From ‘We Struck It Down’ to ‘We Know Where It Is’ — The Israel-U.S. Campaign Over Iran’s Uranium

Conflicting Narratives: Israel and America’s Shift on Iran’s Enriched Stockpiles

In recent public comments, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that Israel knows the location of about 400 to 450 kg of highly enriched uranium in Iran—near weapons-grade levels—and that intelligence has been shared with the U.S. ایران اینترنشنال | Iran International+2Yahoo+2
He claimed that Israel knew these stockpiles would survive earlier strikes and that the focus had been on disabling Iran’s capacity to enrich further and to weaponize the material. ایران اینترنشنال | Iran International

Israeli intelligence reportedly now admits that Iran’s nuclear program was not fully destroyed during the June campaign—reinforcing the view that the nuclear threat remains alive. Le Monde.fr

So Israel’s public narrative has shifted: from claims of “destroyed facilities” to boasting of precise knowledge of hidden enriched uranium.

---

U.S. Demands: “Hand Over All Enriched Uranium”

Parallel to Israel’s shift, multiple news sources report that U.S. negotiators put forward a demand that Iran surrender its entire enriched uranium stockpile in exchange for limited sanctions relief—a 90-day reprieve. Yahoo Finance+3mint+3Al Arabiya English+3

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian rejected this demand outright, calling it “absolutely unacceptable.” mint+2Malaysiakini+2
He argued that negotiating to hand over sovereign nuclear material in return for temporary reprieve from sanctions would undermine Iran’s national dignity and security. mint

Thus, while Israel speaks in terms of “knowing” and potentially neutralizing the stockpiles, the U.S. is asking for physical transfer or control of the enriched material as a diplomatic condition.

---

Iran’s Position and Response

Iran has consistently denied pursuing nuclear weapons and insists its enrichment is for civilian purposes. In the face of these demands:

• Iran rejects handing over enriched uranium entirely, seeing it as a fundamental red line. Business Standard+3Malaysiakini+3mint+3

• Iranian officials have said that discussions over mechanisms for uranium transfer haven’t led to consensus and that they’d prefer the reinstatement of sanctions (“snapback”) over accepting such demands. Malaysiakini+2mint+2

• At the same time, Iran has doubled down on underground efforts to reinforce hidden nuclear sites. Satellite analysis suggests expansion of a deeply buried facility near Natanz, possibly for storage or enrichment. The Washington Post

• The head of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) continues to sound the alarm that Iran retains capacity to advance its nuclear program, especially given gaps in inspection access. The Times+1

In sum, Iran is resisting both the demand to hand over uranium and narratives that imply it no longer has viable nuclear function or capability.

---

Why the Conflicting Narratives? Possible Explanations

The contrasting claims aren’t necessarily contradictory in every respect. Several factors may allow all sides to speak differently:

1. Infrastructure vs. Material
   Israel (and U.S.) may have damaged Iran’s centrifuges, enrichment plants, and infrastructure. But enriched uranium could have been moved prior, stored deep underground, or shielded. So one claim (“we struck plants”) doesn’t mean all material was neutralized.

2. Intelligence Claims vs. Physical Control
   When Israel says “we know where it is,” that’s an intelligence assertion—not necessarily a claim of ability to seize or dispose of the material at present. Intelligence agencies often reveal what they think they know for deterrence.

3. Preemption and Relocation
   Iran might have relocated its enriched uranium stockpiles ahead of strikes to undisclosed bunkers. The U.S. demand to hand over uranium may aim to preempt future weaponization, but that assumes the stockpile is still intact and accessible.

4. Strategic Messaging and Deterrence
   Public remarks from Israel and the U.S. serve to pressure Iran, reassure domestic audiences, and shape diplomacy. Overstatements or shifts may be tactical, not fully aligned with on-the-ground reality.

5. Limits of Verification
   The IAEA and other international observers face restricted access in some Iranian sites. Therefore, independent confirmation remains elusive. Israel, the U.S., and Iran all operate partly in the dark. Le Monde.fr+3The Washington Post+3The Times+3

---

Implications for Diplomacy & Security

• Harder Negotiations Ahead
  The U.S. demand to hand over enriched uranium is a maximal position and likely unacceptable to Iran. That makes breakthrough diplomatic agreements harder.

• Risk of Escalation
  If Israel or U.S. use “knowing where” as justification to strike or seize, Iran may retaliate militarily or covertly. The tension is a powder keg.

• Credibility and Trust Deficit
  Contradictory public statements erode trust. If one side later fails to act on its claims, credibility will suffer.

• Role of the IAEA
  As the independent arbiter, the IAEA’s ability (or failure) to inspect and verify matters more than ever. If gaps persist, disputes will deepen.

• Leakage and Proliferation Risk
  With enriched uranium stockpiles reportedly hidden, any break in security or oversight raises the risk that material could fall into nonstate actors’ hands. (One academic study suggests as little as 40 kg of 60% enriched uranium could be used in a crude improvised weapon.) arXiv

• Regional Arms Race
  Other Middle East states may see these revelations as justification to accelerate their own programs or seek nuclear hedges.
  
  

  Stay ahead with today’s trending stories — get full coverage and insights.

  Discover More Trending Topics