logo
Did Iran's enriched uranium stockpile survive the US-Israeli strikes?

Did Iran's enriched uranium stockpile survive the US-Israeli strikes?

France 24a day ago

In the wake of the US dropping 14 so-called 'bunker buster' bombs on nuclear production sites in Iran on Monday, questions remain over how successfully the operation achieved its aims of destroying Iran's nuclear programme.
US President Donald Trump said the strikes "obliterated' Tehran's major nuclear sites in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, with Israel claiming the strikes set back Iran's nuclear programme by 'many years'.
But a preliminary US intelligence report leaked on Tuesday said the strikes did significant damage, rather than causing complete destruction, echoing a statement from the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) describing 'extensive damage' at multiple sites in Iran.
As Iranian lawmakers voted on Wednesday to suspend all cooperation with the IAEA, the nuclear watchdog has not been able to carry out any inspections since the strikes. There remains an unanswered question over whether the attacks destroyed Tehran's 408.6 kilo reserve of enriched uranium – an essential component if it plans to produce nuclear weapons.
408.6 kilos of enriched uranium
Iran's uranium stockpile is enriched to 60 percent purity, putting it well within reach of the 90 percent purity required for use in nuclear weapons.
'Going from natural uranium to 60 percent takes considerable time and effort,' says Ludovica Castelli, specialist in nuclear development in the Middle East at Italian thinktank, Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI). 'But once you're at 60 percent, the final step to 90 percent is much quicker. Experts estimate it could take just five or six days to enrich enough material for one nuclear weapon, if that political decision were made.'
Before the war, experts believe the stockpile was mainly stored in two places: underground tunnels at a facility in Isfahan, and in a heavily fortified underground enrichment site in Fordow.
Destroying these reserves would constitute a huge set back to Iran's nuclear ambitions. But while satellite images have shown destruction above ground, the two facilities are 'heavily fortified, and despite multiple Israeli and US attacks, there's no indication that those tunnels or the material inside were targeted,' Castelli says.
There is also the possibility that Iran protected its stockpile by moving reserves to hidden storage sites prior to the attacks, as threatened by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.
Initial US and European intelligence suggests this is likely to have happened.
'That raises serious concerns, because if the material is now stored across undisclosed sites, it becomes extremely difficult to monitor, let alone verify, under international safeguards,' Castelli says.
Satellite imagery shows trucks and bulldozers at the Fordow site beginning June 19, three days before the US struck, which may have been used to move the uranium – or not.
Subsequent satellite imagery 'revealed that the tunnel entrances into the underground complex had been sealed off with dirt prior to the US airstrikes,' Stephen Wood, senior director at American satellite imagery and analysis firm Maxar Technologies told AP. 'We believe that some of the trucks seen on 19 June were carrying dirt to be used as part of that operation.'
08:05
Nine nuclear bombs
Iran's supplies of enriched uranium could be converted into enough weapons-grade uranium to make about nine nuclear bombs at a site like Fordow, Castelli says.
However, the uranium 'is not going to enrich itself, and Natanz and Fordow are really badly damaged,' cautions Hans-Jakob Schindler, a former German diplomat in Tehran who today directs the Counter Extremism Project NGO.
The centrifuges used to enrich uranium at Fordow are 'no longer operational,' the IAEA director Rafael Grossi told Radio France Internationale on Thursday.
But it seems likely that Iran still has enrichment capacity at other sites including what Castelli describes as a 'significant underground complex' close to Natanz that is thought to hold high-strength rotors for centrifuges.
If large sections of Tehran's nuclear infrastructure survived the attacks, 'the big question is, if Iran did move some of its 60 percent enriched uranium, in what time frame are they going to be able to enrich that to 90 percent and then build a bomb?' asks Schindler.
Before the start of the Israel-Iran conflict, experts estimated that it would take Iran three weeks to enrich its uranium to 90 percent and then produce nine nuclear weapons.
But such estimates could be a best-case scenario for Tehran as material such as centrifuges are sensitive and must work in tandem to more quickly enrich uranium. 'They work in cascades so if one centrifuge fails, the entire cascade fails,' says Schindler.
'You can't bomb knowledge'
Israeli officials said that on June 23 that its military carried out additional strikes around Fordow in order to damage access routes and prevent the Iranians from transporting materials needed to pursue their nuclear plans elsewhere.
Although Israel and Iran have now agreed to a ceasefire, proposed by Trump, moving uranium out of hiding – if there is any – will not be an easy task.
'If it's in the form of uranium hexafluoride gas, which is what's used in centrifuges, it has to be stored in special high-pressure cylinders,' Castelli says. 'This gas is chemically toxic and highly reactive, particularly with water. If there's a leak during transport, there could be a chemical hazard.'
The chemical is easier to handle when converted to solid form, such as a powder, but still requires steps to reduce contamination and exposure. Castelli says, 'moving it safely would require specialized equipment'.
There is also the risk that such activity would be picked up by US or Israeli surveillance – meaning that Tehran may, for now, prefer to leave any hidden supplies where they are.
The US, Israel and the IAEA all agree that strikes on Iran have set back its nuclear programme, but it remains unclear by how much. 'You just don't know how extensive the damage is. You could argue maybe it's several years', Schindler says.
US intelligence has estimated Tehran's plans have been set back only a few months, although the White House rejected this assessment.
Even then, the main damage is operational and Iran has the know-how to recoup what it has lost. As former US secretary of state Colin L. Powell once remarked, ' you can't bomb knowledge '.
With time, financial investment and willpower, Tehran could rebuild infrastructure to pursue its nuclear programme, buoyed by its possible stash of enriched uranium. Despite 12 days of US and Israeli strikes on Iran, 'there are still engineers. There are more scientists than those that were killed", says Schindler.
That is one of the most compelling arguments against the US-Israeli attacks, the expert says.
Without significant political change and regional integration of Iran, Schindler says two outcomes are likely: 'The next person in power is going to build a nuclear bomb, and they're not going to do that with IAEA inspections. So, [the West] is going to have to attack Iran again, and they may not know as much about the nuclear programme as they did this time. They will be taking an ever-increasing risk.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Paris's Iranian diaspora debates war, mullahs and 'what comes next' at city bookshop
Paris's Iranian diaspora debates war, mullahs and 'what comes next' at city bookshop

LeMonde

timean hour ago

  • LeMonde

Paris's Iranian diaspora debates war, mullahs and 'what comes next' at city bookshop

"All Iranians who follow politics expected the American attack, but based on reactions expressed in Iran on social media, supporters of the regime did not. They are in shock," said the Iranian Tinouche Nazmjou, a theater director, editor and founder of the Parisian bookshop Utopiran. Le Monde spoke to him by phone just hours after the sudden strike carried out by the United States against Iran on June 21. Nazmjou launched a series of debates titled "Debates Before the Fall," the second session of which is scheduled for June 26 at the bookshop. The discussions were filmed and broadcast on a Telegram channel followed by 100,000 people, most of them in Iran. Bamdad (who did not wish to give his last name), 45 years old and the son of a communist opponent, is a regular. "After America's attack, we're getting closer to a scenario like Iraq or Libya. I don't support the mullahs, but I'm even more afraid of the chaos that would come from a power vacuum," he explained by phone. On June 20, before the Israel-Iran war took a turn with America's intervention, Bamdad and about 40 other Iranians – some recently arrived in France, others who have been here for more than 40 years since the fall of the shah – gathered at the bookshop in Paris's 15 th arrondissement. On the counter, a granita machine was churning out yakh dar behesht, or "ice in paradise," a saffron-colored dessert that reminded them of home.

'Trump is discovering that a country cannot be run like a business'
'Trump is discovering that a country cannot be run like a business'

LeMonde

time2 hours ago

  • LeMonde

'Trump is discovering that a country cannot be run like a business'

Beyond President Trump's deliberately provocative remarks and showmanship, the Make America Great Again (MAGA) politics raise a fundamental question for the Western world: In an era of global speculative capitalism, do states still have real economic policy power? Donald Trump presents himself as a defender of national interests when he demands allegiance from digital giants or threatens tariffs to force companies to bring manufacturing back to the US. Relocating in this context means realigning the economic space of producers and consumers with the political space of voters. At the same time, recognizing that the growth of US government debt (120% of GDP) limits his room to maneuver, MAGA is attacking the very structure of the federal government. Some libertarian thinkers accuse it of being a "deep state," in other words, a network of agencies dedicated to maintaining social peace by distributing subsidies and benefits, at the cost of massive public debt. The brutal and disruptive methods of MAGA politics raise many concerns. Yet these reservations should not distract from the central issue: Does the State still have the power needed to regulate a globalized capitalism whose logic escapes national interests? The authoritarian response to this question characterizes Chinese capitalism, which the Trump administration has set up as a rival to be emulated, precisely because it seeks to combine economic power with political sovereignty.

How securing rights through citizenship has become 'increasingly fragile'
How securing rights through citizenship has become 'increasingly fragile'

Local France

time5 hours ago

  • Local France

How securing rights through citizenship has become 'increasingly fragile'

The first Global State of Citizenship report, by the Global Citizenship Observatory (GLOBALCIT) at the European University Institute (EUI) in Florence, analyses citizenship laws in 191 countries in 2024. Researchers found that "with the growing number of armed conflicts and incidence of terrorism worldwide, many countries have introduced provisions for withdrawing the citizenship of a person on the basis of national security grounds.' Over a third of countries, including many European ones, 'can now strip a person of their citizenship when their actions are seen as disloyal or threatening to state security,' the report says, and the trend has been expanding. The practice is linked to an 'increasing securitisation of citizenship' since the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 in the USA. Between 2000 and 2020, 18 European countries put in place measures to deprive persons of citizenship because of national security or to counter terrorism. Before 2001, these measures were 'virtually absent', the report says. Recently, the Swedish government commissioned an inquiry on the revocation of citizenship from individuals threatening national security . Germany's coalition parties discussed this option for 'supporters of terrorism, antisemites, and extremists'. Hungary also amended the constitution to allow the temporary suspension of citizenship because of national security. Middle East and North Africa are other regions where these policies have expanded, the report says. Advertisement Ways to strip citizenship The report identifies four ways in which citizens can be stripped of their status on security grounds. Nearly 80 per cent of countries have rules covering at least one of these situations. In 132 countries around the world, and two thirds of European states, citizenship can be removed for disloyalty or for acts that threaten national security, such treason, espionage, trying to overthrow a government or terrorism. Such rules exist in Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Turkey and the UK. In 89 countries, however, this rule concerns only to people who naturalised, not those who acquired citizenship by birth. Another reason that can lead to the stripping of citizenship is having committee serious criminal offences, which typically involves having been sentenced to imprisonment for a certain period. These rules exist in 79 countries but only a few in Europe. In 70 countries, citizenship can be removed for serving in a foreign army and in 18 this measure concerns only people who acquired citizenship by naturalisation. In Europe, 40 per cent of countries – including France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Estonia, Turkey, Belarus and Bosnia Herzegovina – can remove citizenship under certain conditions for having served in another army. Latvia, one of the countries that can revoke citizenship for such reasons, changed the law in 2022 to allow its citizens to work with the Ukrainian military forces. Citizenship can also be removed for providing non-military services to another state, such as being elected in a public office, working for certain agencies or just in the civil service. Such rules exist in 75 countries around the world and some in Europe too, including France, Greece and Turkey. Advertisement People naturalised more at risk Luuk van der Baaren, co-author of the report, said at the presentation of the study that 'these developments indeed raise an important question as to what extent is citizenship still a secure legal status'. The data also shows that 'a large share of the citizenship stripping provisions are discriminatory in nature, as they only apply to specific groups, particularly citizens by naturalisation'. This is to prevent that a person remains stateless, but it means that 'citizens by birth have a secure legal status, while those who acquired citizenship later in life do not,' he added. Losing citizenship may not only affect the personal security and life opportunities, but also that of dependants, the report says, as in 40 per cent of countries citizenship deprivation can extend to children. Other ways of losing citizenship There are other ways, intentional or not, to lose citizenship, according to the report. The most common, is to have withdrawn because it was acquired in a fraudulent way. Such rules exist in 157 countries. 156 states have also rules on how to voluntarily renounce citizenship, usually with provisions to ensure that a person does not end up stateless. In 56 countries, people can lose their citizenship if they acquire another nationality, and in 55 this may occur by simply residing abroad. Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 'everyone has the right to a nationality', but four million people in the world are stateless 'because their citizenship remains denied or unrecognised,' the report continues. On the other hand, 35 countries do not allow people to renounce citizenship, or make this impossible in practice. Advertisement Unequal rights The report also looks at ways to acquire citizenship and finds 'highly unequal pathways'. The most common naturalisation requirement knowledge. Less common are economic self-sufficiency, civic or cultural integration, language or citizenship tests, and renunciation of other citizenships. On residency requirements, Americas and Western Europe have the more inclusive measures. Citizenship in European countries is also regulated via the European Convention on Nationality, under which the residence requirement cannot exceed 10 years. In 15 countries the wait is longer than 10 years: Equatorial Guinea (40 years), United Arab Emirates (30), Bahrain (25), Qatar (25), Bhutan (20), Brunei (20), Eritrea (20), Oman (20), Chad (15), Gambia (15), Nigeria (15), Rwanda (15), Sierra Leone (15), St. Kitts and Nevis (14), and India (11).

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