Major doubts raised about impact of US strikes on Iran's nuclear program as intelligence shows enriched uranium moved
Experts have raised major doubts about the impact of US strikes on Iran's nuclear program, with intelligence indicating large amounts of enriched uranium were moved ahead of time.
President Trump has claimed the strikes caused "monumental" damage to the nuclear sites, while Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said Israel is "very close" to eliminating the nuclear program.
The US was the only country with weapons capable of destroying Iran's Fordow nuclear enrichment facility, which is built 80 to 90 metres under a mountain.
Satellite imagery of the site shows six large holes where B2 stealth bombers dropped 14 massive bunker buster bombs - each weighing 13.6 tonnes and capable of penetrating 18 metres into concrete and 61 metres into earth.
But satellite imagery expert Decker Eveleth, an associate researcher with the CNA Corporation, said the hall containing hundreds of centrifuges is "too deeply buried for us to evaluate the level of damage based on satellite imagery".
Several experts have also cautioned that Iran likely moved a stockpile of near weapons-grade highly enriched uranium out of Fordow before the strike early Sunday morning and could be hiding it and other nuclear components in locations unknown to Israel, the U.S. and U.N. nuclear inspectors.
They noted satellite imagery from Maxar Technologies showed "unusual activity" at Fordow on Thursday and Friday, with a line of 13 cargo trucks waiting outside an entrance of the facility.
A senior Iranian source told Reuters on Sunday most of the near weapons-grade 60 per cent highly enriched uranium had been moved to an undisclosed location before the U.S. attack.
The New York Times has also reported that Israeli officials with knowledge of the intelligence believe Iran had moved equipment and uranium from the site in recent days, including 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 per cent purity.
This was confirmed by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who told the Times Iran had "made no secret" of the fact they had moved the materials.
US Vice President JD Vance has also admitted the White House does not know the fate of the enriched uranium.
The uranium would need to be enriched to around 90 per cent purity to be used in a weapon, but it is reportedly enough to make nine or 10 atomic bombs.
Jeffrey Lewis of the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey said there were "almost certainly facilities that we don't know about" and the strikes have likely only set back Iran's nuclear program "by maybe a few years".
US Senator Mark Kelly, a Democrat from Arizona and a member of the Senate intelligence committee who said he had been reviewing intelligence every day, expressed the same concern.
"My big fear right now is that they take this entire program underground, not physically underground, but under the radar," he told NBC News.
"Where we tried to stop it, there is a possibility that this could accelerate it."
Iran lashed out at the US after the attacks, accusing it of crossing a "very big red line" by striking the nation's "peaceful" nuclear facilities. The nation's foreign minister also hinted that Iran may withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - which Iran's parliament began preperations after Israel launched its first strikes
"It cannot be emphasised enough how much of a devastating blow that the US, a permanent member of the Security Council, dealt to the global Non-Proliferation regime," Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said at a press conference in Turkey.
According to Arms Control Association head Daryl Kimball, "the world is going to be in the dark about what Iran may be doing".
Mick Mulroy, a former CIA officer who served in the Pentagon during Trump's first term, told the New York Times the US strike would "likely set back the Iranian nuclear weapon program two to five years'.
-With Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
22 minutes ago
- Perth Now
‘Iran is da bomb': Vandals target synagogue
An iconic Melbourne religious institution has been vandalised twice in a day. The heritage-listed Melbourne Hebrew Congregation synagogue was targeted by vandals on Sunday. One piece of graffiti read 'Iran is da bomb' inscribed in a mushroom cloud, alongside another piece of vandalism that said 'free Palestine'. 'It is believed a wall of the Toorak Road premises was graffitied by an unknown person sometime on Sunday afternoon,' a police spokesman said. 'That was removed but unknown offenders again graffitied the building sometime on Sunday evening.' The graffiti was scrawled soon after US bombs fell on Iran. Supplied Credit: Supplied The original graffitied message also said 'free Palestine'. 'There is absolutely no place at all in our society for anti-Semitic or hate-based symbols and behaviour,' the police spokesman said. Police want anyone with information to come forward. Rabbi Shlomo Nathanson told the Herald Sun: 'We're just frustrated and exhausted by all of this and we hope that is shared by members outside Jewish community'. 'We feel this to be an attack on the Melbourne Hebrew Congregation and it is unacceptable. 'While this is an offence to the Jewish community, it is our hope that people say 'not on my watch, not in my Australia',' the Rabbi said. A pro-Palestine message was graffitied on the Melbourne Hebrew Congregation on Sunday. Supplied Credit: Supplied The Premier labelled the graffiti 'disgraceful' and 'senseless'. 'It is just so vitally important that we do not allow conflict and violence overseas to divide us here in Melbourne and Victoria,' Jacinta Allan said. The Melbourne Hebrew Congregation is a monumental temple on the high-traffic corner of Toorak Road and St Kilda Road, about 2km south of the CBD. The building was constructed between 1928 and 1930. The synagogue is heritage-listed for its historical, aesthetic and social significance. The graffiti referencing Iran was written about 12 hours after the US bombed Iranian facilities, which are suspected of being used to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons.
SBS Australia
an hour ago
- SBS Australia
America First? Why MAGA is split on the US strikes on Iran
United States President Donald Trump's Republican base is divided over his decision to join Israel's assault on Iran. On Sunday morning, 125 US aircraft dropped 14 'bunker buster' bombs on three Iranian nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. The strikes, which were carried out without consulting Congress, have caused some Republicans to break ranks with the president and join Democrats in criticising the move. Here's what's been said and why the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement is split on the issue: Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene is usually a steadfast supporter of Trump, even going so far as to question the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, which Trump lost to Joe Biden. However, she has broken with him to criticise the bombing of Iran. "Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war ... This is not our fight," she's said. Kentucky congressman Thomas Massie — previously a pro-Trump Republican but not as reliable a supporter as Greene — has also been a vocal opponent of bombing Iran. On CNN's Inside Politics program, he said he was concerned that "three bombings to neutralise Iran" might be the 2025 version of "two weeks to slow the spread", referencing the COVID-19 pandemic. "This could turn into a protracted, prolonged engagement ... most of us were tired of the wars in the Middle East and Eastern Europe and we were promised that we wouldn't be engaged in another one." He argues the move is "unconstitutional" and last week introduced a motion to block the US from entering the conflict. South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham has disputed claims that Trump had acted outside his authority. "He had all the authority he needs under the constitution. They are wrong," he said on NBC's Meet the Press. Missouri senator Eric Schmitt has also expressed support for Trump, describing him as a "foreign policy realist, not an ideologue". "He has taken limited military action to achieve a crucial objective that is in the core national interest of the United States: preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons," Schmitt wrote on X. "He doesn't want another Forever War. He wants peace ... What happens now is up to Iran." Michael Green is a professor and CEO of the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. He told SBS News there are tensions between a group supportive of Israel, which "sees the logic of taking out the nuclear weapons capability while Iran is weak", and an isolationist group that "wants no more interventions and wars". While there's division within Trump's ranks, Green stresses the group opposing Trump is a minority. It's a section within MAGA that shares an "America First" ideology and is against military interventionism, dating back to the early 1940s when they were opposed to entering the war in Europe. "There's a history to this America First movement and this isolationism on the right wing of the Republican Party that goes back to the pre-war era, and even longer, so it's always been there," he said. Green said Trump made one of the group's most vocal members, Tulsi Gabbard, director of national intelligence as an acknowledgement to that part of MAGA that "he was hearing them and was sympathetic on this interventionist stance". However, he said the majority of Republicans support Trump. Professor Wesley Widmaier, from the Australian National University's Department of International Relations, said these tensions are evident in the now-viral interview between Republican senator Ted Cruz and political commentator Tucker Carlson. In a heated exchange, Carlson quizzed Cruz's knowledge on Iran — from its population to ethnic make-up — in an attempt to highlight his ignorance about the country and more broadly question his support of Israel's war with Iran. "Not that social media is real life. I completely concede that, but that illustrates the kind of tensions within Trump's base," he said. Alongside Massie, many Democrats are calling on Trump to be held accountable by Congress, arguing it's unconstitutional to order military intervention without consulting Congress. Over the weekend, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer said "no president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy". Schumer also called on Trump to enforce the 1973 War Powers Act, which requires a president to obtain a Congressional declaration of war before committing to military action. However, interpretation of the act is debated and it contends with a constitutional designation of the president as the "commander-in-chief" of the nation's military — a power that presidents have previously invoked to justify strikes without congressional approval. Green explains that the main political issue is that Trump made the call without bipartisan support, potentially causing an issue with Democrats as well as Republicans down the line. "Not getting a vote from Congress, but consulting leadership, that's the norm," he said. "When you have a significant piece of intelligence for a military strike, the president — Republican or Democrat — informs ... the eight most prominent members of the Congress on national security — Republicans and Democrats." "Trump didn't tell anyone on the Hill. He just did it without informing Congress, and the Democrats are saying he didn't tell us. So if it goes badly, he has left himself without bipartisan support." Green said this isn't unconstitutional and previous presidents have signed off on military intervention without bipartisan support. He points to former president Barack Obama authorising a military campaign against the self-proclaimed Islamic State group in Syria in 2014 and Bill Clinton signing off on intervention, including airstrikes, in Kosovo in 1999. Although Trump's decision to act unilaterally could backfire with the Democrats and Republicans, Green is confident the president has factored that into his calculations. "I think Trump probably calculated correctly that Iran's options are limited, and so the politics would probably hold for him," he said.
7NEWS
an hour ago
- 7NEWS
‘There is no one dirtier than Trump': Some Iranians urge strong response after US strikes
US President Donald Trump 's decision to launch direct strikes against Iranian nuclear sites has sparked a wave of anger in the country, with people on the streets of Tehran telling CNN they expect their country to strike back. 'Iranian people are people of honor, and we will definitely give a strong response,' one man told CNN. 'We will stand strongly like we have been for the past 40 years.' Large crowds gathered at the Enghelab Square in central Tehran on Sunday evening, protesting the strikes. Footage published by the state-affiliated Fars News Agency showed people waving Iranian flags and punching the air, carrying signs that read: 'Down with the USA, down with Israel.' Hamid Rasaee, a politician, said even people critical of the regime were protesting. 'A lot of those standing here chanting slogans against the United States may have been critics of the policies of the Islamic Republic. 'But today, all of us are standing in one line behind the supreme leader,' he told CNN. Trump ordered attacks on three of Iran's most important nuclear facilities early Sunday morning – a move that has placed the US in the centre of the conflict between Israel and Iran. Iranians had faced the possibility of US intervention ever since Israel launched its strikes on nuclear and military targets last week – but many believed any action was days away. That's in part because Trump said on Thursday that he would decide whether to strike Iran within two weeks, seemingly opening a window for negotiations. That all changed early Sunday, when American bombers dropped more than a dozen massive 'bunker buster' bombs on Iran's Fordow and Natanz nuclear facilities, and Tomahawk missiles launched from the sea struck Isfahan. One man in Tehran told CNN he believed Trump was acting in his own interest only. 'There is no one dirtier than Trump. First, he gives us two weeks' time, but then after two days he strikes us,' the man told CNN. Like other Iranians with whom CNN spoke, he preferred not to give his name for safety reasons. 'We do not have nuclear weapons, so why does he strike us?' he added, alluding to the Iranian regime's insistence the country's nuclear program is peaceful. Trump has claimed Iran was weeks away from acquiring a nuclear weapon, dismissing assessments from his own intelligence community that Iran was still years away from a weapon. Qom residents slept through the attacks While Trump has claimed the three sites struck by the US were 'totally obliterated,' his defence secretary has said the full impact is still being assessed. And unlike the strikes by Israel in recent days, some of which targeted densely populated areas, the US attacks were concentrated in locations off-limits to most civilians. Residents of Qom, a city some 30 kilometers (18 miles) from the Fordow nuclear site, woke to the sound of emergency vehicles' sirens and the news that the secretive complex had been bombed a few hours earlier. Five people living in Qom said they were surprised to learn what had happened when they got up, having heard nothing overnight. Qom does not have an aerial attack warning system, so residents would have had no warning before the strikes. Qom is considered a holy city, home to Iran's largest and most famous Shia seminary. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei studied at the Qom Seminary, as did several of Iran's former presidents. Similarly, people living in a village some 35 kilometers (22 miles) from the Natanz facility said they heard nothing overnight. In Tehran, far from the targeted nuclear sites, many were calling for Iran to respond with force. Fars released a compilation of short interviews with people on the streets of the capital Sunday. Each of the eight people featured urged a retaliation – with most saying Iran should strike US bases in the region and close down the Strait of Hormuz on Iran's southern shore, through which a third of global seaborne oil trade passes. In Iran, signs of dissent tend to be quickly quashed, making it dangerous for people to express disagreement with the regime. But Mohsen Milani, an Iranian scholar who has lived in the US for decades, said the US attack on Iran could spark more genuine support for the regime. 'It could ignite a new wave of nationalism, damage the future of U.S.-Iran relations more than the 1953 coup, accelerate Tehran's pivot to Russia and China, and fundamentally reshape Iran's defense, deterrence, and nuclear posture,' he said in a post on X. 'Will sacrifice my life' Some of this sentiment was already on show in Tehran on Sunday. One demonstrator at the evening protest at Enghelab Square told CNN she would stay there 'even if missiles rain down on my head'. 'I will stay here and I will sacrifice my life and my blood for my country,' she said. Everywhere around her, people were protesting the US, many holding anti-Trump signs and posters. Some of the posters ended up on the ground, where people stamped on them. One resident told CNN earlier, he would support Khamenei with his life. 'He's moving forward for the sake of our land,' he said. Speaking to CNN at a local market, a woman told CNN she believed Iran was only defending itself. 'We were living our normal lives and they attacked us. If someone strikes the United States, would they not answer? Of course they would,' she said. Another person living in Tehran said they believed the regime was greatly weakened by the US strikes – because its opponents would now be able to call its bluff. 'The claims that the Iranian regime has always made – that it will attack all American bases and close the Strait of Hormuz – they made all these claims and the whole world saw that (the US) came and easily hit the Fordow and Natanz sites ... but Iran was completely silent and no fighter planes took off and (it) used no defenses or missiles,' the person said, adding that if there is no response in the coming days, the regime's supporters could abandon it. 'No sane person will stand by someone who is in a weak position, not even their own supporters,' they said.
