MYSTERY SURROUNDS FORDOW NUCLEAR PLANT AND URANIUM RELOCATION BEFORE RAID

A flurry of truck activity, revealed by satellite images circulating online, hints at a possible last-minute relocation of uranium from Iran's Fordow nuclear facility. This adds a layer of mystery to the conflicting reports surrounding the outcome of the recent U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, launched in support of Israel. Was it near-total destruction, as U.S. officials and some media suggest, or limited damage, as Iranian sources claim?

As is common in wartime, propaganda and misinformation—whether intentional or not—invariably come from all sides. The exact verification of the strike's results will take time, as even the most sensible institutional voices acknowledge. Only facts will ultimately demonstrate the true effectiveness attributed to various "super bombs" and "super missiles" in official pronouncements or by aligned media.

Targeted Sites and the Fordow Conundrum

The sites hit by the American raids are all underground: Natanz and Fordow, where the Islamic Republic enriches uranium (for civilian purposes, according to its version; with the intent to acquire the potential to build atomic bombs, according to its adversaries); and Isfahan, where it assembles centrifuges.

However, the crucial question concerns Fordow, singled out by Washington and Israel as the most secret, ominous, and deeply hidden of the facilities. Here, the enigma of a possible deceptive transfer of material that Iranians may have managed to complete at the last minute is gaining traction. This is suggested, among other things, by the aforementioned truck activity detected in satellite images, reportedly taken just 3-4 days ago.

Conflicting Assessments of Damage

American commands express confidence, crediting their B-2 Stealth bombers with dropping 7 high-penetration "bunker-buster" bombs. This was part of a barrage that—across all three targets—also included a battery of 30 Tomahawk missiles launched from the sea by U.S. Navy submarines, totaling a monstrous 30 tons of explosives.

The Israeli military establishment, for its part, maintains a degree of caution. It declares satisfaction with the outcome of the strike on Natanz, which it estimates to be "completely destroyed" according to its intelligence (a claim swiftly certified, with peculiar synchronicity, by the controversial Argentine Director-General of the IAEA, the UN's atomic agency, Rafael Grossi). However, Israel reserves the right to release more details soon on what happened to the deeper targets at Isfahan and, especially, Fordow. They add that they still believe the bulk of the enriched uranium was stored at Natanz and Isfahan, and was not moved before the American attack.

Nevertheless, consistent readings from the IAEA and the Iranian atomic energy agency indicate no increases in radioactive levels around the targeted facilities. Even U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, doesn't deny that it will take "several days" to know with some certainty whether Iran was indeed able to make some uranium disappear at the last minute, at least from Fordow.

Tehran authorities, in any case, try to shrug it off. They admit to having sustained "damage" but claim it's not enough to destroy their nuclear program, much less the country's technical-scientific "know-how." They also assert the "evacuation of all at-risk material," particularly from the depths of Fordow. In the words of Mohammad Manan Raisi, a deputy elected from the constituency of the Shiite holy city of Qom, where the plant is located, Fordow "did not suffer serious destruction, despite what President Trump is saying."

The discrepancy in reporting highlights the challenges of obtaining accurate information during wartime. How do you think international bodies like the IAEA can best verify the true extent of damage and material relocation at these sites?