Ask Onix
Trump administration considers bold nuclear operation
President Donald Trump is reportedly evaluating a daring military plan to extract Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, a move aimed at preventing Tehran from developing nuclear weapons, according to sources familiar with the discussions.
Such an operation would rank among the most complex special missions in history, requiring ground forces to penetrate heavily fortified underground facilities, former U.S. defense officials told the BBC.
Military options on the table
The uranium seizure plan is one of several aggressive strategies under consideration as the U.S. seeks to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. Other proposals include seizing Kharg Island to pressure Tehran into reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a critical oil shipping route.
Trump has not ruled out declaring victory in the conflict without removing or destroying Iran's enriched uranium stockpile. In a Tuesday interview with CBS News, he downplayed the urgency of targeting the material, citing the depth of underground storage sites hit in last year's U.S.-Israeli airstrikes. "It's down there deep. So... it's pretty safe," he said, while acknowledging a final decision had not been made.
The Wall Street Journal first reported the potential extraction operation, though the White House confirmed no definitive action had been ordered.
Logistical hurdles and unknowns
At the start of the conflict, Iran possessed roughly 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, a level that can be rapidly upgraded to weapons-grade (90%), according to U.S. officials. Tehran also held about 1,000 kilograms of 20%-enriched uranium and 8,500 kilograms of 3.6%-enriched material, the latter used for medical research.
Most of the highly enriched uranium is believed to be stored at Isfahan, one of three underground nuclear sites targeted in last year's U.S.-Israeli airstrikes. However, experts warn the material may have been dispersed to other locations, including Fordo and Natanz, complicating any retrieval effort.
"The ideal scenario is that you know exactly where it is," said Jason Campbell, a former senior defense official under Presidents Obama and Trump. "If it's been dispersed to four different sites, then you're talking about a whole different level of complexity."
"There are many questions that we will only elucidate when we are able to go back,"
Rafael Grossi, International Atomic Energy Agency Director
Grossi noted that IAEA inspectors, withdrawn after the 2025 airstrikes, have been unable to verify the current status of Iran's nuclear sites. Satellite imagery from February showed entrances to Isfahan's tunnel complex sealed with earth, suggesting Iran has fortified its defenses since the strikes.
Ground operation risks
Unlike previous U.S.-Israeli strikes that degraded Iran's navy, missile program, and industrial base, securing enriched uranium would require boots on the ground, experts said. The mission would likely involve the 82nd Airborne Division to secure perimeters around Isfahan and Natanz, while special forces trained in nuclear material handling would retrieve the uranium, stored in gaseous form in large metal containers.
"You've first got to excavate the site and detect [the enriched uranium] while likely being under near constant threat," Campbell warned. Heavy machinery would be needed to clear rubble from damaged tunnel entrances, all while facing potential Iranian counterattacks.
Alex Plitsas, a former U.S. defense official, described the operation as "high risk," noting that U.S. troops would be isolated at Isfahan, roughly 300 miles inland. "It makes [medical evacuations] difficult given the distances. It makes [troops] vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire coming in and out," he said.
Extraction or dilution?
The mission could unfold in multiple phases, beginning with the seizure of an airfield or landing zone to establish a staging base. Once secured, the uranium would either be removed from Iran or diluted on-site-a process Jonathan Ruhe, an Iran nuclear expert, called "large, complex, and time-consuming."
Ruhe, of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, argued that extracting the uranium for dilution in the U.S. would be faster but equally perilous. "You've got basically a half ton of what's effectively weapons-grade uranium that you've got to extricate," he said. "And there are a million things that could go wrong."
