause significant damage to Fordow and waited for the US's intervention.
'It's certainly the end of the Iranian nuclear programme as we knew it,' said Ali Vaez, an Iran expert at Crisis Group. 'If the programme survives, it'll either become a clandestine weapons programme or, in case of a deal, a neutered civilian programme without access to nuclear fuel cycle technology.' – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US broadens reach of steel and aluminum tariffs
US broadens reach of steel and aluminum tariffs

RTÉ News​

timean hour ago

  • RTÉ News​

US broadens reach of steel and aluminum tariffs

The United States has broadened the reach of its steel and aluminum tariffs, the Commerce Department said, impacting hundreds more products that contain both metals such as child seats, tableware and heavy equipment. The Bureau of Industry and Security said in a recent notice that it was adding 407 product types to a list of items considered steel and aluminum "derivative products". This means a 50% tariff on both metals, imposed by President Donald Trump earlier in the year, will apply to their steel and aluminum content. The widened scope took effect yesterday, and the notice detailing the changes has been published in the Federal Register. "Today's action covers wind turbines and their parts and components, mobile cranes, bulldozers and other heavy equipment, railcars, furniture, compressors and pumps, and hundreds of other products," said the Commerce Department in a statement. The move "shuts down avenues for circumvention," Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security Jeffrey Kessler said, reiterating the aim of boosting US steel and aluminum industries. Since returning to the presidency, Mr Trump has imposed a 10% tariff on almost all US trading partners, alongside varying steeper levels on dozens of economies such as the European Union and Japan. Certain sectors have been spared from these countrywide tariff levels but instead were targeted under different authorities by even higher duties. In the case of steel and aluminum, Mr Trump initially unveiled a 25% tariff on imports of both metals before doubling this to 50% in June. Though the impact of Mr Trump's tariffs on consumer prices has been limited so far, economists warn that their full effects are yet to be seen. For now, some businesses have coped by bringing forward purchases of products they expected will encounter tariffs. Others have passed on additional costs to their consumers, or absorbed a part of the fresh tariff burden. But analysts note that importers and retailers will unlikely be able to eat these costs indefinitely, and could eventually raise more consumer prices. Some economists argue that the inflation hit will be one-off, but others are wary of more persistent effects. The latest US Commerce Department additions came after a window for the public to submit product inclusion requests.

Trump offers assurances that US troops will not be sent to help defend Ukraine
Trump offers assurances that US troops will not be sent to help defend Ukraine

Irish Examiner

time2 hours ago

  • Irish Examiner

Trump offers assurances that US troops will not be sent to help defend Ukraine

President Donald Trump has offered his assurances that US troops would not be sent to help defend Ukraine against Russia after seeming to leave open the possibility the day before. Mr Trump also said in a morning TV interview that Ukraine's hopes of joining Nato and regaining the Crimean Peninsula from Russia are 'impossible'. The Republican president, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and other European leaders held hours of talks at the White House on Monday aimed at bringing an end to Russia's war against Ukraine. The White House meeting (Alex Brandon/AP) While answering questions from journalists, Mr Trump did not rule out sending US troops to participate in a European-led effort to defend Ukraine as part of security guarantees sought by Mr Zelensky. Mr Trump said after his meeting in Alaska last week with Vladimir Putin that the Russian leader was open to the idea of security guarantees for Ukraine. But asked on Fox News Channel's Fox & Friends what assurances he could provide going forward and beyond his term that American troops would not be part of defending Ukraine's border, Mr Trump said: 'Well, you have my assurance, and I'm president.' Mr Trump would have no control over the US military after his terms ends in January 2029. The president also said in the interview that he is optimistic that a deal can be reached to end the Russian invasion, but he underscored that Ukraine will have to set aside its hope of getting back Crimea, which was seized by Russian forces in 2014, and its long-held aspirations of joining the Nato military alliance. 'Both of those things are impossible,' Mr Trump said. Mr Putin, as part of any potential deal to pull his forces out of Ukraine, is looking for the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, as well as recognition of Crimea as Russian territory.

Why securing postwar Ukraine, even with Trump's pledge to help, is complex
Why securing postwar Ukraine, even with Trump's pledge to help, is complex

Irish Times

time3 hours ago

  • Irish Times

Why securing postwar Ukraine, even with Trump's pledge to help, is complex

US president Donald Trump has pleased Ukrainian and European leaders by promising US involvement in providing security guarantees for Ukraine if a peace settlement with Russia ever comes together. Nato secretary general Mark Rutte pronounced himself 'excited' over Trump's public commitment, on Monday at a summit at the White House, to some sort of security guarantee, a pledge the Europeans have been eagerly seeking. He called it 'a breakthrough'. But exactly what those guarantees would involve remains ambiguous. Officials promised more clarity in the weeks to come as defence ministry planners come to grips with the considerable complications of turning a broad promise into realistic options. Trump said European countries would be the 'first line of defence' in providing security guarantees for Ukraine, but Washington will 'help them out, we'll be involved'. He added later: 'European nations are going to take a lot of the burden. We're going to help them and we're going to make it very secure.' READ MORE He did not explain how. Italy's prime minister Giorgia Meloni and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen spoke of an 'article 5-like' guarantee outside of Nato itself, though based on the commitment in the alliance's charter that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all of them. But it is hard to imagine that Nato itself would not be quickly implicated if any member state of the alliance with troops stationed in Ukraine gets into a shooting war with Russia. Civilians look on as rescue workers search for victims after a Russian strike on an apartment building in Kramatorsk, in the Donetsk region of Ukraine, earlier this summer. Photograph: David Guttenfelder/New York Times Nor is it a given that Russia would change its stance and agree that troops from Nato countries could be stationed in Ukraine under a form of a de facto Nato-backed guarantee. Many analysts, such as John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, believe Russia's effort to control Ukraine is based on its stated desire to stop Nato enlargement to countries Moscow considers part of its sphere, especially those that were part of the Soviet Union. In that view, Moscow invaded Ukraine to block Nato and ensure the country does not become a member. So the idea that Russia would agree to let troops from Nato countries station themselves in Ukraine after fighting a long war to prevent them from being there in the first place is complicated at best. 'Our goal is to ensure that we build the security guarantees together with the US,' Finland's president Alexander Stubb said on Monday night. 'I should think that Russia's view of security guarantees is quite different from our view.' The site of a bombing in Sloviansk, Ukraine, last year. Photograph: Tyler Hicks/New York Times Russian officials rejected the idea even before Monday's meeting. A foreign ministry spokesperson, Maria Zakharova, said Russia 'categorically rejects any scenario that envisages the appearance in Ukraine of a military contingent with the participation of Nato countries'. Some European officials and analysts see Trump's new commitment to security guarantees as a way of convincing Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, to agree to Russian demands to give up the rest of the eastern Donetsk region that is not occupied by Russian forces, in order to stop the war that Russia is slowly winning. That argument suggests that what matters is a sovereign Ukraine, its future assured, even if Russia retains the 20 per cent or more of Ukrainian territory it has occupied since 2014. The territory issue did not even come up in the meeting with European leaders on Monday, according to Germany's chancellor, Friedrich Merz. Europeans were relieved, but the question has hardly gone away and underlies what may be part of a final settlement. The land the Kremlin wants in Donetsk alone is considerably larger than the total amount of land Russia has managed to take since November 2022, and at great cost in lives. So it would be a huge gift to Moscow and a huge sacrifice for Zelenskiy, who rejects the idea out of hand. Instead, the focus in the White House was on security guarantees. Zelenskiy warned of the lack of details on Sunday and stressed that the proposal still needed to be worked out. 'We need security to work in practice,' he said. Some work has been done on what a security guarantee might look like under a 'coalition of the willing' led by Britain's prime minister, Keir Starmer, and France's president, Emmanuel Macron. US secretary of state Marco Rubio has been charged with co-ordination from the US side. But France, Britain and tiny Estonia are the only countries that have indicated they could deploy troops in a postwar Ukraine. [ European leaders to discuss security guarantees for Ukraine with Donald Trump Opens in new window ] Germany has hesitated and main front-line states such as Poland have refused to take part. The Poles, mistrustful of Russia, have said they want to keep their troops at home for their own defence, and where they are genuinely protected by Nato's article 5, rather than vulnerable to incidents or accidents that Russia might use to weaken or divide peacekeepers. A likely solution could be about 15,000 to 20,000 European troops being deployed in Ukraine, said Camille Grand, a former Nato assistant secretary general who has studied options for such security guarantees. Troops would be away from the front lines, in support of the Ukrainian military, already the largest and most experienced in Europe, with some 900,000 people under arms. The Europeans would represent a 'reassurance force'. Other countries or even the United Nations could provide separate, unarmed front-line observers, aided by satellite and drone surveillance. The United States would be asked to provide operational intelligence, including satellite cover and information about Russian intentions or troop movements, and perhaps train Ukrainian forces, but without troops on the ground. But 'if things go sour', said Grand, now an analyst with the European Council on Foreign Relations, 'it would be good to have a public commitment that the Americans would not sit on their hands'. Ideally that would include a vow to use US air power and naval assets. The Europeans also want to maintain a US troop presence on the eastern flank of Nato, especially if European troops are deployed in Ukraine, potentially weakening Nato's own deterrence. Europe's ready forces are relatively small, so a deployment of some of them in Ukraine would shrink Nato's defence posture. [ Russia rejects Trump claim that it would accept European peacekeepers in Ukraine Opens in new window ] Ideally, Grand said, Rutte and the new Nato and US supreme commander in Europe, Gen Alexus G Grynkewich, would be charged with helping with planning. Nato is experienced at co-ordinating other countries' forces and assets, Grand said, as it has done in previous non-Nato conflicts, such as Libya. 'And none of this needs to be negotiated with Putin,' Grand said. Russia could be informed but not allowed a veto, he said. He added that Moscow's reluctance or willingness to accept such guarantees 'will be a test of its good faith'. Still, Grand said, 'what worries me is who in Europe is willing to do something'. Starmer has made vague promises but the British military is small, and a commitment to Ukraine is risky and expensive and has no end date. That would normally involve rotational forces, with one group on the ground, one group training to go and one group returning. And it would require materiel support, from arms to barracks, including armour, air defences, air power and naval power on standby. Macron kept his enthusiasm in check after the meeting. Security guarantees come with a peace settlement, and Putin wants to continue the war, he said. With many details unsettled, it was clear that a deal to end the war is not at hand. 'Do I think Putin wants peace? I think the answer is no,' he said. 'It's far from over.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times British prime minister Keir Starmer, French president Emmanuel Macron, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy and US president Donald Trump at the White House in Washington on Monday. Photograph: Doug Mills/New York Times What 'security guarantees,' could look like in Ukraine At the meeting among US president Donald Trump, Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskiy and other European leaders on Monday in Washington, there was frequent discussion of 'security guarantees' to make sure Russia does not invade again, writes David E Sanger . Britain's prime minister Keir Starmer has talked about assembling a force, drawn from a 'coalition of the willing', that would be stationed in Ukraine after a ceasefire or peace agreement. But no one has detailed publicly what that force would look like. And what it looks like matters, military officials say . Peacekeeping force One concept is a full-blown 'peacekeeping force', presumably armed, that would supplement the Ukrainian military. It would be put in place only for defensive purposes, but the idea would be to deter Russia by making the Kremlin think hard about getting into a conflict with soldiers from Nato member states. The problem is that to be a credible deterrent, that would take tens of thousands of troops. 'Tripwire' force A second possibility is a far smaller 'tripwire' force. It would not be able to mount much of a defence, but the theory is that the Russians would hesitate to risk killing non-Ukrainian Europeans in any resumed invasion effort. That, however, is an untested theory – and a big roll of the dice. 'Observer' force A third possibility would be to create an 'observer' force. It could be small, a few hundred troops or so. They would essentially be there to report on any incoming military action. But that role could be accomplished with satellites and ground cameras, and the force wouldn't be big enough to mount any kind of defence. Trump has not committed to adding US troops to this mix, no matter what form it takes. And the decision about what the force would look like will probably depend on what a ceasefire or a peace accord looks like – if negotiations get that far. This article originally appeared in The New York Times

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store