U.S. Attack Near Isfahan Targets Iran’s Uranium Stockpile
A recent significant U.S. strike near Isfahan, a central city in Iran, seems aimed at making Iran’s remaining highly enriched uranium stockpiles unreachable by burying them deep underground. This tactic potentially eliminates the need for prolonged and risky U.S. ground operations to extract the material, according to Israeli military analysts.
Ron Ben Yishai, an experienced military analyst and correspondent, emphasized that this attack illustrates a focused U.S. strategy to neutralize Iran’s enriched uranium by entombing it under layers of rock and soil, rather than attempting to remove it forcefully.
Ben Yishai pointed out a pressing issue in the ongoing conflict: Iran still holds approximately 440 kilograms (or 970 pounds) of enriched uranium, at a concentration of 60 percent. This could be swiftly enriched to weapons-grade levels, enabling Iran to create fissile cores sufficient for up to 11 nuclear bombs. This stockpile continues to be a significant worry for both Washington and Jerusalem.
U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff noted that the Iranian negotiators’ failures in recent diplomacy have increased urgency regarding the stockpile. These negotiators did not eliminate their enrichment programs, nor did they abandon anything that couldn’t be extracted by force.
Citing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Ben Yishai stated that the uranium is likely stored deep underground in tunnels at Isfahan and Natanz, both nuclear sites previously attacked during last year’s military operations, including the U.S.-led Operation Midnight Hammer.
He referred to satellite images from a French publication showing a truck entering a tunnel at the Isfahan facility shortly before Israel initiated Operation Rising Lion, a 12-day campaign against Iran.
While experts couldn’t definitively confirm if the container held 60% enriched uranium, they suggested that Iran may have relocated a significant portion—maybe even all—of the material deep underground in anticipation of an Israeli and U.S. assault. The IAEA has indicated that about half of the enriched uranium is housed in Isfahan.
Ben Yishai discussed two potential ways to handle the stockpile: conducting ground operations to extract it or negotiating an agreement for Iran to transfer it out of the country. He expressed skepticism regarding the feasibility of ground operations, suggesting that it would demand more than 1,000 troops, build airstrips in strategic locations, and require heavy engineering equipment for accessing sealed tunnels—all of which would lead to potential U.S. military casualties and necessitate ongoing troop presence in Iran.
He proposed that a more viable solution could be to bury the uranium so deeply that it would take Iran at least a year to recover it, thus buying time for the U.S. and Israel to detect and prevent any efforts to retrieve it.
Based on his analysis, this seems to be the course of action that Washington has opted for. He confidently asserted that the U.S. decided to bury the enriched material rather than a surface extraction or rely on Iranian cooperation. He mentioned an attack on the Natanz facility and a likely similar operation in Isfahan.
This assessment aligns with recent disclosures about the attack. President Trump shared a video on social media displaying large explosions near Isfahan but did not elaborate on the incident. U.S. officials later revealed that the attack used multiple 2,000-pound bunker bombs, designated as targeting a large ammunition cache.
Ben Yishai noted that the U.S. is seemingly careful to avoid directly attacking enriched uranium to prevent the potential spread of radioactive materials. The focus appeared to be on destroying nearby infrastructure, blocking access routes, collapsing tunnel entrances, and entombing uranium beneath over 300 feet of rock.
In previous incidents, such as the earlier Natanz attack, Iran’s claims of no radioactive contamination implied that the objective was to bury the uranium so deeply that its retrieval would necessitate substantial effort and time, which would be noticeable.
This general interpretation resonated with President Trump’s remarks following the attack, where he expressed that he hardly thinks about Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile, claiming it’s “buried very deep” and very hard to access. He insisted that the material is quite safe but mentioned that the U.S. would ultimately decide its fate.
Trump’s comments hinted at the scale of the Isfahan operation, without specifying exact targets. He described the explosions as “big” and “beautiful,” indicating great enthusiasm for the success of the operation.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu echoed similar sentiments in a statement released before Passover, asserting that Israel achieved significant results and maintained that Iran no longer poses a threat to its existence. He indicated that the strikes were aimed at Iran’s nuclear program, missile capabilities, and military infrastructure, effectively reducing Iran’s weapon production potential.
These remarks support Ben Yishai’s argument that the strike on Isfahan represents more than just another attack in an escalating air campaign; it’s part of a deliberate strategy to restrict Iran’s access to crucial nuclear capabilities while avoiding the complications of a long-term U.S. military presence in the country.
Ultimately, this U.S. operation underscores a choice to entomb enriched uranium instead of launching extensive ground missions that would need sustained military deployment within Iranian borders.
Trump hinted that the expansive campaign against Iran may be nearing completion, stating that the U.S. is effectively diminishing Iran’s military capabilities “ahead of schedule” and that there isn’t much time needed for continued presence as U.S. forces target what’s left of Tehran’s offensive capabilities.
