US divided on fate of Iran's enriched uranium after strikes
US intelligence officials are divided over the fate of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile following recent US and Israeli airstrikes on key nuclear facilities, the New York Times reported on Thursday.
The hostilities began on June 13 when Israel launched strikes on Iran, claiming Tehran was close to developing a nuclear bomb – which has been denied by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and US intelligence.
The US joined the campaign on June 22, striking several nuclear facilities. A ceasefire brokered by Washington came into effect on Tuesday and has so far been upheld.
US President Donald Trump has said the strikes 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's nuclear infrastructure. However, US intelligence assessments and international watchdogs reportedly suggest that while the facilities were damaged, Iran's capability to resume its nuclear program remains.
US officials said intelligence assessments on the status of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile are inconsistent, with differing views among Iranian officials contributing to the uncertainty, according to the outlet.
Parts of the Natanz nuclear facility, where some of the uranium was believed to be stored, were damaged but not destroyed in the US and Israeli airstrikes, the report said, citing US officials.
Due to limited access and conflicting assessments, the US intelligence community has not reached a firm conclusion about how much of
the material Iran has retained, people familiar with the findings told the NYT.
Following a classified Senate briefing on Thursday, several Republican lawmakers stressed that destroying or seizing the stockpile was not an objective of the strikes.
'I didn't want people to think the problem is over, because it's not,' Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told reporters, noting that the nuclear sites were significantly damaged.
There is also uncertainty over the original location of Iran's uranium stockpile. Trump said it was at Fordow, while others pointed to Natanz. The IAEA reported that most of it was stored at Isfahan, where Iran operates reactors and nuclear facilities. Some experts believe the stockpile was dispersed across multiple sites.
IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said Iranian officials told inspectors they would relocate the material if it was threatened. The uranium was stored in containers small enough to fit 'into the trunk of an ordinary car,' he added.
In the days leading up to the US missile strike on Isfahan, surveillance reportedly shows vehicles moving items into or out of the labs.
Grossi said this week he believes much of the uranium remains in Iran's hands. 'I don't know if they moved all of it,' he said. 'But the evidence points to their moving out a lot of it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
US and Israeli strikes on Iran violate international law
The US and Israel have brazenly violated a host of international agreements by striking Iranian nuclear facilities, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has said. He warned that consequences of such actions could have been catastrophic. Israel launched strikes on Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure on June 13, a day after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed a resolution declaring Iran to be in breach of its Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations – something that Tehran has denied. Last week, the US carried out airstrikes targeting three Iranian nuclear facilities as well. 'The recent strikes on the Iranian nuclear facilities under the control of the IAEA are violating the norms of the international law in the most dangerous way,' the Belarusian leader told a summit of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) on Friday. Minsk is particularly aware of the potential consequences of such actions, the president said, citing the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, which caused vast territories to be contaminated with radioactive materials thrown into the atmosphere following an explosion at a Soviet nuclear power plant. 'Radioactive fallout was registered even in the UK, Germany and Sweden at the time,' Lukashenko noted. The US and Israel apparently believe they would be spared the same fate for some reason. The president also expressed his support to Iran and its people, wishing them to 'overcome all the difficulties' caused by the attacks. 'I want you to know that you are not alone in your resistance.' His words came a day after Moscow said that Washington's and West Jerusalem's actions dealt 'colossal damage' to the IAEA and put its very credibility in question. An agency responsible for the global verification system for various nation's nuclear activities was used 'as a source of information for planning the bombing,' the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said at the time. The attacks posed 'real obstacles' to implementing agreements between the IAEA and Tehran, she warned. The Iranian Parliament has voted to suspend cooperation with the IAEA until Iran is given security guarantees for its nuclear facilities.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Russia and Iran resume direct flights
Russia and Iran have resumed direct flights following a temporary flight ban imposed by Moscow due to the conflict between Israel and Iran. Flights have also been resumed between Russia and Iraq and Jordan. Major global carriers, including Lufthansa, Emirates, and Air France-KLM, also rerouted or canceled flights to avoid the airspaces of Israel, Iran, Jordan, and Iraq. Some 650 flights were scrapped during the period of hostilities between Israel and Iran, according to Eurocontrol, a pan-European air traffic organization. In a statement on Friday, Russia's civil aviation authority, Rosaviatsia, said it had lifted the ban on flights over Iran, Iraq, and Jordan following a 'continuous analysis' of the risks to civil aviation in the region. 'Rosaviatsia continues to monitor the situation in the Middle East,' the agency said. 'If there are any significant changes, airlines will be promptly informed.' The first post-ban arrival from Iran touched down at Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport on Friday. The Mahan Air flight had departed from the northeastern city of Mashhad. A return flight left at noon. Russian flagship carrier Aeroflot has also resumed sales of tickets to Tehran. The first flight is scheduled for July 4. The route will operate three times a week. Israel launched a series of airstrikes on June 13 targeting Iranian military and nuclear sites, as well as senior commanders and nuclear scientists, in what it described as a mission to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The US later joined Israeli attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran, which denies that it is pursuing nuclear weapons, condemned what it called unprovoked attacks and retaliated by launching ballistic missiles and kamikaze drones at Israeli cities. A US-brokered ceasefire has since come into effect and has so far held, with both sides claiming victory.
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Forget the Middle East: This region could be next to see a major crisis
The war in the Middle East poses a growing threat to Central Asia. If Iran undergoes a radical change in its political system or descends into internal turmoil, its territory could become a conduit for foreign infiltration into a region long seen as within Russia's strategic orbit. Anyone with a grasp of international affairs understands that Russia's most defining geopolitical feature is the absence of natural borders. Even where physical barriers exist, such as in the Caucasus, historical experience has taught Russians to treat them as illusory. In this context, central Asia has always been viewed as part of Russia's extended strategic space. Threats to the region's stability are thus perceived in Moscow not as distant disruptions, but as direct national security concerns. One of the central foreign policy challenges for Russia in the coming years will be determining how far it must go to prevent such threats from materializing. For the first time since gaining independence in the 1990s, Central Asia may now be seriously vulnerable to destabilizing forces. Geographically removed from the conflict-prone neighborhoods of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Israel, the region has enjoyed a period of relative calm. Only Mongolia, bordered by friendly Russia and China, is arguably more fortunate. Central Asia, until now, has been largely insulated. But this insulation is now under threat. Since the late 19th century, Afghanistan has been the primary concern. But the danger has rarely come from Afghan state actors. Instead, the country has served as a base for extremists targeting neighboring post-Soviet republics. Both Russia and China have long had a vested interest in shielding the region from such spillover, largely for their own domestic reasons. Both powers have large Muslim populations and strong incentives to keep Islamist radicalism at bay. It is precisely this self-interest that has formed the basis of effective cooperation and restraint in international relations. However, this relatively stable picture is beginning to change. Israel's current posture – driven by an elite seeking to maintain power through perpetual military confrontation – is creating ripple effects far beyond its borders. The escalation since October 2023 has triggered a direct conflict between Israel and Iran. There is even talk in some Israeli circles of targeting Turkey next, due to its regional ambitions. While many of Israel's Arab neighbors may prefer to stay out of such a spiral, the intensification of conflict makes neutrality increasingly untenable. This trajectory has implications not only for the Middle East, but for the wider Eurasian space. The possibility that Iran could be destabilized – either through external pressure or internal collapse – should concern all those who value regional stability. Iran is a key player in the Eurasian balance, and a descent into chaos could turn it into a launch pad for foreign interference aimed at Russia and China via Central Asia. Russia must therefore prepare for all scenarios. So far, Iran has shown resilience. The leadership is maintaining control, and the population remains broadly patriotic. But dramatic changes cannot be ruled out. Should Iran fracture, the security vacuum created could expose Central Asia to manipulation from actors who view the region not as a priority in itself, but as a lever against Moscow and Beijing. It bears emphasizing: Central Asia is not significant to the West in the way it is to Russia or China. The region's population of under 90 million is dwarfed by the likes of Iran or Pakistan. Its global economic footprint pales in comparison to Southeast Asian nations such as Vietnam or Indonesia. The West views it not as a partner, but as a resource base – useful insofar as it weakens Russia and China. Should Iran descend into disorder, foreign actors could use it as a staging ground to project influence or destabilize Central Asia, without facing any real consequences themselves. For Washington, Brussels, or London, events in the region are an abstraction – something to exploit diplomatically, not something to defend materially. Beyond the external threats, there are internal risks as well. Israel's aggressive foreign policy, when broadcast globally, generates resentment among Muslim populations. In Central Asia, where ties to Russian culture and the Soviet past are strong, many citizens have a finely tuned sense of justice. They are not passive observers. Perceived injustice in the Middle East could radicalize sections of the population, making them susceptible to extremist messaging. The governments of Central Asia have done much to avoid becoming pawns in global geopolitics. The creation of the 'Central Asian Five' – a regional platform for dialogue and coordination – has been a major step. Russia supports this initiative, recognizing the importance of local agency and regional cooperation. These states are wisely building stronger relations with key neighbors, including China and Russia, while maintaining a cautious stance towards Turkey's neo-Ottoman ambitions. Ankara's push for a 'Great Turan' is treated with polite skepticism. Its economic and military capacities remain limited, and Central Asian leaders understand that. Overall, the region's foreign policy is marked by pragmatism. It seeks flexibility without compromising core obligations to strategic partners such as Russia. Moscow has no reason to take offence. And yet, even the best foreign policy cannot insulate these states from chaos beyond their borders. Russia must be realistic. It cannot – and should not – assume total responsibility for defending Central Asia. History teaches caution. The First World War stands as a cautionary tale of Russia committing to allies at great cost, only to reap instability and collapse. Moscow should now make clear that the preservation of sovereignty in Central Asia is a matter for the region's governments themselves. Russia remains a friend, a neighbor, and a responsible partner. But it will not mortgage its future for vague promises or ill-defined obligations. In the age of collapsing norms and rising brute force, this sober, balanced approach is the only one that can ensure both regional peace and Russia's own long-term article was first published by Vzglyad newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.
