What happened to Iran's enriched uranium? Experts say it's a mystery
The U.S. strikes "completely and totally obliterated" Iran's nuclear facilities, Trump said June 21 after the bombs were dropped.
Buried? Spirited away? No answers on Iran's enriched uranium.
Initial assessments showed all three sites "sustained extremely severe damage and destruction," Gen. Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters.
But watchers of Iran's nuclear program say a massive question mark looms over the U.S. operation - what happened to Iran's enriched uranium?
That's "not the question before us," Vice President JD Vance said in a June 23 Fox News interview, dodging the question of what happened to Iran's uranium stockpile. The bombing had, more importantly, destroyed Tehran's ability to enrich uranium to the level needed for a nuclear weapon, he said.
"I do think that the uranium was buried," he added.
'Unaccounted for'
Nuclear experts disagreed.
"Significant nuclear materials remain unaccounted for," said Kelsey Davenport, the Arms Control Association's director for nonproliferation policy.
"Our understanding is that some of them were taken away by Iran, and we don't know where they are," David Albright, a former United Nations nuclear weapons inspector, said of the enriched uranium stockpiles in a June 24 CNN interview.
More: Inside the attack: Details revealed of secret US mission to bomb Iran
Satellite images showed new craters at the Fordow and Natanz facilities where U.S. "bunker buster" bombs made impact.
"It is clear that Fordow was also directly impacted, but the degree of damage inside the uranium enrichment halls can't be determined with certainty," Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in a June 22 report.
Officials and nuclear experts say most of Iran's enriched uranium was stored in an underground complex near the Isfahan facility, which the U.S. struck with Tomahawk missiles fired from a Navy submarine, demolishing several above-ground facilities, satellite images show.
Grossi reported damage to several buildings and entrances to the underground storage tunnels, but it's unclear what happened to any uranium that may have been held in the tunnels.
"It does not appear like the underground facility has been targeted at all," said Sam Lair, a research associate at Middlebury College's James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies.
"Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan all include deeply buried facilities where it will be challenging to assess the extent of the damage without boots on the ground at these sites," said Davenport.
Did Iran move its uranium stocks before U.S. bombed?
Lair said Iran had ample time to move enriched uranium out of the underground tunnels before Israel first struck the facility on June 13. Even if they had not yet moved the uranium by the time Israel launched its first attack of the 12-day conflict, "they had a period where Isfahan was not being targeted, and they could have done so," he said.
Satellite images from Maxar Technology captured vehicles activity at Fordow in the days leading up to the U.S. strikes, including a line of cargo trucks parked outside. And Hassan Abedini, deputy political director for Iran's state broadcaster, told reporters after the U.S. bombing that Iran "didn't suffer a major blow because the materials had already been taken out."
Iran's enriched uranium is central to Israeli and U.S. justifications for their attacks. According to the IAEA, Iran has enriched more than 400 kilograms - about 880 pounds - of uranium to 60%, enough to make around nine nuclear weapons if it is further enriched to weapons grade, which is around 90%.
Secret sites, future enrichment?
"The risk posed by the 60% enriched uranium is amplified because Iran may have also stashed centrifuges at an undeclared site," said Davenport.
On June 13, the day Israel launched its attack on Iran, citing the dangers of its nuclear program, the IAEA said Iran had revealed plans for a new enrichment site.
"The Iranians, on some level, were preparing for an outcome similar to this," Lair said. Another site is "ready to have centrifuges installed somewhere, and not very many people are talking about it."
On June 24, Iranian nuclear chief Mohammad Eslami told Mehr News the nuclear program - which Iran asserts is peaceful - would be restored. "The plan is to prevent interruptions in the process of production and services," Eslami said.
But Trump vowed in a post on Truth Social: "IRAN WILL NEVER REBUILD THEIR NUCLEAR FACILITIES!"
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
33 minutes ago
- Reuters
G7 urges talks to resume for deal on Iran nuclear program
WASHINGTON/OTTAWA, June 30 (Reuters) - Foreign ministers from the Group of Seven nations said on Monday they supported the ceasefire between Israel and Iran and urged for negotiations to resume for a deal to address Iran's nuclear program, according to a joint statement. Since April, Iran and the U.S. have held talks aimed at finding a new diplomatic solution regarding Iran's nuclear program. Tehran says its program is peaceful and Israel and its allies say they want to ensure Iran cannot build a nuclear weapon. "We call for the resumption of negotiations, resulting in a comprehensive, verifiable and durable agreement that addresses Iran's nuclear program," the G7 foreign ministers said. Last week, Trump announced a ceasefire between U.S. ally Israel and its regional rival Iran to halt a war that began on June 13 when Israel attacked Iran. The Israel-Iran conflict had raised alarms in a region already on edge since the start of Israel's war in Gaza in October 2023. Before the ceasefire was announced, Washington struck Iran's nuclear sites and Iran targeted a U.S. base in Qatar in retaliation. The G7 foreign ministers said they urged "all parties to avoid actions that could further destabilize the region." U.S. Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff has said talks between Washington and Tehran were "promising" and that Washington was hopeful for a long-term peace deal. The G7 top diplomats denounced threats against the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog on Monday, after a hardline Iranian newspaper said IAEA boss Rafael Grossi should be tried and executed as an Israeli agent. On June 12, the U.N. nuclear watchdog's 35-nation Board of Governors declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in almost 20 years. Israel is the only Middle Eastern country believed to have nuclear weapons and said its war against Iran aimed to prevent Tehran from developing its own nuclear weapons. Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Israel is not. The U.N. nuclear watchdog, which carries out inspections in Iran, says it has "no credible indication" of an active, coordinated weapons program in Iran.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Trans troops in US military 'in survival mode' as ban on serving kicks in
After 17 years in the US Army, Maj Kara Corcoran, 39, was preparing to graduate from an elite military leadership there was a days before the ceremony, Kara was told that she would need to conform to male regulations, which meant wearing male uniform and cutting the long blonde hair she had grown since she told the Army she identified as a woman in directive had come from the Pentagon, and filtered down through her chain of command at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas."Nothing about me is a man, but we're going to force me into male regs just so I can walk across the stage with my peers," she said in the hours leading up to the ceremony. "It's not my choice to cut my hair. I'm doing it because I have to."Kara is one of several thousand transgender people affected by a ban, announced by President Trump in January, that prevents them from serving in any job in the US military.A previous ban in his first term focused on new recruits and allowed some exceptions, particularly for those already serving. The 2025 policy removes virtually all of the figures say there are about 4,200 transgender service members in the US armed forces, however other estimates are much higher, at about 10,000. The new policy states that a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria - where a person feels their gender differs from their sex registered at birth - is "incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service".An executive order outlined President Trump's position that "the Armed Forces have been afflicted with radical gender ideology" and that the policy would ensure staff were "free of medical conditions or physical defects that may reasonably be expected to require excessive time lost from duty for necessary treatment or hospitalization".The order also stated that "a man's assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member".A Gallup poll in February this year suggested that 58% of Americans "favor allowing openly transgender men and women to serve in the US military, but support has declined from 71% in 2019 and 66% in 2021".Critics have called the ban discriminatory and legal challenges have been filed from serving transgender officers and human rights February, the BBC has followed the lives of Maj Kara Corcoran and an officer in the Navy, Lt Rae Timberlake, as they navigate the uncertainty of their military careers. They have shared their thoughts and feelings in a personal capacity, not as spokespeople for the US military or other colleagues. A career in question Kara has spent most of her adult life in the US Army. Her combat deployments included time in Afghanistan where she was both a platoon leader and a company commander, when she was living as a man, before she transitioned. Since then, she says she has legally changed her name and gender and uses female people were disqualified from all jobs in the military until 2016, but over the past decade, as governments have changed, US policy has flip-flopped. 2016: Obama lifts ban on trans people serving, allowing them access to funding through the military for gender-related treatment2017: Trump announces ban on trans people serving, citing medical costs and potential disruptions2021: Biden signs order restoring the right of trans people to serve2025: Trump announces new ban and bases are told to initiate separation proceedings against personnel with gender dysphoria "For a long time, I stayed silent," says Kara. When she joined up in 2008, women were not allowed in combat positions married a woman and had children, although the relationship broke down and ended as she grappled with her came out as a transgender woman in 2018 and began her hormonal and surgical transition. She says she had the support of her commanding officers, who were still working to the previous set of guidelines, despite Trump's 2017 ban. She tells the BBC that the transition improved her ability to serve."It's made me more focused, more resilient," she says. "There's a common misconception that transitioning is a liability. For me, it's been the opposite." Now, with Trump's latest policy in effect, Kara has been told that unless she leaves voluntarily, she may be forced out of the service against her will through a process called involuntary separation happens when someone is discharged and they do not choose to leave of their own accord. It can affect any service member, not just people in combat well as losing their jobs, people can also potentially lose benefits, such as pensions, healthcare and disability Department of Defense said that if someone went involuntarily they may get half what they would get if they left voluntarily - the difference could be tens of thousands of this, Maj Kara Corcoran says she does not want to walk away."I'm not going to get voluntarily separated," she says. "I'll go through the involuntary separation and what that looks like and how horrific they want to make that for me and other service members." 'The single dumbest phrase in military history' Others such as former US Navy Seal, Carl Higbie, support Trump's ban, though. Carl now hosts a TV show on the conservative network believes that transgender people are not fit for service in the US military, arguing that gender dysphoria may require ongoing medical care and accommodations that could affect deployability."You can't take Ritalin [which is used to treat ADHD] or certain types of prescription medications and be an eligible service member in combat. Why should you be on hormone therapy, which we know has sometimes emotional effects?" he asked if he thought that biological women, who may be on other medications containing hormones, such as treatment for the menopause, are fit to serve in the armed forces, he said: "I think there are certain times where we should be more concerned about killing bad guys than making sure that we have gender quotas on a combat operation." Listen to Inside the US trans military ban on BBC Sounds The ban on transgender service members is part of a broader shift in US military policy - Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, a Trump appointee and former army officer, has moved to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programmes."I think the single dumbest phrase in military history is 'our diversity is our strength'," Hegseth said at a Pentagon event in in April, he posted on X that he "proudly ended" the Women, Peace and Security programme, an initiative to invite more women and girls to be part of conflict resolution. He called it a distraction from the core task of "war-fighting". A family on the brink of change Many had seen the policy shift coming. In the early hours of 6 November, when Donald Trump secured his victory in the 2024 US presidential election, Lt Rae Timberlake made a decision.A non-binary navy officer, Rae joined the Navy aged 17 and has served aboard the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and in the Middle falls under the trans umbrella because, although they were registered female at birth, they identify as neither male nor female and use they/them says that coming out as non-binary in 2020 and transitioning brought clarity to their identity. "The moment I heard the word 'non-binary', I knew it fit," they told the with the 2024 Trump victory, Rae felt the clock was ticking on their career. They requested to transfer from their West Coast base, to a base closer to family in the east, who could give them support. Rae, their wife and daughter moved in the middle of a school term, in the anticipation that a possible separation from the Navy was imminent."It felt like the safest move for us, in case I was forced to leave the service," says add that they weren't surprised by President Donald Trump's executive order in January, or a memorandum from the Department of Defense the following memo specified that military bases must identify service members diagnosed with or exhibiting symptoms of gender dysphoria. The final deadlines to come forward voluntarily were eventually set as 6 June for active-duty personnel and 7 July for reserve and National Guard May, the Department of Defense said 1,000 service personnel had self-identified as trans, but there has been no update of the number since military has 30 days from a deadline to start involuntary separation memo includes a provision for people to be considered for a waiver on a case-by-case basis. There are a few conditions including that staff must have "never attempted to transition to any sex other than their sex". By the time the memorandum was published, Rae had taken a new post in Maryland, and the family was adjusting to their new home."Watching Rae lose their career, it's painful," their wife, Lindsay, says. "We're in survival mode. We haven't had time to connect as a family. We just keep making hard choices."For Rae, the emotional cost has been high. They have decided they want more control over the future, so have requested to retire from the Navy, and believe that in doing so have self-identified for voluntary separation. The application hasn't been accepted yet, but Rae believes it will expect the financial implications to be substantial. Without completing 20 years of service, Rae says they will likely forfeit eligibility for a military pension. They estimate pension payments could have added up to about $2.5m (£1.8m) over the course of their retirement. A legal and political battle While the Department of Defense says the ban will maintain consistent medical and readiness standards across the forces, opponents, argue that the policy targets a vulnerable group lawsuits have been filed challenging its one high-profile ruling, a federal judge blocked the ban temporarily, citing concerns over its constitutionality and suggesting it discriminated based on gender identity. However, in April, the Supreme Court lifted the injunction, allowing the policy to move forward while litigation legal back-and-forth has left transgender service members in limbo. Rae has found job hunting in the civilian sector tough. "I applied for a position that had over 800 applicants in one day," they say, adding that civilian life will offer less security than the Navy. "It's competitive and daunting out there."But they say the next chapter is about not feeling "under threat for who I am". Looking ahead Kara didn't self-identify by the 6 June deadline, so is waiting to see if the military flags her for separation - the 30-day window means that should happen by 6 July. She will see what unfolds from US Department of Defense declined to give a statement to the BBC but pointed to previous statements saying it was committed to treating all service members impacted by the policy with dignity and respect. A US defence official said that "characterization of service will be honorable except where the Service member's record otherwise warrants a lower characterization".For now Kara remains at her base in Fort Leavenworth but is prepared to leave with little notice if she has to. She has turned her car into a mobile home with a chunky power bank, cooking equipment, and a fold-out mattress. "On top I've got an eight-gallon water tank. I fill it up, pump it with an air compressor, and I can take a shower out in the wild. At least I have somewhere to live."When she graduated from the leadership programme with distinction, after complying with male uniform and grooming standards, she said it "meant a lot, but how I had to do it felt like erasing my identity"."This is about people who've dedicated their lives to service, now being told they're no longer fit, not because of performance, but because of who they are."
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Europe's tax climbdown for US firms sets a dangerous precedent
There's been a clear delineation in transatlantic power dynamics on display in the past week and the result is two-nil to President Trump versus Europe. It began at last week's Nato summit, where European leaders fell over themselves to sign up to a wildly ambitious 5 per cent of GDP defence spending target to appease the president. The now infamous 'daddy' quip from Mark Rutte, secretary general of Nato, was probably lost in translation but ended up as a neat summation of the continent's firmly supplicant role vis-a-vis the US. Ever since US vice-president JD Vance lambasted Europe's political class at the Munich Security Conference in February, the Continent's leaders have wondered how far they can rally together to stand up to US intimidation. • Call him Daddy … How flattery and fanfare warmed Trump to Nato Europe, it is said, has the economic heft to lead the free-trading world, signing pacts with like-minded countries, and upholding the norms of co-operation and openness as the US sets fire to them. The subsequent humiliation of Ukraine's President Zelensky by Vance two weeks after Munich, followed by Trump's tariff onslaught in April, was even more ballast to the cause of European 'strategic autonomy' in foreign and economic policy. But this initial bullishness about Europe's ability to fight back meaningfully against Trump has vanished. The US, it seems, has most of the cards in the tariff war and the Europeans don't have the stomach for the fight. The Nato 'deal' is just one example of the asymmetries cemented by the most recent skirmishes with Trump. European governments have signed up to massive defence spending targets this decade with no clear route to how they will be achieved. It all has echoes of the hollow promises to buy up American natural gas and soybean imports by the European Commission when Trump threatened tariffs in his first administration. European and G7 leaders have also firmly stood behind the US over its bombing of Iran — a far cry from the transatlantic schism over the Iraq war. Foreign and security policy was always the weakest point of departure for European sovereignty claims. But on economic policy and trade, there has been hope that the bloc will fight for its economic interests and could land meaningful blows against the US, its largest trading partner. This is why the far more significant concession was not at Nato, but one inked over the weekend by the G7, where the EU and the UK agreed to exempt American firms from a global minimum corporate tax of 15 per cent. This is in return for the US abandoning 'revenge taxes' on investors and companies from countries that the president deems to have discriminatory tax regimes targeting US firms. The revenge tax, known as section 899, was part of Trump's 'big beautiful budget' bill that is due to be voted on by US lawmakers this week. • G7 strikes deal with Trump to escape 'revenge' taxes The tax climbdown won't get as much attention as other fronts in Trump's economic warfare but the administration has landed a major blow against Europe's prized regulatory machinery and the world's attempts to stop multinational companies shifting profits around the globe. The 15 per cent minimum rate was agreed by more than 120 countries at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2021. It was the result of a decade of negotiations about how countries should crackdown on corporate profit shifting to tax havens in the years after the financial crisis, when governments bailed out banks and assumed huge debt burdens in the process. Calls for tax justice were redoubled during the pandemic and there was broad agreement that multinationals had to stop gaming the global tax system. It was the US under Joe Biden that forced the Europeans and others to push for two reforms: a 'pillar one' tax would apply to the biggest tech platforms who would be taxed based on where they had customers, and 'pillar two', which would impose a minimum levy of 15 per cent on the largest multinationals with revenues above €750 million. The UK introduced the minimum last year and the EU's 15 per cent was due to kick in from next year, but the US never ratified the agreement after the Democrats lost their majority in the House of Representatives in 2022. This led Trump to claim that the 15 per cent would unfairly target American firms as the US was no longer party to the agreement. The G7 swallowed the argument and in exempting American firms, have hollowed out the only breakthrough in global corporate tax avoidance made this century. The manner in which it was done is equally lamentable. Fiscally constrained governments who had once called for the end of tax havens and demanded big firms pay their fair share, capitulated with ease in the face of a threatened revenge levy which may never have happened. As I've written before, the section 899 clause would have been an act of self-harm from the US and its status as the issuer of the world's reserve currency. In destroying the global minimum tax deal, Trump has given free rein for US tech firms to exploit low tax jurisdictions like Ireland, who he claims are the ones 'ripping off' Americans. Apple and others are far less likely to re-domicile back to America if their cushy tax arrangements get to live another day. The concession is a dangerous precedent for Europe. As Americans will remind their counterparts, what is sovereignty if it is not the ability to decide your own tax affairs? After the OECD scalp, the White House will also demand US tech companies are exempted from Brussels' sweeping digital regulations designed precisely to capture them. Even without a formal deal, a de facto under-enforcement of the EU and UK's digital services laws is on the cards. • Trump threatens retaliation against UK over tax on tech giants Contrast this with how US-China negotiations have evolved. Beijing has emerged with a clear negotiating advantage over Trump, agreeing to keep its precious raw material export licences under a tight leash in return for a tariff rates dropping from 145 per cent to about 50 per cent. Brussels, London, Ottawa and the rest of the G7 have none of the same leverage over Trump.
