
Were Iran strikes for nothing? Fears Tehran is hiding thousands of centrifuges in secret nuke-making facilities - and may even have bomb components in North Korean mountain lairs
Donald Trump declared this weekend that his bunker-busting bombs 'obliterated' Iran 's nuclear facilities and erased the Islamic Republic's chances of building a bomb.
But no amount of triumphant bluster can hide the fact that Iran still boasts significant stockpiles of highly enriched uranium (HEU) - and could well have other facilities lying in wait to reach purity levels required to fashion nuclear warheads.
In May, the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), reported that Iran had accumulated more than 400 kilograms (900 lbs) of uranium enriched to 60% purity.
This is already enough to create an atomic weapon like those that laid waste to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Such bombs are too heavy and cumbersome for Iran to deploy effectively. But achieving the 90% enrichment required to produce modern nuclear devices small and light enough to mount to any one of Tehran's vast array of missiles could take mere weeks.
As far as anyone knows, that HEU is still safely squirrelled away, safe from American and Israeli bombs - not to mention tonnes more uranium enriched to levels below 60%, but still far in advance of the 3-5% required for civilian energy use.
At present, there is no telling whether Trump's 'Operation Midnight Hammer' was as effective as the President claims - particularly at the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, where enrichment centrifuges are hidden beneath 90 metres of rock and concrete.
There are fears that Tehran may well have several other secret facilities that remain unknown to Israel 's Mossad and the CIA.
And a former national security adviser to Trump and one of America's staunchest anti-Iran hawks has even claimed that North Korea could help Iran to obtain a nuclear deterrent.
Where is Iran's uranium?
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, claims he moved the country's uranium stockpile to a secret location - a belief echoed by Israeli intelligence officials.
IAEA chief Rafael Grossi told the New York Times his team of UN inspectors had seen the uranium about a week before Israel attacked Iran.
HEU is stable and dense, meaning it can be easily dispersed and stored to avoid detection.
Grossi said the stockpile seen by IAEA inspectors was stored in special casks small enough to fit in the trunks of about 10 cars. He also said he believed the material had been moved.
Satellite images published by US defence contractor Maxar Technologies showed 16 trucks leaving Iran's Fordow nuclear facility on June 19, three days before Operation Midnight Hammer.
Further images reveal a flurry of activity prior to the trucks' departure involving bulldozers and security convoys that were likely reinforcing and sealing Fordow's entrances and evacuating sensitive documents.
Now, no one outside of Iran knows exactly where its HEU stockpile is located, and Tehran's options are endless.
The canisters could be stored in Iran's network of tunnels and caves, brought to Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases, or concealed at civilian facilities such as universities and research centres or even telecoms.
They could even be kept on the move in trucks.
Analysts largely agree that no amount of bombing could totally eradicate Iran's nuclear programme, and have pointed out that the American and Israeli campaign could have the opposite effect.
Dr Andreas Krieg, an expert in Middle East security and senior lecturer at King's College London's School of Security Studies, told MailOnline: 'Going after Iran's nuclear programme could reinforce Tehran's belief that a nuclear deterrent is not only justified but essential for regime survival'.
'Rather than halting Iran's nuclear trajectory, the strikes may serve as a vindication of the logic that drives Iran's long-term nuclear ambition - deterrence through capability,' he said.
Dr Andreas Boehm, international law expert at the University of St. Gallen, was even more forthright.
'After the experiences of Ukraine, Libya and now Iran on the one hand, and North Korea on the other, there can be no other conclusion than that only the possession of nuclear weapons offers protection against attack,' he said.
'For this or any subsequent Iranian regime, the path of negotiation is no longer an option. It will now work even more resolutely towards acquiring a nuclear bomb.'
Could Iran still enrich its uranium?
If the US and Israeli military action in Iran has provided Khamenei and his inner circle the political will to double down on their pursuit of nuclear weapons, they will eventually need to restart the enrichment process.
And, although HEU is easy to store and transport, the centrifuges required to enrich it are highly sensitive and extremely difficult to reposition.
Satellite images taken after Operation Midnight Hammer appear to reveal significant damage at the Natanz fuel enrichment site and Isfahan nuclear technology centre, with craters also seen at the Fordow facility.
Though we don't know the true extent of the damage done by the US and Israeli bombing campaigns, IAEA chief Grossi believes the centrifuges at the Natanz facility - a larger plant far less protected than Fordow - were likely destroyed.
If centrifuges at Fordow remain intact, it is reasonable to assume that parts of the facility have at least been damaged and that accessing the site has been rendered more difficult.
But even if Fordow's operations are offline, Iran may have other facilities that are concealed and remain a secret.
The prospect is not far-fetched - both Pakistan and North Korea covertly developed a nuclear bomb while apparently under tight US surveillance.
Since 2022, Tehran has also been building another site close to Natanz under the so-called 'Pickaxe Mountain' that is said to be buried even deeper than Fordow.
The Islamic Republic claims the facility is for building centrifuges, but Iranian authorities have refused to admit IAEA inspectors to the site, claiming it is not yet in operation.
Nuclear proliferation experts have warned that this site could be used as another enrichment facility.
Sima Shine, an expert on Iran's nuclear programme and former Mossad researcher, told The Telegraph there was 'no doubt' Israeli and US aircraft had inflicted 'huge damage' to Iran's known nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.
But she added that other 'secret' facilities almost certainly existed.
Meanwhile, analysts say the strikes could push Iran to withdraw entirely from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which currently obliges it to cooperate with IAEA inspectors.
'The Non-Proliferation Treaty allows member states to withdraw 'if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this treaty, have jeopardised the supreme interests of its country',' said Darya Dolzikova, Senior Research Fellow for Proliferation and Nuclear Policy at the RUSI think tank.
'The events of the last week could arguably give Tehran the justification it needs to that end. A withdrawal from the NPT would likely see the international community lose all visibility of the Iranian nuclear programme and could - long-term - become a catalyst for broader proliferation in the region.'
Pyongyang to Tehran's rescue?
Despite issuing stern condemnations of US and Israeli military action, Iran's key allies - Russia, China and North Korea - have so far urged restraint and diplomacy.
Crucially, none have offered Tehran military support, not even defensive systems such as surface-to-air missile batteries.
But former US ambassador to the UN and Trump-era national security adviser John Bolton has claimed that North Korea is already playing a covert role in Iran's nuclear ambitions.
'My biggest concern is that parts of Iran's nuclear programme are located under a mountain in North Korea,' he told German outlet Der Spiegel in a shocking interview this week.
Bolton offered little in the way of evidence, but Iran and North Korea, both long isolated by Western sanctions, have maintained cordial ties for decades and are widely suspected of sharing military technology, particularly in the realm of missile development.
A now-defunct UN panel of experts reported in 2021 that the two countries had resumed collaboration on long-range missile projects, including the transfer of sensitive components.
Tehran would have to enrich its own uranium, but 'Pyongyang could provide important assistance in helping Iran reconstitute destroyed missile production facilities, potentially at new sites, shielded from scrutiny,' said Ankit Panda of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
'There are certain matters pertaining to weapons design that the North Koreans would not want to proliferate,' he added. 'Once in Iran, those designs could potentially be discovered by the United States and used to undermine North Korea's own deterrent.'
But Panda also noted that Pyongyang's deep expertise in nuclear weaponisation - particularly in the non-fissile components of a bomb, such as the precision-engineered conventional explosives used to trigger a detonation - could prove valuable to Iran.
Hashtags

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


Metro
28 minutes ago
- Metro
I've lived in fear of nuclear war all my life - this is how I'm prepping
The world has gone to bed each night lately wondering whether World War Three will break out by the time we wake up. The fighting over Iran's nuclear ambitions made people feel awfully unsafe, particularly with all the bloodcurdling rhetoric from leaders in Israel, Iran, and the US. Then when President Donald Trump announced strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, global fears escalated. I know that worry well because I first felt it as a child. I've been living under a (mushroom) cloud ever since. Now, after a lifetime of prepping, I'm doing so again – but this time I'm not putting aside bottles of water, wind up radios and loo roll. I'm mentally prepping – for the fact I might die. And after 40 years of living in fear, I finally feel a sense of peace. As an 11-year-old in 1984, I settled down one September evening to watch a BBC film called Threads about a nuclear attack on Sheffield. I can't remember what I was expecting to see but I'll never forget it: 112 minutes of the most graphic, grim, and horrifying television imaginable. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video In the agonisingly tense first half of the film, it shows the build-up to nuclear war in the background of the lives of ordinary families. Then the bombs drop and the film shows the mushroom clouds, the firestorm, and what these monstrous demons do to Sheffield, its people, and its pets. Threads then follows the bleak horror of the nuclear winter and beyond, showing the brutality of what's left of life over more than a decade after the attack. Watching this film was quite an experience for a boy of 11. It blew my mind with all the grace and clemency of a nuclear bomb. I went to bed terrified that night and the boy who emerged the next morning was changed forever. That next day, I tried to unscrew the living room door to build a nuclear shelter in our cellar. I then marched to the library to try and find information about gas masks, bunkers, and any medicine that might help with radiation sickness. In the days after, I remembered that we had friends who lived in an isolated house in Cornwall and I asked my parents to ask them whether we could go and stay there when it looked like the bomb might drop. When we were moving house and it came down to a choice between two options, I begged my parents to put every other factor aside and choose the one that had a bunker in its back garden. We didn't move to that house, but for a lot of my teenage years I had that bunker mentality in mind. I was mistrustful, angry and terrified. Wherever I was, I looked out for places to duck and cover. I'd become a nuclear paranoiac overnight and the metaphorical mushroom cloud that Threads cast over my life would hang in the sky for decades. Are you scared of nuclear war? No, I've made peace like Chas I have a secret bunker so I'll be fine Ever since, I've been convinced that the outbreak of nuclear war was nigh. I even joined the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and marched for the cause. And if I heard about any global tensions on the news, I'd remember how Threads showed the characters ignoring reports about growing global tensions at first. 'You won't catch me looking the other way,' I'd think. The nuclear war in Threads broke out because of international tensions over a conflict in Iran. So if you'd asked me as a kid how I would feel if there was a real-life flare-up over a nuclear arms programme in Iran in 2025, I'd have said two things. One, I can't believe the world hasn't nuked itself to pieces by 2025, and two, this is where World War Three is about to start. But actually, over the past few weeks I've probably been less worried than a lot of people. Having spent so much of my life fretting about nuclear war, I've ended up finding a sense of peace. I've already done all my trembling about the bomb and I've concluded that if there were a nuclear war, the best outcome for me would also be the most likely one: Instant death. Having come to terms with how dramatically Threads changed my life, I've also resolved to try and not be swayed again by propaganda. So when the Government warned this week that Britain needs to prepare for the possibility of being attacked on its own soil, and when Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary general, warned recently that without a major increase in defence spending, British people 'better learn to speak Russian', I declined the invitation to return to the dread of my teenage years. I've concluded that if there were a nuclear war, the best outcome for me would also be the most likely one: Instant death. I now know that worrying gets me nowhere. I've accepted that this may end in my death and so freaking about what could happen next is pointless. You won't catch me prepping. I won't be taking doors off their hinges for shelter. I won't fantasise about that bunker. More Trending I've lived with this fear for too long. I feel compassion for people who are still worried about the bomb, but I want them to take it from me: After over 40 years of nuclear war anxiety, fretting about it won't make it go away – and neither will marching about it. We can't uninvent nuclear weapons, we have to purge mankind of the consciousness that made us want them in the first place, and that's a deeper, longer battle that can only be fought in each of our hearts. For now, we have to find a way to live with the threat they pose to us – and seek the peace that comes with accepting that they may destroy us. Do you have a story you'd like to share? Get in touch by emailing Share your views in the comments below. MORE: I was punished for not telling my boss about my disability MORE: Denis Villeneuve threatens to overshadow the new James Bond – whoever he is MORE: Trump and his defence boss have created a 'cult of personality'


Reuters
30 minutes ago
- Reuters
Israel says Iran's Supreme Leader avoided assassination by going underground
June 26 (Reuters) - Israel would have killed Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were it possible during the countries' 12-day war, Defence Minister Israel Katz said on Thursday. "I estimate that if Khamenei had been in our sights, we would have taken him out," Katz said in the interview with Israel's Kan public television. "But Khamenei understood this, went underground to very great depths, and broke off contacts with the commanders who replaced those commanders who were eliminated, so it wasn't realistic in the end," he said. Israel killed several top Iranian commanders and nuclear scientists on June 13 at the start of the war. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump had both suggested at various times during the air war that Khamenei's life could be in danger as regime change could be a result of the war that ended with a U.S.-brokered ceasefire on Tuesday.


The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Nato was a victory for Starmer on the global stage, but now he's at war with his own MPs
Sir Keir Starmer seemed chipper as he boarded the plane home from the Nato summit on Wednesday evening. He cheerily thanked hacks in the travelling press delegation for what he said had been a great two-day trip to The Hague. And looking at Nato alone, it had been a success. Across the board, allies signed up to a historic increase in defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. After briefly wavering on his commitment to Article 5, even Donald Trump fell in line. And following a public love-in with Nato secretary general Mark Rutte – who unnervingly, dubbed him the 'daddy' between the two warring nations of Iran and Israel – the US president conceded that the alliance was no longer a 'rip off', saying he is with is his European friends 'all the way'. Meanwhile, Starmer was able to pitch Britain as a leader on the world stage by cosying up to Mr Trump and purchasing 12 new F-35A fighter jets, massively ramping up Britain's nuclear capabilities. But what was left unsaid when the PM briefly greeted the media sharing the plane with him was that he was flying back into the most significant rebellion of his premiership – a revolt which threatens to shake the foundations of the historic majority he won just 11 months ago. Speaking at a press conference about Britain's contribution to defence spending at the Nato summit just hours earlier, the prime minister was forced to deny suggestions that he might be forced out of office before the next election. 'Many people predicted before the election that we 'couldn't read the room' we 'hadn't got the politics right' we 'wouldn't win an election after 2019' because we lost so badly. "We got a landslide victory. So I'm comfortable with reading the room and delivering the change the country needs', Sir Keir insisted. But at home, his MPs are much less convinced. More than 120 Labour MPs have signed an amendment which would kill off the government's flagship £5bn welfare reforms entirely. And there is a growing feeling that the prime minister has failed to listen to them, after he used part of his Nato presser to dismiss the rebellion as 'noises off'. 'No 10 sees MPs as irritants and fodder', one Labour MP with her name on the amendment said. 'We're all working hard and this is how they treat us. It goes back to the point about how arrogant and out of touch they are.' The prime minister's comments at the Nato press conference displayed a real lack of empathy for his own MPs, and ironically, a distinct failure to read the room. It would be hard to argue the prime minister is a wholly unempathetic person. An in-depth profile of the prime minister in the New Statesman published earlier this month showed how deeply he feels the weight of sacrifices made by individuals putting their lives on the line to serve their country. But in his first year in office, it has become increasingly clear that the prime minister is much more comfortable navigating foreign diplomacy than he is with dealing with angry backbenchers. It is in this area that Sir Keir seems entirely unable to empathise. He is known for being pragmatic rather than ideological, and appears to be bored by political manoeuvring. At times, this can provide a refreshing break from the Westminster bubble. But, taken too far, it can be the opposite. Starmer seems to have lost sight of the fact that in some scenarios, political manoeuvring is more than just self-serving posturing. Sometimes, it's a fight for hundreds of thousands of disabled people who are scared of losing vital financial support. The prime minister is now frantically meeting with leading MPs involved in the amendment to try to secure their backing by offering concessions. But the fact that it was allowed to get this far in the first place has angered those who would naturally be inclined to back the prime minister. Many are now threatening to dig their heels in until the bill is dead in the water. As Starmer returns from what was a strong showing at Nato, he must now display some of the empathy and political nous that he so effectively shows on the global stage. If he is unable to do so, he may well lose the domestic battle – and it could be catastrophic for his authority.