logo
Amid mystery over uranium, expert tells how Iran could've moved it out of nuclear sites

Amid mystery over uranium, expert tells how Iran could've moved it out of nuclear sites

First Post17 hours ago

Amid mystery about the location of Iran's uranium stockpile and reports it could have been moved out before US strikes, an expert has explained how Iran could have moved it out of the nuclear sites struck by the United States. Read to know how uranium could have been moved and what we know of its status. read more
A satellite image shows damage to the tunnel entrances of the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Research Centre, following US airstrikes amid the Iran-Israel conflict, in Isfahan, Iran. Maxar Technologies/Reuters
While there is no clarity about the whereabouts of Iran's highly enriched uranium, an expert has explained how Iran could have moved it out of nuclear sites attacked by the United States last week.
Iran was understood to have stored 60 per cent highly-enriched uranium at Isfahan and Fordow nuclear sites that the United States struck last month. The Fordow site was struck with GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) 'bunker buster' bombs and Isfahan was hit with submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
While the Donald Trump administration has maintained that US strikes obliterated these sites, independent analysts have said that the US strikes imposed significant but not irreversible damage. There are also signs that the uranium stockpile to the tune of 440 kilograms was not destroyed.
Even though the relocation of radioactive highly enriched uranium appears difficult, it is quite simple as such uranium is in gas form of uranium hexafluoride and can be transported in cylinders in trucks, Daryl G Kimball, the Director of Arms Control Association, told Fox News' Jennifer Griffin.
Satellite imagery has shown several trucks lined up at the Fordow nuclear site in the days leading to US strikes. Observers have said that those trucks could have been used to transport uranium out of the site before the US strikes. Such an assessment is backed by the fact that no radioactive contamination was detected after strikes at Fordow, suggesting that either the site had no uranium or US bombs did not hit any uranium there.
Expert explains how Iran could've moved uranium
Kimball said that highly enriched uranium in gaseous form is highly mobile and can be transported in cylinders that might look like a water heater in a house or a scuba tank. As the stockpile was just 440 kgs, it could therefore be moved in 40-50 cylinders in two-three trucks.
'It doesn't require that many vehicles to move it. There's no radiation that's leaking that requires special protection. There has to be protection. So it is not that difficult to move,' Kimball told Fox Chief National Security Correspondent Griffin.
Kimball agreed with analysts who have said that the Isfahan site is unlikely to have been destroyed by Tomahawk missiles. He said that the evidence suggests that Iranians indeed moved the uranium out of sites that Israel and United States struck.
'The Iranians had notified just before the Israeli military action that if attacked, they would take the uranium enriched at 60 per cent, the 440 kilograms, out of the facilities and move it somewhere else. I think we have to assume they've done that. They were planning for these strikes. It may be the case that Israeli intelligence thinks it knows where Iran took this. I'm actually doubtful, but you never know. But most likely they have moved it. And the IAEA has said they don't know where it is. JD Vance said the United States does not know where it is. So that's a problem,' said Kimball.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Does it mean US strikes failed? Not that simple
Iran's relocation of uranium does not mean that US and Israeli strikes failed at not all components needed to make nuclear bombs were likely relocated.
The uranium that Iran likely relocated was just 60 per cent enriched whereas it takes around 90 per cent enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb. Iran needs centrifuges to further enrich any uranium to weapons-grade level of 90 per cent. It's unlikely that Iran managed to save centrifuges like uranium stockpile.
Kimball said, 'It is very difficult to power down, package up the centrifuge machines. So it's unlikely that Iran was able to salvage workable centrifuge machines before the strikes from Natanz and Fordow.'
However, even that is not an irremovable obstacle in the way of Iran making a nuclear weapon if it decides to.
'The bottom line is that the Iranians likely have residual capabilities either in undisclosed sites and they have centrifuge workshops that can reassemble or rebuild these machines. And, if uninterrupted, eventually they can —if they want to— reconstitute a large portion of what was destroyed in these strikes. So, as I said, the strikes can set back the programme, it cannot eliminate it completely,' said Kimball.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Israel intercepts missiles from Yemen, warns Houthis of blockade
Israel intercepts missiles from Yemen, warns Houthis of blockade

India Today

time9 minutes ago

  • India Today

Israel intercepts missiles from Yemen, warns Houthis of blockade

The Israeli army said on Saturday that a missile launched from Yemen toward Israeli territory had been "most likely successfully intercepted".Israel has threatened Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthi movement - which has been attacking Israel in what it says is solidarity with Gaza - with a naval and air blockade if its attacks on Israel the start of Israel's war in Gaza in October 2023, the Houthis, who control most of Yemen, have been firing at Israel and at shipping in the Red Sea, disrupting global Most of the dozens of missiles and drones they have launched have been intercepted or fallen short. Israel has carried out a series of retaliatory strikes.- EndsMust Watch

Harvard & Toronto Universities join hands to host international students amid Trump's visa blockade
Harvard & Toronto Universities join hands to host international students amid Trump's visa blockade

First Post

time18 minutes ago

  • First Post

Harvard & Toronto Universities join hands to host international students amid Trump's visa blockade

Harvard University and the University of Toronto came out with a plan that would see some of the Harvard students complete their studies in Canada if visa restrictions prevent them from entering the United States read more A Harvard sign is seen at the Harvard University campus in Boston, Massachusetts, on May 27. Image used for representation. (Source: AFP) Harvard University and the University of Toronto are collaborating to host international students who are facing visa restrictions imposed by US President Donald Trump. Both institutions came out with a plan that would see some of the Harvard students complete their studies in Canada if visa restrictions prevent them from entering the United States. The pact between the two institutions reflects how schools are willing to collaborate to ensure that students are not affected by the tumultuous policies introduced by the current Trump administration. The deal was struck between the Harvard John F Kennedy School of Government and the University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In a letter to the students, Jeremy Weinstein, the Harvard Kennedy School Dean, noted that the plans were meant to ease concerns. He maintained that a formal program would only be unveiled if there is 'sufficient demand' from students who are unable to come to the United States. 'We are deeply grateful for the support of the Munk School and other partners, who are helping to ensure that we can continue to provide all HKS students with the excellent education they deserve,' he said in his letter. Harvard's struggle with the Trump administration The American university is locked in an acrimonious legal battle with the Trump administration after it claims the Department of Homeland Security improperly revoked its ability to enrol international students. It is pertinent to note that nearly a quarter of Harvard's students come from outside the US, and their students are a key source of funding for the school. So far, Harvard has won two preliminary injunctions against the DHS, probably clearing a path for international students to obtain entry visas. 'These are exceptional times,' Janice Stein, the founding director of the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, said in a statement. 'If Harvard Kennedy School international students are not able to complete their studies in Cambridge, Mass., the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy looks forward to providing shared academic and co-curricular experiences for students from both our schools.' In addition to the HKS at Munk School program, institutes are also announcing HKS Global, which will have both an online and in-person component. The University of Toronto made it clear that Harvard students attending their college will still have to apply for Canadian study permits and will be enrolled as full-time, non-degree students at the Munk School. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The program is only open to students who have already completed a year of study in the United States. Interestingly, Canada has put its cap on international students and curtailed the number of visas it will allow. The University of Toronto said the plan with Harvard 'would not reduce the number of spaces available for U of T students in any academic programs or university housing'.

US has more than 750 military bases in 80 countries, but not a single in India due to....
US has more than 750 military bases in 80 countries, but not a single in India due to....

India.com

time19 minutes ago

  • India.com

US has more than 750 military bases in 80 countries, but not a single in India due to....

US has more than 750 military bases in 80 countries, but not a single in India due to.... The US has more than 750 military bases in 80 countries around the world not have a single military base in India. Despite having more than 100 bases in Germany, 120 in Japan and 73 in South Korea, the Pentagon has not built a single base in India. Do you know why? What is the reason behind this decision? From Nehru to Modi, all Indian governments have said the same thing: there will be no foreign troops on Indian soil. No matter what agreements or pressures are put in place. According to a report by India Today, India's policy is built with memories of the colonial era and the future in mind. India understands that US military bases are often used not for defense, but for political gain. Why doesn't US have a military base in India? There are many reasons why US does not have a military base in India. The first reason is India's history. India was once a slave of the British. That is why India does not want any other country to rule over it. The second reason is India's strategy. India can protect itself. It has one of the largest armies in the world. It also has nuclear weapons. India does not want to be at enmity with US' enemies India has seen US intervention. In 1953, the CIA engineered a coup in Iran. There were regime changes in Guatemala, Chile and Iraq too. India knows that military bases are often used for political maneuvers. They are not just for defence. Recently, Iran launched a missile attack on Qatar's Al Udeid base. Qatar had nothing to do with the US-Iran conflict. But it was attacked because there was an American base there. India does not want to be pitted against America's enemies. India can protect itself. It has a large army, nuclear weapons, navy and the power to wage cyber war. Therefore, India does not need the protection of any other country. India maintains relations with other countries according to its own will. It does not come under anyone's pressure. India has some military bases in Tajikistan, Mauritius and Bhutan. But these bases are there with the consent of those countries. India does not rule over them. India wants to work together with other countries. It does not want to make anyone its slave. India conducts military exercises with America. US cannot keep its troops in India India has also signed agreements like LEMOA with the US. But it is clear in these agreements that the US cannot keep its troops in India. Indian officials always say that logistical access does not mean base access. That is, India can let the US use its military bases, but the US cannot build its bases there. This policy of India keeps it diplomatically independent. It can maintain relations with Russia, the US, China and other countries simultaneously. It does not need to support any one country.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store