Skip to content
Briefings are running a touch slower this week while we rebuild the foundations.See roadmap
Iran Conflict 2026
9APR

US hits Natanz again; no radiation leak

3 min read
11:02UTC

The US hit Iran's main enrichment facility for the second time in this war. The IAEA says 440 kg of near-weapons-grade uranium — enough for roughly ten bombs — remains where it was.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Second Natanz strike leaves 440 kg of weapons-grade uranium untouched and unaccounted for.

The US struck Natanz for the second time since the war began on 28 February. Iran confirmed the hit. The IAEA reported no radiation leak 1. The IDF denied involvement — making this a unilateral American operation, not an Israeli strike.

The return to Natanz contradicts two competing narratives. Netanyahu claimed on 18 March that "Iran no longer has the capacity to enrich uranium" . If that were true, there would be no reason to hit the facility again. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi stated days earlier that "most probably, at the end of this, the material will still be there and the enrichment capacities will be there" . The second strike suggests Washington's own intelligence aligns with Grossi, not with Netanyahu.

Iran holds approximately 440 kg of uranium enriched to 60% — enough, if further enriched to weapons-grade, for roughly ten nuclear devices. Airstrikes can destroy centrifuge cascades. They cannot destroy enriched uranium without causing the radiological contamination both sides claim to want to avoid. The IAEA confirmed no abnormal radiation from Friday's strike, which means the bombs hit hardware, not stockpiles. The core proliferation risk is intact.

Iran's enrichment geography compounds the problem. The IAEA disclosed a previously unknown underground facility at IsfahanIran's fourth known enrichment site — where inspectors have been denied access. Natanz itself has both surface buildings and deeply buried halls; Iran moved critical centrifuge operations underground after the Stuxnet cyberattack destroyed approximately 1,000 centrifuges in 2010. Fordow, another enrichment site, sits under a mountain near Qom. The pattern from two decades of constraint efforts — Stuxnet, the 2021 Mossad sabotage of Natanz, the JCPOA's negotiated limits — is that damage to enrichment hardware is temporary. Iran has rebuilt after every disruption. The 440 kg stockpile, accumulated since Iran began enriching to 60% in April 2021, is the one thing airstrikes cannot safely reach.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Natanz is where Iran spins uranium into increasingly concentrated form using centrifuges. The US has now struck it twice. But the enriched uranium already produced and stored elsewhere cannot be destroyed from the air. Think of it as bombing a factory: you can wreck the production line, but you cannot destroy the finished goods already in the warehouse. Iran has enough material for roughly ten nuclear weapons if it chose to enrich further — and that stockpile is sitting somewhere the bombs are not falling. The strikes are disrupting future production, not the existing inventory.

Deep Analysis
Synthesis

The persistence of the 440 kg stockpile despite two Natanz strikes exposes a structural gap between the stated objective — preventing Iranian nuclear capability — and the available military instrument. Conventional strikes can degrade production capacity but cannot eliminate accumulated fissile material. This gap will define post-war non-proliferation negotiations more than any battlefield outcome, as the material itself becomes the central unresolved variable in any settlement.

Root Causes

Iran's nuclear programme was structurally redesigned after 2003 to be strike-resistant: dispersed across sites, hardened against conventional munitions, and functionally redundant. The Fordow enrichment facility is bored into a mountain and cannot be penetrated by conventional bombs. Conventional airstrikes against enrichment infrastructure were always a partial instrument against this architecture — a limitation Western planners knew before the first strike.

Escalation

The IDF's explicit denial of Natanz involvement signals deliberate US-Israel compartmentalisation of nuclear targeting decisions. This division could create strategic incoherence: Israel may independently strike targets the US has reserved as negotiating leverage for a diplomatic track. The divergence increases operational unpredictability and reduces the coherence of any coercive signalling Iran receives.

What could happen next?
  • Risk

    Iran's intact 440 kg HEU stockpile becomes the central unresolved obstacle to any post-conflict non-proliferation settlement.

    Medium term · Assessed
  • Precedent

    US unilateral nuclear targeting without IDF involvement establishes a distinct American escalation lane operating outside the bilateral targeting framework.

    Immediate · Assessed
  • Risk

    Repeated strikes on enrichment infrastructure without securing the existing stockpile may compress Iran's weaponisation timeline by creating strategic urgency in Tehran.

    Short term · Suggested
  • Consequence

    IAEA inspection access is effectively suspended during active hostilities, creating a verification black hole that will complicate post-war fissile material accounting.

    Short term · Assessed
First Reported In

Update #44 · Trump: 48 hours to destroy Iran power grid

Times of Israel· 22 Mar 2026
Read original
Causes and effects
This Event
US hits Natanz again; no radiation leak
The second strike on Natanz exposes the gap between political claims that Iran's enrichment is destroyed and the IAEA's assessment that the material and capacity will survive. Airstrikes can damage centrifuges but cannot safely destroy 440 kg of 60%-enriched uranium — the actual proliferation risk.
Different Perspectives
Lloyd's of London
Lloyd's of London
The Joint War Committee left Hormuz war-risk premiums at $10-14 million per voyage on 25 May, declining to move on Brent's 5% fall. The JWC's protocol requires a UN Security Council resolution or bilateral government certification letter before de-listing, and neither has arrived: a verbal understanding does not satisfy the formal condition the reinsurance market's treaty terms require.
Gulf Arab producers
Gulf Arab producers
Saudi Arabia and UAE depend on Hormuz for their own crude exports; Aramco CEO Nasser has warned no oil market recovery arrives until 2027 if the blockade continues past mid-June. Monday's $98.96 Brent settlement shortens nothing for Gulf producers without a signed instrument and a Pentagon mine-clearance timeline that runs up to six months post-ceasefire.
Qatar
Qatar
Qatar holds $12bn of frozen Iranian assets at the centre of the sequencing dispute but cannot release them without explicit US Treasury authorisation, given the original freeze was a US instrument. As the asset-holding state, Qatar's leverage is real but passive: it is the escrow holder, not the decision-maker, and any resolution requires US Treasury sign-off that Trump has withheld.
Pakistan
Pakistan
With both Prime Minister Sharif and army chief Munir simultaneously in Beijing on 25 May, Pakistan has for the first time consolidated its civilian and military mediation tracks under China's roof. Munir's direct Tehran-to-Beijing flight signals that the security and financial threads of the sequencing problem are now being worked in parallel rather than sequentially.
China
China
Beijing hosted Pakistan's principal mediators and Iran's China envoy Ghalibaf simultaneously on 25 May while its banking regulator capped new state-bank lending to five sanctioned refiners. China is simultaneously the most credible third-party underwriter of the $12bn sequencing and the state whose institutions face live OFAC secondary-sanctions exposure if the deadlock persists through GL V's expiry.
United States
United States
Trump posted on 24 May that the blockade holds until a deal is certified and signed, ruling out the informal MOU structure both sides had been building. The 'certified, and signed' condition is the first operational bar Trump has attached in 87 days, but it arrived without an executive instrument, maintaining the gap between posted ultimatum and signed US policy.