
Iran likely has more underground sites it's could turn into uranium facilities: experts
While President Trump has announced that Iran's 'key' nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan have been 'completely and totally obliterated,' experts said there could be more locations of concern.
David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, told The Post that at least one other location in Iran has been dug out and could be turned into a uranium enrichment facility.
In 2022, Albright published a report placing a new 'underground complex … south of the main uranium enrichment site' at Natanz.
Advertisement
Satellite photos taken of the Fordow nuclear facility days before the bombing, show cargo trucks lined up in front.
7 Prior to bombs being dropped on Iran's 'key' nuclear facilities, trucks were spotted at Fordow.
US Air Force
7 Iran's Fordow nuclear facility after being hit by airstrikes.
MAXAR Technologies
Advertisement
'We don't know was taken away but, obviously, it was something important,' Albright acknowledged. 'They had stocks [of enriched uranium] and they had centrifuges. So, those are things they could have removed.'
As for whether the materials could have been taken to the additional facility he wrote about, Albright said, 'Could be. But I think Israel would know that — they certainly are capable of following those trucks.
'I think it would be very risky,' he added. 'I think Iran is too worried and too scared to really start a [new] enrichment plant, let alone make a move to produce nuclear grade uranium and a nuclear weapon right now.'
While he believes there is a low probability that Iran could be ready to get another facility up and running quickly, Albright said, 'You want to make sure that they're not having a couple thousand centrifuges somewhere, enriching 60% enriched uranium. But I don't think they would do that. I think they're just too disorganized and in shock to do that now — but wait six months.'
Advertisement
7 David Alright believes that there is low probability of Iran getting another nuclear facility up and running quickly.
CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
7 Iranian officials, including the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Mohammad Eslami (right), examining nuclear technology.
IRANIAN PRESIDENT OFFICE HANDOUT/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock
Mohammad Eslami, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, maintained earlier this month that the country had an enrichment site that he described as being in a 'secure and invulnerable location.'
'The new site is fully constructed and located in a secure, invulnerable location,' Eslami said on June 12. 'As soon as centrifuge installation and setup are complete, enrichment will begin.'
Advertisement
Jeffrey Lewis, a professor at Middlebury Institute of International Studies, said that Iran can easily have any number of underground sites that are partially built and ready to be turned into facilities for building nuclear weapons.
'I bet they dug a lot of facilities and didn't put anything in them,' he told The Post. 'Then they have opportunities to move different things around [like the materials from Fordow] and to bring different facilities into operation.'
7 Emily Harding told The Post that 'one thing Iran has continued to do is dig deeper.'
Courtesy of Emily Harding
7 Jeffrey Lewis believes that Iran has dug out more additional facilities but not yet built them out.
Jeffrey Lewis
Emily Harding, director of the Intelligence and National Security and Technology Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, agreed: 'One thing that Iran has continued to do is dig deeper and prepare. They love keeping their options open.'
By cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has been obligated to be transparent about nuclear material and activities. But establishing facilities without yet making them nuclear operational, Lewis said, 'would have allowed Iran to follow the letter of the law — but not the spirit.'
Eslami's June 12 claim came after Iran was censured by the IAEA for failing to be transparent under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
7 Map of nuclear facilities that were hit by bombs during US airstrikes.
Rob Jejenich / NY Post Design
Advertisement
Harding believes that Eslami's claim could be as much to assure the Iranians as to unnerve the West.
'The Iranian leaders have consistently tried to communicate to their population that they are succeeding in their nuclear ambitions,' he said. 'One way to do that is to say that they continue to enrich [uranium] and that they are a nuclear power.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
As Ted Cruz calls for a regime change in Iran, other Texas Republicans are more cautious
WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is pushing for military strikes and a possible regime change in Iran, a hardline stance few in the Texas delegation have yet to embrace. Texas' junior senator this week suggested the U.S. take a larger role in the conflict between Israel and Iran, something President Donald Trump is considering. Trump has, during the last decade, pushed Republicans toward an isolationist agenda, compared to the hawkish days of former President George W. Bush, who sent troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq. Trump has yet to announce a decision on military intervention. More specifically, he is debating, according to multiple news reports, whether to provide Israel with a 'bunker buster' bomb to destroy a nuclear enrichment site embedded within an Iranian mountainside. 'I may do it, I may not do it,' he told reporters outside the White House Wednesday. Cruz said on his podcast that an American attack on Fordow 'makes a lot of sense.' 'There is a reasonable possibility that the president will choose to authorize a targeted bombing strike on the Fordow nuclear weapons research facility,' he told reporters later at the Capitol on Wednesday afternoon. Cruz also said he has shared his opinions with Trump directly. Cruz also discussed the situation at length with conservative commentator Tucker Carlson. The combative interview between Carlson, an isolationist who does not support intervention, and Cruz, a self-described 'noninterventionist hawk,' has become a flashpoint inside Trump's MAGA movement. While Cruz said he does not currently support putting American troops on the ground, 'If the risk got severe enough, I would support that.' U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Waco, who is supportive of a military strike, told the Tribune that in conversations with members of Congress, he has found the 'vast majority' of them are supportive of military action. 'I do admit that there are those that do not support it,' he said in a Wednesday interview. The widest gap between Cruz and other Republicans is whether to seek a regime change. Such a change, Cruz argued on Monday, would 'enhance American security massively' given the animosity Iran has for the United States. 'I am advocating that we use maximum pressure and economic sanctions to pressure the regime in a way that might encourage this regime to fall,' he said. Texas' senior senator, John Cornyn, was more measured on the issue. 'I think that's up to the Iranian people,' he told the Tribune when asked about a regime change. 'Hopefully, they will take the opportunity that this may provide.' Cornyn appeared to be in support of limited military intervention, characterizing the use of larger U.S. munitions as 'a continuation of the current policy' toward Israel. On Fox News a few hours later, though, Cornyn stressed that the United States does not need 'to take the lead in this effort.' 'Israel has a variety of options, and they seem to be doing a very effective job on their own with our support,' he said. When pressed on whether Israel would be able to destroy the Fordow facility without American support, Cornyn said, 'I think they have multiple options,' including the deployment of Israeli ground troops. Other Texas Republicans have yet to take an explicit position on military strikes but say they stand with both Trump and Israel. 'We need to be ready to trust and support the President's decision,' Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a Houston Republican and former Navy SEAL, said on Tuesday. 'I stand with President Trump as we will continue to support our friend and ally, Israel, as it rightfully takes action to defend itself,' Rep. Chip Roy, R-Austin, said last week. Roy expressed support Tuesday for 'strategic limited support' for 'Israel's targeting & denial of Iranian nukes' but is in clear opposition of sending in 'ground troops, regime change, soccer fields, supplemental funding.' Sessions, who was first elected to the House in 1996, has been a player in national politics through several U.S. military operations in the Middle East. But he's not fearing a wide war if America intervenes to strike the nuclear facility. He praised Israel's response, but without American military power, he said, the country 'cannot necessarily finish the fight.' Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Amarillo, appeared ripe for military confrontation. Responding to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's declaration 'the battle begins,' hours after Trump declared him an 'easy target,' Jackson said 'BRING IT.' Three Texas Democrats, along with a bipartisan group in the Capitol's lower chamber, are urging the president to resist joining the fray without congressional approval. Reps. Greg Casar, Lloyd Doggett and Veronica Escobar have signed onto a resolution that would ask Trump to seek congressional approval if he decides to commit U.S. armed forces to Iran. Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Administration briefing doesn't assuage House Democrats' fears of Iran nuclear capabilities
A House briefing from Trump administration officials on last weekend's strikes against Iranian nuclear sites has done little to mollify the concerns of Democrats, who say they were presented little evidence that the attacks will prevent Tehran from producing nuclear weapons. Skeptical Democrats had gone into the briefing with two pressing questions: Did Iran pose an imminent threat to Americans, thereby justifying President Trump's move to launch the strikes without congressional approval? And did the attacks 'obliterate' Iran's capacity to make nuclear weapons, as Trump has claimed? Leaving the closed-door gathering, Democrats said they got satisfactory answers to neither. 'I would say that that particular briefing left me with more concerns and a true lack of clarity on how we are defining the mission and the success of it,' said Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.), the Democratic whip. Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), a former nuclear physicist, said the U.S. strikes likely knocked out Iran's centrifuges and other infrastructure required to enrich uranium in the future. But there's no evidence, he said, that the attacks destroyed Iran's existing stockpiles of enriched uranium. If those are intact, he warned, Iran could still produce weapons with the strength of a Hiroshima bomb in 'a very small breakout time.' 'I was very disappointed that we learned very little about the inventory of high-enriched uranium — 60 percent enriched uranium — its whereabouts and what that meant for the breakout time to Iran's first nuclear device,' Foster said. 'The 60 percent enriched material, while not weapons-grade, is weapons-usable. The Hiroshima device was a mixture of 50 percent and higher enriched uranium. And that worked pretty well.' 'The goal of this mission, from the start, was to secure or destroy that material,' he continued. 'That's where they're hiding the ball. And that's what we have to keep our eyes on.' Friday's House briefing came six days after Trump ordered strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites in an effort to dismantle Tehran's ability to produce nuclear weapons. The briefing was conducted by top administration officials — including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio — who had also briefed Senate lawmakers a day earlier. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence who has clashed with Trump over the threat of Iran's nuclear program, did not attend either briefing. Trump has repeatedly said the mission was an unqualified success, 'obliterating' Iran's nuclear capacity and setting the program back by years. And the president's GOP allies in the Capitol echoed that message after the briefing. 'It is clear, everyone can see by the videos, that these massive ordinance penetrating bombs did the job,' Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said. 'I think their key facilities have been disabled, and I think Iran is now a long time away from doing what they might have done before this very successful operation.' A preliminary report from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reached different conclusions, finding that the strikes set back Iran's nuclear program by months, rather than years. More recent statements from the CIA and Trump's head of national intelligence have disputed the DIA report, creating mixed messages from the administration about the success of the mission. Republicans are siding clearly with the latter. 'You can dismiss the low-level initial assessment, and you can rely upon what the CIA has said, because these are first-hand accounts,' Johnson said. 'The greatest evidence that we have of the effectiveness of this mission was that Iran came immediately and was willing to engage in a ceasefire agreement,' he added. 'That would have been unthinkable just a few weeks back.' Indeed, Trump said Wednesday that administration officials will meet with Iranian officials next week, when the U.S. will press Iran on ending its nuclear ambitions. At least one prominent Democrat, for his part, did air some satisfaction with the briefing: Rep. Jim Himes (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Rubio clarified that the objective of the mission 'was to set back or destroy Iranian nuclear capability in the service of bringing them to the table.' But whether that goal was achieved remains an open question. Himes said that even though the U.S. wants to bring Iran back to the negotiating table, it does not mean Tehran will follow suit. 'There's two questions: Did we, in fact, set back or destroy? And two, Will they come to the table?' Himes said. 'It's really too early to tell what the intentions of the Iranians are. If the intentions are to go to the negotiating table, great. 'But the intentions may also be to just go underground and produce a device.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Jerome Powell accused of lying to Congress over $2.5B 'Palace of Versailles' HQ revamp
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is being accused of lying to Congress after he denied that a $2.5 billion revamp of the central bank's Washington headquarters will load the facility with lavish amenities — and some are demanding that he be punished, The Post has learned. Powell called The Post's exclusive report in April about the bloated renovation project — which led Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) to liken it to the 'Palace of Versailles' during a grilling by the Senate Banking Committee last week — 'misleading and inaccurate'. 'There's no VIP dining room, there's no new marble. There are no special elevators,' Powell insisted under questioning from the powerful panel on Wednesday. 'There are no new water features, there's no beehives, and there's no roof terrace gardens.' 6 Powell was accused by Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) of making 'a number of factually inaccurate statements' during his testimony to the Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday. Jack Forbes / NY Post Design But Powell — who is meanwhile facing heat from President Trump over a failure to slash interest rates — directly contradicted the project's own planning documents, which were signed off by government pen pushers in 2021 — and which haven't been revised since. 6 The costly vanity project was signed off by US government pen pushers in 2021 and costs are already overrunning. NCPC 'The private dining rooms on Level 4 (of the Fed's Eccles building) will be restored,' reads one excerpt from the filing with the National Capital Planning Commission. 'The Governors' private elevator will be extended to discharge at the dining suite level.' The documents also expressly mention 'vegetated roof terraces' that will welcome 'urban wildlife and pollinators' as well as new marble and water features. Andrew T. Levin — a professor of economics at Dartmouth College who served as an economist and advisor to the Fed's board from 1992 to 2012 — urged Congress to step in and punish Powell for lying to lawmakers. 'A top Fed official cannot be permitted to make false statements under oath at a congressional hearing. Such statements must be promptly corrected, and in egregious cases, subject to censure by the Senate,' Levin said. 6 Andrew T. Levin, a former Fed official, has argued for stronger Congressional oversight of the central bank. Dartmouth Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), a majority member of the Senate Banking Committee, told The Post that Powell 'was clearly not prepared for his testimony, and should be embarrassed.' 'He made a number of factually inaccurate statements to the Committee regarding the Fed's plush private dining room and elevator, skylights, water features, and roof terrace,' Lummis said in a statement to The Post. 'This is typical of the mismanagement and 'don't bother me' attitude that Chair Powell has always shown.' A Fed spokesman declined to comment. 6 Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), a majority member of the Senate Banking Committee, told The Post that Powell 'was clearly not prepared for his testimony, and should be embarrassed.' Getty Images The 72-year-old Powell also appeared to dismiss concerns that the revamp was being subsidized by American taxpayers in Wednesday's hearing, saying simply that 'the cost overruns are what they are.' The eye-watering price tag for the overhaul has already ballooned by 30% from an original estimate of $1.9 billion. Sen. Scott, chair of the Senate Banking Committee, branded the renovations as 'luxury upgrades that feel more like they belong in the Palace of Versailles.' 6 Sen. Tim Scott grilled Powell about the eye-wateringly expensive renovations after the Post's April expose on the Fed's DC HQ. AP After The Post broke the story about the Fed's reckless spending on the HQ upgrade, former Department of Government Efficiency chief Elon Musk called the news 'an eyebrow raiser.' The Tesla titan, who has since left government, said DOGE should 'definitely' investigate how so much money came to be blown on the glorified vanity project. By comparison, JPMorgan's new headquarters in Midtown Manhattan — a luxe, 60-story tower at 270 Park Ave. designed by star architect Norman Foster — is set to cost an estimated $3 billion. 6 Planning documents posted online appear to directly contradict Chair Powell's testimony to the Senate Banking Committee. NCPC The revelations are controversial at a time when the Fed is struggling with mounting losses, which stand at a total of $233 billion from the past three years. Its interest costs surged and outstripped its earnings on bonds it owns when Powell hiked rates in trying to tame rampant inflation during the Biden administration. It sank into the red for the first time in its history, posting losses of $114.6 billion in 2023. Officials there insist that losing money in no way impacts their ability to operate and conduct monetary policy. When the Fed makes a profit, that money is then passed on to the US Treasury to become part of the federal government's budget. The losses are bundled together in what is known as the Fed's 'deferred asset' that it must pay down before money can be spent on other things, such as defense, education, and Medicare.