
U.S. Strikes on Iran's Nuclear Sites Set up 'Cat-and-Mouse' Hunt for Missing Uranium
VIENNA, June 29 (Reuters) – The U.S. and Israeli bombing of Iranian nuclear sites creates a conundrum for U.N. inspectors in Iran: how can you tell if enriched uranium stocks, some of them near weapons grade, were buried beneath the rubble or had been secretly hidden away?
Following last weekend's attacks on three of Iran's top nuclear sites – at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan – President Donald Trump said the facilities had been 'obliterated' by U.S. munitions, including bunker-busting bombs.
But the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors Tehran's nuclear program, has said it's unclear exactly what damage was sustained at Fordow, a plant buried deep inside a mountain that produced the bulk of Iran's most highly enriched uranium.
IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said on Monday it was highly likely the sensitive centrifuges used to enrich uranium inside Fordow were badly damaged. It's far less clear whether Iran's 9 tonnes of enriched uranium – more than 400 kg of it enriched to close to weapons grade – were destroyed.
Western governments are scrambling to determine what's become of it.
Reuters spoke to more than a dozen current and former officials involved in efforts to contain Iran's nuclear program who said the bombing may have provided the perfect cover for Iran to make its uranium stockpiles disappear and any IAEA investigation would likely be lengthy and arduous.
Olli Heinonen, previously the IAEA's top inspector from 2005 to 2010, said the search will probably involve complicated recovery of materials from damaged buildings as well as forensics and environmental sampling, which take a long time.
'There could be materials which are inaccessible, distributed under the rubble or lost during the bombing,' said Heinonen, who dealt extensively with Iran while at the IAEA and now works at the Stimson Center think-tank in Washington.
Iran's more than 400 kg of uranium enriched to up to 60% purity – a short step from the roughly 90% of weapons grade – are enough, if enriched further, for nine nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick.
Even a fraction of that left unaccounted for would be a grave concern for Western powers that believe Iran is at least keeping the option of nuclear weapons open.
There are indications Iran may have moved some of its enriched uranium before it could be struck.
IAEA chief Grossi said Iran informed him on June 13, the day of Israel's first attacks, that it was taking measures to protect its nuclear equipment and materials. While it did not elaborate, he said that suggests it was moved.
A Western diplomat involved in the dossier, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue, said most of the enriched uranium at Fordow would appear to have been moved days in advance of the attacks, 'almost as if they knew it was coming'.
Some experts have said a line of vehicles including trucks visible on satellite imagery outside Fordow before it was hit suggests enriched uranium there was moved elsewhere, though U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday said he was unaware of any intelligence suggesting Iran had moved it.
Trump has also dismissed such concerns. In an interview due to air on Sunday with Fox News Channel's 'Sunday Morning Futures', he insisted the Iranians 'didn't move anything.'
'It's very dangerous to do. It is very heavy – very, very heavy. It's a very hard thing to do,' Trump said. 'Plus we didn't give much notice because they didn't know we were coming until just, you know, then.'
The White House did not respond to a request for comment. The State Department referred Reuters to Trump's public remarks.
A second Western diplomat said it would be a major challenge to verify the condition of the uranium stockpile, citing a long list of past disputes between the IAEA and Tehran, including Iran's failure to credibly explain uranium traces found at undeclared sites.
'It'll be a game of cat and mouse.'
Iran says it has fulfilled all its obligations towards the watchdog.
PICTURE BLURRED
Before Israel launched its 12-day military campaign aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities, the IAEA had regular access to Iran's enrichment sites and monitored what was inside them around the clock as part of the 191-nation Non-Proliferation Treaty aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, to which Iran is a party.
Now, rubble and ash blur the picture.
What's more, Iran has threatened to stop working with the IAEA. Furious at the non-proliferation regime's failure to protect it from strikes many countries see as unlawful, Iran's parliament voted on Wednesday to suspend cooperation.
Tehran says a resolution this month passed by the IAEA's 35-nation Board of Governors declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations paved the way for Israel's attacks, which began the next day, by providing an element of diplomatic cover. The IAEA denies that.
Iran has repeatedly denied that it has an active program to develop a nuclear bomb. And U.S. intelligence – dismissed by Trump before the airstrikes – had said there was no evidence Tehran was taking steps toward developing one.
However, experts say there is no reason for enriching uranium to 60% for a civilian nuclear program, which can run on less than 5% enrichment.
As a party to the NPT, Iran must account for its stock of enriched uranium. The IAEA then has to verify Iran's account by means including inspections, but its powers are limited – it inspects Iran's declared nuclear facilities but cannot carry out snap inspections at undeclared locations.
Iran has an unknown number of extra centrifuges stored at locations the U.N. nuclear watchdog is unaware of, the IAEA has said, with which it might be able to set up a new or secret enrichment site.
That makes hunting down the material that can be enriched further, particularly that closest to bomb grade, all the more important.
'Iran's stockpile of 60% enriched uranium may not have been part of the 'mission' but it is a significant part of the proliferation risk – particularly if centrifuges are unaccounted for,' Kelsey Davenport of the Washington-based Arms Control Association said on X on Friday.
The IAEA can and does receive intelligence from member states, which include the United States and Israel, but says it takes nothing at face value and independently verifies tip-offs.
Having pummelled the sites housing the uranium, Israel and the U.S. are seen as the countries most likely to accuse Iran of hiding it or restarting enrichment, officials say.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
CHASING SHADOWS
U.N. inspectors' futile hunt for large caches of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which preceded the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, showed the enormous difficulty of verifying foreign powers' assertions about hidden stockpiles of material when there is little tangible information to go on.
As in Iraq, inspectors could end up chasing shadows.
'If the Iranians come clean with the 400 kg of HEU (highly enriched uranium) then the problem is manageable, but if they don't then nobody will ever be sure what happened to it,' a third Western diplomat said.
The IAEA, which answers to 180 member states, has said it cannot guarantee Iran's nuclear development is entirely peaceful, but has no credible indications of a coordinated weapons program.
The U.S. this week backed the IAEA's verification and monitoring work and urged Tehran to ensure its inspectors in the country are safe.
It is a long journey from there to accounting for every gram of enriched uranium, the IAEA's standard.
The above-ground plant at Natanz, the smaller of the two facilities enriching uranium up to 60 percent, was flattened in the strikes, the IAEA said, suggesting a small portion of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile may have been destroyed.
Fordow, Iran's most deeply buried enrichment plant, which was producing the bulk of 60%-enriched uranium, was first seriously hit last weekend when the United States dropped its biggest conventional bombs on it. The damage to its underground halls is unclear.
An underground area in Isfahan where much of Iran's most highly enriched uranium was stored was also bombed, causing damage to the tunnel entrances leading to it.
The agency has not been able to carry out inspections since Israel's bombing campaign began, leaving the outside world with more questions than answers.
Grossi said on Wednesday the conditions at the bombed sites would make it difficult for IAEA inspectors to work there – suggesting it could take time. 'There is rubble, there could be unexploded ordnance,' he said.
Heinonen, the former chief IAEA inspector, said it was vital the agency be transparent in real time about what its inspectors have been able to verify independently, including any uncertainties, and what remained unknown.
'Member states can then make their own risk assessments,' he said.

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


The Diplomat
3 hours ago
- The Diplomat
The Transnational Origins of Taiwan's Semiconductor Industry
Donald Trump's self-proclaimed 'victory' in his chip war against Taipei is premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of how we got to where we are. TSMC Chairman and CEO C.C. Wei (right) speaks while U.S. President Donald Trump looks on during a joint announcement of a new $100 billion TSMC investment in the United States, Mar. 3, 2025. Nowhere is the logic of U.S. President Donald Trump's trade policy more obviously flawed than his attempt to reshore semiconductor manufacturing to the United States. Following Trump's March claim that Taiwan 'stole' its chip industry from the U.S. and his suggestion that Taipei should pay for American protection, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company announced a further $100 billion investment in its Arizona plant. Flanked by TSMC Chairman C.C. Wei at a White House meeting, Trump touted the investment – which will reportedly add new wafer fabs, advanced packaging facilities, and an R&D center to existing infrastructure – as ensuring the 'most advanced AI chips' would now be manufactured in the United States. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said it was proof that Trump's tariff policy was bringing manufacturing and investment back to America. Yet neither of these statements is tenable. At best, the Arizona plant will turn out 3-nanometer chips by 2028, a level Taiwan reached in 2022. For each incremental improvement in the United States and elsewhere, you can be sure Taiwan will have moved commensurately several steps ahead. Echoing the views of industry experts, the Danish policy analyst Jonas Parello-Plesner, a former diplomat stationed in Washington during Trump's first term, has written of his confidence that 'the holy grail' of cutting-edge chips will remain in Taiwan. Based on his conversations with policymakers in Taiwan, there is no way Taipei is relinquishing its silicon shield. As for the idea that the chips industry will 'return' to U.S. shores at any substantive level, few see this as feasible. First there's the obvious issue of cost. 'Making chips at scale in the U.S. is obviously going to be more expensive,' says Honghong Tinn, author of 'Island Tinkerers,' a social history of Taiwan's computer and semiconductor industry. 'So, they would probably need huge subsidies,' continues Tinn, who is also an assistant professor in the Program in the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine and the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. In fact, a subsidy of at least $6.6 billion was already in place under the CHIPS and Science Act (often shortened to the CHIPS Act), a bipartisan law passed under the Biden administration in 2022. The act oversaw the first stage of TSMC's Arizona plant, with $65 billion invested to establish the initial fabs at the site. While the precise details are murky, many analysts have argued that further investments in and development of the site were covered by the initial agreement reached under the law. Absent any details to differentiate it from the provisions and deals that were already in place under the CHIPS Act, there is no indication of how the Trump administration intends to bring back chip manufacturing to the United States. 'Trump's decisions show not only that he doesn't trust foreign countries, including Taiwan, but also that he doesn't understand his own Silicon Valley that well,' says Chang Kuo-hui, a professor and research fellow at National Taiwan University's Graduate Institute of National Development.


The Diplomat
3 hours ago
- The Diplomat
No Safe Return: The Case Against Deporting Afghan Refugees
As deportation campaigns intensify across countries like Pakistan, Iran, Turkiye, and parts of Europe, the reality facing Afghan refugees is growing more perilous by the day. Millions who have been forced to flee persecution, war, and systemic injustice face rejection in the places they hoped could be safe havens. Beneath the official narratives of 'stability' and 'return' lies a brutal truth: Afghanistan remains a deeply unsafe country, especially under Taliban rule, and any forced return of refugees constitutes a clear violation of international law and basic human rights. Following the Taliban's return to power in August 2021, Afghanistan has experienced a precipitous collapse on nearly every front: economic, political, and humanitarian. While some officials in host countries attempt to justify deportations by referencing 'improved security' or 'de facto governance,' the facts on the ground paint a starkly different picture. The Taliban have instituted a regime marked by gender apartheid, the systematic persecution of minorities, widespread economic devastation, and the brutal targeting of anyone affiliated with the former government, Western institutions, or civil society. Economically, the country is on the brink of disaster. The withdrawal of foreign aid, which previously constituted over 70 percent of the national budget, has led to an implosion of essential services. The World Bank reported that Afghanistan's GDP contracted by over 26 percent in the months following the Taliban takeover. Inflation has surged, unemployment is rampant, and nearly 15 million Afghans face acute food insecurity, according to the World Food Program. Public services such as education and healthcare, particularly for women and children, have all but disappeared. Women health workers have been pushed out of hospitals; female educators removed from schools; and countless NGOs banned or shuttered for employing women. The humanitarian collapse alone should be enough to halt deportations. Yet it is the deliberate and systemic repression under Taliban rule that makes return not just impractical but life-threatening. The Taliban's policies toward women constitute one of the most extreme forms of gender discrimination seen in modern times. Girls are banned from attending secondary school and university. Women are prohibited from working in most sectors, from traveling without a male guardian, and from accessing public spaces such as parks, gyms, and even beauty salons. Women's visibility in society is not only discouraged; it is criminalized. Numerous cases have been reported by UNAMA and Human Rights Watch where women who dared to protest or speak publicly were arrested, beaten, or disappeared. These policies are not isolated or culturally relative. They represent gender apartheid, a term rooted in international human rights law, which refers to the segregation and exclusion of people based on gender in both public and private spheres. The Taliban's rules are codified and enforced through coercion, and they target not only women in public roles but also their families, colleagues, and communities. Deporting Afghan women or families with young daughters back to this environment is not only morally indefensible – it is a violation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and the Refugee Convention itself. Beyond women, Afghan minorities face equally harrowing threats. Ethnic and religious communities such as the Hazaras, Sikhs, Hindus, and Shia Muslims have long been subjected to violence, but the Taliban's return has intensified their marginalization. Hazaras, in particular, have faced targeted killings, forced displacement, and denial of access to education and employment. The Taliban have consistently failed to protect these groups from attacks by the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) and, in some cases, have actively participated in abuses. For many of these communities, returning to Afghanistan is equivalent to returning to persecution or even death. The most underreported victims of deportation are those who previously worked with NATO forces, U.S. missions, international NGOs, or Afghan government institutions. Despite promises of relocation and protection, many of these individuals remain stranded in legal limbo across host countries. Those who have been deported often face immediate reprisal. Reports from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the BBC document instances in which returnees have been detained at the airport, interrogated, and in some cases never seen again. The Taliban's intelligence networks have compiled extensive databases, often with the help of documents and data left behind after the U.S. withdrawal, making it easier to identify and punish those once associated with the former state. Even beyond physical security, the psychological toll of forced return is immense. Afghan refugees — many of whom have spent years in exile — have built fragile yet meaningful lives in host countries. For children born abroad, Afghanistan is an unfamiliar and frightening land. Deportation tears families apart, pushes individuals into poverty, and inflicts trauma that lasts for generations. There have even been cases of suicide and self-immolation among Afghan refugees facing imminent deportation, especially in Iran and Pakistan. These are not isolated incidents; they are the consequence of policies that strip individuals of dignity and hope. From a legal standpoint, such deportations contravene the principle of non-refoulement, enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention and reaffirmed by the UNHCR (the United Nations' refugee agency) and numerous international courts. Non-refoulement prohibits the return of individuals to countries where they face threats to life or freedom. Afghanistan, under Taliban rule, clearly meets this threshold. UNHCR has consistently advised against any forced return to Afghanistan, emphasizing that conditions remain unsafe, and that all states have a responsibility to ensure individual risk assessments before repatriation. Despite this, many host governments continue to push for mass deportations. Pakistan has announced the forced removal of over a million undocumented Afghans, many of whom fled Taliban violence and lack any formal protection status. In Turkiye, Afghan refugees are frequently detained and deported without legal representation. In the United States, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghans, which protected them from deportation, is set to end in mid-July following a decision by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) based on the bizarre conclusion that 'Afghanistan has had an improved security situation, and its stabilizing economy no longer prevent [Afghan TPS recipients] from returning to their home country.' Even in Europe, where international law is robust, some states are tightening asylum procedures or quietly supporting 'voluntary' returns under duress. The international community must reject the false narrative that Afghanistan is safe for return. It must resist the political temptation to wash its hands of Afghan refugees by labeling them as economic migrants or 'security concerns.' Instead, it must reaffirm its legal and moral obligations to those who have fled genuine, documentable persecution. What is needed is a comprehensive and coordinated response: immediate suspension of all deportations to Afghanistan; restoration and expansion of temporary protection programs; humanitarian visas for women, minorities, and former civil servants at risk; and increased funding for refugee integration and mental health services in host countries. Host nations must also engage in diplomatic pressure on the Taliban not just to open schools or employ women but to end systemic repression and uphold basic human rights. Refugees are not a burden. They are survivors, educators, artists, professionals, and future leaders. Afghan refugees in particular have demonstrated extraordinary resilience and a commitment to rebuilding their lives in exile. To deport them now is to reward authoritarianism, punish resistance, and betray the very principles that World Refugee Day was created to defend. The world must choose: Will it uphold the dignity of the displaced or participate in their erasure?


The Mainichi
5 hours ago
- The Mainichi
China lifts a nearly 2-year ban on seafood from Japan over Fukushima wastewater
BEIJING (AP) -- China has reopened its market to seafood from Japan after a nearly two-year ban over the discharge of slightly radioactive wastewater from the tsunami-destroyed Fukushima nuclear power plant. A notice from the customs agency said the ban had been lifted Sunday and that imports from much of Japan would be resumed. The ban, imposed in August 2023, was a major blow to Japan's scallop and sea cucumber exporters. China was the biggest overseas market for Japanese seafood, accounting for more than one-fifth of its exports. The decision to lift the ban coincides with efforts by China and Japan to improve ties as both face economic uncertainty because of the American tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. The nuclear plant at Fukushima was heavily damaged by a deadly tsunami that followed a huge offshore earthquake in 2011. Water still must be pumped in to cool the radioactive fuel. The water is then stored in what was an ever-growing complex of tanks on the property. After years of debate, the utility won Japanese government permission to discharge the water gradually into the sea after treating it to remove most of the radioactive elements and diluting it with seawater. Japanese officials said the wastewater would be safer than international standards and have negligible environmental impact. China disagreed and imposed a ban, saying the discharge would endanger the fishing industry and coastal communities on its east coast. Over months of talks, Japan agreed to let China take samples of the water for testing. The sampling has not found any abnormalities, the customs agency notice said China still opposes the wastewater discharge, but based on scientific evidence and analysis, it is allowing imports on a conditional basis from parts of Japan that meet China's standards, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said. A ban remains in place for seafood from 10 of Japan's 47 prefectures, including Fukushima and nearby ones. Japanese seafood exporters will have to reapply for registration in China and all imports will have to include a health certificate, a certificate of compliance for radioactive substance testing and a certificate of origin, the Chinese customs agency said. Shipments to China are expected to resume gradually, Japanese government spokesperson Kazuhiko Aoki told reporters in Tokyo on Monday, noting the re-registration requirement. He said it was unclear how quickly scallop and sea cucumber exporters would return to China, because they had sought out other markets since the ban. But he predicted sales of sea cucumbers, a prized delicacy in China, would recover to a certain degree. Aoki said the Japanese government would continue to press for the lifting of the export ban on the other 10 prefectures.