President Donald Trump faces perhaps the most daunting question of the war with Iran: will he send US troops into Iran to secure roughly 970 pounds of enriched uranium that Tehran could use to build nuclear weapons?
Trump has given shifting reasons for the war, but has consistently said a primary objective is to ensure Iran “never have a nuclear weapon.” He has been circumspect, however, about how far he’ll go to destroy Iran’s weapons program, including seizing or destroying near-bomb‑grade material believed buried under rubble at a mountain facility struck in US bombings he ordered last June — strikes he said “obliterated” Tehran’s nuclear program.
Many nuclear experts say recovering that material likely requires a sizable deployment of US forces inside Iran, a dangerous and politically fraught operation for a president who has vowed to avoid long, bloody Middle East entanglements. Lawmakers and analysts warn that if Iran’s hard-liners gain strength during the conflict, they’ll be more motivated than ever to weaponize the program, making control of the enriched uranium critical. That stockpile could allow Iran to build as many as 10 nuclear bombs if weaponized.
Some lawmakers, including Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), say the president has put the nation on a path that will require troops in Iran for what Blumenthal called Trump’s “confused and chaotic objectives.” “Some of the objectives that he continues to espouse simply cannot be achieved without a physical presence there—securing the uranium cannot be done without a physical presence,” Blumenthal said.
Republican allies say plans exist to deal with the enriched uranium. Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair James Risch (R-Idaho) cited “a number of plans that have been put on the table,” without elaborating. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) acknowledged complications: “No one has given me a briefing on how you would do it without boots on the ground,” he said. “It doesn’t mean you can’t. But no one’s ever briefed me about it.” Scott added that leaving the stockpile intact is untenable: “I think it would be helpful to get rid of it.”
Nearly three weeks into a conflict that’s left hundreds dead, strained alliances and hurt the global economy, Trump and top advisers have been opaque about deliberations over the uranium. “I’m not going to talk about that,” Trump said when asked about the enriched uranium. “But we have hit them harder than virtually any country in history has been hit, and we’re not finished yet.” Later he claimed the strikes had neutralized the threat: “They don’t have nuclear potential.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters the administration sees no point in telegraphing “what we’re willing to do or how far we’re willing to go,” asserting “we have options, for sure.”
Experts say seizing or destroying the enriched uranium is doable but difficult. Richard Goldberg, who was director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction at the National Security Council in Trump’s first term, said such an operation could be carried out if the president decides to pursue it. The US and Israeli forces have been working to establish conditions — notably total air superiority — that would allow special operations forces, trained to disable centrifuges and handle nuclear material, to operate. But the mission would be more complicated than recent lightning-strike raids like the capture of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro or the 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Retrieving buried canisters would likely require clearing rubble and using heavy construction equipment, adding logistical and security challenges.
International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi said this week that much of the enriched uranium appears to remain at the three Iranian sites bombarded last year. “The impression we have — is that it hasn’t been moved,” Grossi said, noting a bulk of the material lies beneath rubble at Isfahan, with smaller amounts at Natanz and Fordow.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told CBS’ Face the Nation that Iran offered to dilute the stockpile in talks with Trump’s negotiators, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, before the US and Israel began bombardment; those talks failed to produce a deal. Testifying before a Senate committee, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said US attacks had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment program and buried underground facilities. She said the US has been monitoring whether Iran will try to restart enrichment but that they have not attempted to rebuild the capability; she added that the clerical authority overseeing Iran’s government has been degraded by Israeli strikes but remains intact.
Brandan Buck, a senior foreign policy fellow at the Cato Institute, estimated an effort to extract or dilute the enriched material would likely require more than 1,000 troops at each site and would take time. Not acting carries its own risk: if Iran’s hard-liners hold power with access to enriched material, they have stronger incentives to pursue a weapon.
“Trump has put himself between a rock and a hard place,” Buck said. “Throughout this, he has had maximalist aims, but he’s wanted to maintain minimal effort in order to keep the costs low.”
