 (6).png)
3 hours ago
2
ARTICLE AD BOX
The United States and Israel are in active discussions about deploying special operations forces into Iran to physically secure or destroy its stockpile of highly enriched uranium — a mission that would place troops on Iranian soil in the middle of a live war, navigate heavily fortified underground facilities, and potentially involve scientists from the International Atomic Energy Agency operating under fire.
The discussions, first reported by Axios citing four officials with knowledge of the deliberations, represent the most significant escalation in strategic planning since the US-Israel strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities last June. At the heart of the operation is 450 kilograms of 60%-enriched uranium, material that could be converted to weapons-grade purity within weeks and, if fully enriched to 90%, would be sufficient to construct eleven nuclear bombs.
The Trump administration has framed the neutralisation of Iran's nuclear capability as a central war objective. How it intends to achieve that objective is now becoming clearer — and more consequential.
What Is Being Planned by US and Israel — Two Options on the Table
According to a US official familiar with the internal deliberations, the administration is weighing two distinct courses of action: physically removing Iran's enriched uranium from the country entirely, or deploying nuclear experts to dilute the material on-site, rendering it unusable for weapons purposes.
Either option would require special operations units to enter Iran, locate the stockpile, establish physical control, and either extract or neutralise it — all while operating in an active conflict zone. The mission would likely involve special operators working alongside scientists, possibly including personnel from the IAEA.
The operational complexity is formidable. "The first question is, where is it? The second question is, how do we get to it and how do we get physical control?" a US official said. "And then, it would be a decision of the president and the Department of War, CIA, as to whether we wanted to physically transport it or dilute it on premises."
Where Is Iran's Uranium? Can Anyone Reach It?
The June strikes by US and Israeli forces on Iran's nuclear facilities buried the uranium stockpile under rubble at multiple sites. Crucially, Iranian authorities themselves have been unable to access the material since the strikes, according to US and Israeli officials — a detail that both complicates and potentially aids any future retrieval mission.
US and Israeli intelligence assess that the majority of the stockpile sits within the underground tunnel network of the nuclear facility at Isfahan. The remainder is divided between the facilities at Fordow and Natanz. In the opening days of the war, strikes on Natanz and Isfahan appeared deliberately aimed at sealing the entrances to those facilities — a move interpreted as an effort to prevent Iran from moving the material before any retrieval operation could be mounted.
The strikes also destroyed nearly all of Iran's centrifuges, and there is no evidence that uranium enrichment has resumed.
Marco Rubio's Unambiguous Signal to Congress
The clearest public indication that a ground operation is under active consideration came at a congressional briefing on Tuesday, when Secretary of State Marco Rubio was asked directly whether Iran's enriched uranium would be secured.
"People are going to have to go and get it," Rubio said, declining to specify who would carry out the mission or under what timeline.
An Israeli defence official subsequently confirmed to Axios that the Trump administration is seriously considering deploying special operations units into Iran for specific, targeted missions — a characterisation echoed by multiple sources familiar with the deliberations.
Trump: Ground Troops Possible — 'For a Very Good Reason'
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Saturday, Trump declined to rule out the deployment of ground forces into Iran, while setting a deliberately high threshold for such a decision.
"If we ever did that, [the Iranians] would be so decimated that they wouldn't be able to fight on the ground level," he said.
Asked specifically whether troops might enter Iran to secure nuclear material, Trump did not close the door. "At some point maybe we will. We haven't gone after it. We wouldn't do it now. Maybe we will do it later."
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt reinforced the administration's characteristic ambiguity on strategic intentions, telling Axios that Trump "wisely keeps all options available to him open, and does not rule things out."
Kharg Island Also in the Frame — Iran's Oil Lifeline at Risk
Beyond the nuclear stockpile, Axios reports that administration officials have discussed a separate and potentially equally consequential operation — the seizure of Kharg Island, the strategic terminal responsible for approximately 90% of Iran's crude oil exports. Such a move would effectively sever Iran's primary source of revenue, compounding the economic pressure already exerted by the war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
The discussions around Kharg Island have not been confirmed by the White House, but their emergence alongside the nuclear retrieval planning suggests the administration is contemplating a significantly broader set of strategic objectives than have been publicly acknowledged.
'Not Fallujah' — How the Administration Is Defining 'Boots on the Ground'
The discussions have prompted a deliberate effort by administration officials to reframe what the deployment of ground forces would actually mean in this context — anticipating the political and media reaction that any such announcement would trigger.
"Boots on the ground for Trump is not the same as what it means for the media," a senior US official told Axios. "Small special ops raids — not a big force going in," another source added.
A third source was equally explicit: "What has been discussed hasn't been thought of in terms of boots on the ground. People think Fallujah. That's not what has been discussed."
The framing is significant. The administration appears acutely aware that any suggestion of a large-scale ground invasion of Iran would generate enormous domestic and international resistance — and is working to distinguish targeted special operations missions from the kind of protracted military engagement that defined the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
English (US) ·