Latest news with #uraniumEnrichment
ABC News
22-06-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
Iran's nuclear sites have been 'obliterated'. This is how dangerous that could be
A 13 tonne bomb — yes, you read that right — being dropped on a nuclear site so sensitive it was embedded almost 100 metres inside a mountain. When you put it like that, it's no surprise Sunday's US attacks on Iran put much of the world on edge. US President Donald Trump hailed the mission, which involved stealth bombers launching strikes on three uranium enrichment facilities, as a huge success. The targets at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan had been "totally obliterated" he said. While devastating consequences are associated with any act of war, words like "nuclear" and "radioactive" can trigger extra concerns. Let's unpack them. The first thing Pete Bryant, from the University of Liverpool, wants you to do, is get high-profile nuclear disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima out of your mind. "It's important to distinguish between nuclear power plants and uranium enrichment facilities, as they are fundamentally different in function, design, and risk," he said. The sites targeted in Iran — Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow — are uranium enrichment facilities, that handle "low-level radioactive material", said Professor Bryant, a leading radiation protection professional and scientist. That's in complete contrast to nuclear power plants like Ukraine's Chernobyl, which was the site of the world's worst nuclear disaster, and Japan's Fukushima, which sustained major damage in a 2011 earthquake and tsunami. Power plants contain things like nuclear reactor cores, spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste, which make them much more dangerous. "Iran's uranium enrichment facilities are not reactors, do not have comparable inventories of radioactive material, and cannot experience similar failures," Professor Bryant said. "So while comparisons are often made due to the use of the term 'nuclear', the facilities involved in the current situation are nothing like Chernobyl or Fukushima in design, function, or risk profile." Just because the Iranian facilities targeted by the US aren't capable of causing a nuclear meltdown, that doesn't mean there aren't dangers. After all, the US used the world's largest non-nuclear bombs in the attack. Professor Bryant said the uranium isotopes found at Iran's Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan facilities emitted alpha particles which "are stopped by a few centimetres of air, cannot penetrate skin, and pose a risk only if inhaled or ingested". In other words, these substances pose little radiological risk. But there are chemical concerns. He said the uranium gas used in these facilities formed the toxic substances of Uranyl Fluoride and Hydrofluoric Acid when exposed to air and moisture. The latter is "corrosive and dangerous upon inhalation", Professor Bryant said. "Even in the unlikely event of an internal release, any contamination would remain largely confined within the structure, especially in underground sites like Fordow, which is protected by 80-90 metres of reinforced rock," he said. While not necessarily the case in Iran right now, Timothy Mousseau — an internationally recognised authority on the effects of radiation on natural systems — said the blasts could affect the natural environment. "Large explosions at nuclear enrichment sites or spent fuel storage sites are potentially of very large environmental impacts," Professor Mousseau said. On Sunday, Mariano Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency — an international organisation that promotes the safe and peaceful use of nuclear technologies — said Iranian authorities had reported no increase in off-site radiation levels after the US attacks. Given radiation is easy to detect, even at low levels, that announcement will have allayed global concerns about an environmental catastrophe. Although as Professor Mousseau, from the University of South Carolina, pointed out: "Nuclear fuel for bombs and reactors is both radioactive and chemical toxic and their dispersal can have profound environmental impacts for decades, centuries and even millennia given that the half-life of uranium-235, the main active ingredient for nuclear reactors, is over 700 million years, and the half-life of plutonium-239, the main ingredient of an atomic bomb, is more 24,000 years."
Bloomberg
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Bassiri Tabrizi: Promising To See Diplomacy Back on Table
President Trump says he is putting off US action on Iran, for now. The White House says he'll decide within two weeks whether to attack, adding that his goal remains halting uranium enrichment, and he remains open to diplomacy if possible. Gulf leaders are assessing the possibility of the Islamic Republic's clerical regime falling as an impact of the war between Israel and Iran. Aniseh Bassiri Tabrizi, Senior Analyst at Control Risks told Bloomberg's Horizons Middle East and Africa anchor Joumanna Bercetche on the next steps ahead. (Source: Bloomberg)
Bloomberg
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
McCarley: Nobody Is Interested in Going to War
US President Donald Trump will decide within two weeks whether to strike Iran. The White House says his goal remains halting uranium enrichment, and he remains open to diplomacy if possible. Mark MacCarley, Retired Major General US Army, spoke to Bloomberg's Horizons Middle East and Africa anchor Joumanna Bercetche on the likelihood of the US attacking Iran. (Source: Bloomberg)
Fox News
16-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Trump's 14-year history opposing Iranian nukes counters media spin he'd allow them
Despite previous media reporting that the Trump administration is open to allowing Iran to continue its uranium enrichment program, potentially allowing the development of Iranian nuclear weapons, President Donald Trump has taken a strong stance on the issue, repeatedly saying he would not allow the country to develop any nuclear weapons. Axios reported earlier this month that as part of a deal to ease U.S. sanctions offered to Iran by White House envoy Steve Witkoff, "would allow limited low-level uranium enrichment on Iranian soil for a to-be-determined period of time." This was something the outlet said risked backlash from Trump allies on Capitol Hill and in Israel. Shortly after the Axios story, Trump posted on Truth Social that "under our potential Agreement — WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANY ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM!" The AP reported that Trump's message "appeared to undercut a proposal that was offered" by his administration and that Witkoff and the president "have repeatedly offered inconsistent public messages about whether Iran would be allowed to retain the capacity to enrich uranium to lower levels for civilian purposes." Trump, however, has consistently said that he would not, under any circumstances, allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. Dating back to 2011, Trump has gone on the record voicing his belief that Iran should not have access to nuclear weapons over three dozen times. As early as his 2011 book "Time to Get Tough," Trump said: "America's primary goal with Iran must be to destroy its nuclear ambitions. Let me put them as plainly as I know how: Iran's nuclear program must be stopped by any and all means necessary. Period. We cannot allow this radical regime to acquire a nuclear weapon that they will either use or hand off to terrorists." He has also made clear his stance that Iran should not even be allowed to further develop nuclear arms, saying in a 2011 tweet that "Iran's nuclear program must be stopped – by any and all means necessary." Then, after announcing his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump criticized President Barack Obama for negotiating "a disastrous deal with Iran," saying, "Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and, under a Trump Administration, will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon." Then again, in 2017, Trump was quoted by NPR saying, "We will deny the regime all paths to a nuclear weapon." On the 2024 campaign trail, Trump said repeatedly that nuclear ramping up is "the biggest risk we have." In an interview with Patrick Bet-David "the real threat isn't global warming. The real threat is -- threat is nuclear warming." Referring to Iran, he said, "they're very close to having a nuclear weapon," and "I wanted Iran to be very successful. I just don't want them to have a nuclear weapon." He also criticized former President Joe Biden, saying he "should never have allowed them to get this far. They're way -- they're way advanced now." While campaigning, Trump was recorded at least 34 times saying Iran should have no way of developing nuclear weapons, a Fox News Digital review of video shows. "They can't have a nuclear weapon. And now, they're very close to having one, and it's very dangerous for the world, very dangerous for the world. I mean, the biggest -- the biggest problem today, in my opinion, the biggest risk is the nuclear weapons, the weaponry. It's so powerful today," he said in a campaign rally in Milwaukee in October. "They're financing Hamas, and they're financing Hezbollah … they go around, saying, 'Death to Israel. Death to America.' And they chant it openly all over the place. Don't let Iran have nuclear weapons. That's my only thing I have to tell you today. Don't let them have it," he said at a campaign event in Clive, Iowa. Iran has repeatedly said it will not agree to a uranium enrichment ban, arguing it has the right to the process, which is also vital for nuclear energy. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi on Monday reiterated this point in a press conference from Egypt, and, according to the Tasnim News Agency, said he plans to respond to the U.S. proposal soon.
The Guardian
13-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Footage captures moment Iran's Natanz nuclear site is hit by Israel
Footage aired by Iranian state media showed what looked to be the immediate aftermath of several explosions on the horizon at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility. Fireballs and plumes of smoke could be seen coming from the facility after Israeli strikes hit more than 100 targets in Iran. Natanz is one of Iran's key sites for uranium enrichment. The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that the enrichment plant had been hit and added later that the Iranian authorities had not detected any increased radiation levels at the site
