International nuclear watchdog agencies are faced with a crisis following the disappearance of approximately 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium from Iran’s nuclear program. The United States warns that the material could yield up to 10 nuclear weapons. The vanishing act was reported just days after unprecedented U.S. airstrikes, conducted with critical Israeli intelligence support, targeted Iran’s most fortified nuclear sites.
Operation Midnight Hammer and the uranium disappearance
The U.S. military operation, codenamed Midnight Hammer, deployed B-2 Spirit stealth bombers on an 18-hour non-stop flight from Missouri to drop six GBU-57 “bunker buster” bombs each weighing 13,000 kg on Iran’s Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear facilities. Israeli intelligence had provided satellite imagery showing 16 cargo trucks lined outside Fordow’s mountain-entombed complex days before the strike, indicating a “frantic effort” to move equipment or materials. Post-attack images confirmed the trucks had vanished, fueling suspicions of a pre-emptive relocation. U.S. Vice President JD Vance acknowledged the uranium’s absence, stating America would “work in the coming weeks” to address the missing fuel, while Israeli officials confirmed to The New York Times that Iran had transferred both equipment and uranium stockpiles.
Intelligence conflicts and strategic implications
Despite President Trump’s declaration that the strikes “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, defense officials offered more tempered assessments, citing “severe damage” rather than total destruction. Israeli intelligence analysts emphasized that Iran’s relocation of the 60%-enriched uranium, just below weapons-grade 90%, means Tehran retains a critical bargaining chip. As Israeli intelligence expert Ronen Solomon noted, possessing the uranium without functional centrifuges is “like having fuel without a car,” though he cautioned Iran might have undiscovered covert facilities.
Where could the uranium be? global analysts are evaluating four high-risk scenarios
1. Hidden Underground: U.S. and Israeli intelligence strongly suspect Iran moved the uranium to another subterranean site, possibly near Isfahan. Annika Ganzeveld of the American Enterprise Institute warned this would allow Iran to “wait out the conflict” and covertly restart enrichment later.
2. Transferred to allies: Harley Lippman, a Middle East policy expert, raised the alarming prospect of Iran entrusting the material to allies like Russia, North Korea, or China for safeguarding or future weapons development.
3. Dispersed for Dirty Bombs: While deemed unlikely by nuclear physicists, the risk of non-state actors acquiring the material persists. Experts note, however, that 60%-enriched uranium makes a “really crappy dirty bomb” compared to medical radioactive sources.
4. Logistical Feasibility: Jeffrey Lewis of the James Martin Center confirmed uranium’s transportability in reinforced steel cylinders, enabling discreet movement by road, rail, or sea consistent with satellite imagery of convoys at Fordow.
The IAEA’s verification crisis
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi urgently addressed the UN Security Council, revealing that inspectors last verified the uranium on June 17, a week before the strikes. Grossi demanded immediate access to account for the stockpile, warning that military escalation “degrades chances of a diplomatic solution.” Iran’s Foreign Ministry had earlier hinted at “special measures” to protect nuclear materials, further complicating verification efforts.
Damage assessment and future threats
While the strikes inflicted heavy damage, particularly at Natanz, where power disruptions likely destroyed centrifuges, the missing uranium represents a latent threat. Before the attacks, Iran’s advanced IR-2m and IR-6 centrifuges could have converted the 400kg stockpile into weapons-grade material for one bomb in under two weeks. Rebuilding this capacity may take years, but Iran’s “indigenous expertise cannot be bombed away,” noted Darya Dolzikova of the Royal United Services Institute.
Global Response & conclusion
The IAEA Board has demanded Iran disclose the uranium’s location, citing legal obligations under nuclear safeguards agreements. Meanwhile, FilterLabs AI detected a surge in Iranian social media sentiment arguing, “this is why we should have a nuclear weapon”, a troubling shift in public opinion.
The mystery of Iran’s missing uranium underscores the limits of military force in halting nuclear proliferation. As diplomatic pressure mounts and intelligence agencies scramble to locate the material, the world faces a destabilizing new chapter in the decades-long effort to contain Iran’s atomic ambitions. The coming weeks will test whether coercive strikes can achieve what years of negotiations could not—or if they have merely scattered a grave threat into the shadows.
