Israel is targeting Iran's nuclear uranium enrichment plants. Here are the contamination risks
Israel has been targeting Iran from the air since last Friday in what it has described as an effort to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), five nuclear facilities have been struck, sparking fears the air strikes could raise health risks across the region.
Here's what damage has been caused so far and the safety risks of attacking nuclear sites.
Several military and nuclear sites in Iran.
Israel says the attacks are to block Iran from developing atomic weapons.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the operations were to "strike the head of Iran's nuclear weaponization program".
Iran denies ever having pursued a plan to build nuclear weapons and is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
It says the nuclear sites it does have are for peaceful purposes.
If Israel continues attacking Iran until it removes the country's nuclear capability, destroying the Fordow enrichment plant is central to its plan.
While another important facility, Natanz, has been hit, the Fordow site would be much harder to target.
This is because it's located inside a mountain, 90-metres underground and can only be reached by American "bunker-buster" bombs, which Israel does not possess.
Because Israel believes Iran is enriching uranium to levels that could allow it to build a nuclear weapon, despite the Islamic Republic's claims its nuclear work is for "peaceful purposes".
Enriched uranium, specifically uranium-235, is an essential component in many nuclear weapons.
"When you dig uranium out of the ground, 99.3 per cent of it is uranium-238, and 0.7 per cent of it is uranium-235," Kaitlin Cook says, a nuclear physicist at the Australian National University.
"The numbers 238 and 235 relate to its weight — uranium-235 is slightly lighter than uranium-238."
To enrich uranium, basically means increasing the proportion of uranium-235, while removing the uranium-238.
This is typically done with a centrifuge, a kind of "scientific salad spinner" which rotates uranium thousands of times a minute, separating the lighter uranium-235 from the base uranium.
For civilian nuclear power, Dr Cook says uranium-235 is usually enriched to about 3 to 5 per cent.
But once uranium is enriched to 90 per cent, it is deemed weapons-grade.
According to the IAEA, Iran's uranium has reached about 60 per cent enrichment, well on its way to being concentrated enough for a nuclear weapon.
Dr Cook says the process for enriching uranium from 60 per cent to weapons-grade is much easier than it is to get to the initial 60 per cent. That's because there's less uranium-238 to get rid of.
According to the US Institute for Science and International Security, "Iran can convert its current stock of 60 per cent enriched uranium into 233kg of weapon-grade uranium in three weeks at the Fordow plant", which it said would be enough for nine nuclear weapons.
In the hours after Israel attacked Iran last Friday, Netanyahu said Iran was just days away from being able to build nuclear weapons.
In a White House briefing, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Iran has all it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon.
"It would take a couple of weeks to complete the production of that weapon, which would, of course, pose an existential threat not just to Israel, but to the United States and to the entire world."
But there has been some back and forth between US authorities on whether Iran was really that close to producing nuclear weapons.
In March, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told members of Congress that Iran was not moving towards building nuclear weapons.
"The IC [intelligence community] continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons programme he suspended in 2003," she said.
On Air Force One on Monday night, after hastily leaving the G7 summit, President Donald Trump offered a direct contradiction to Ms Gabbard's claims.
"I don't care what she said," Mr Trump said.
"I think they were very close to having it."
The IAEA said Israel had directly hit the underground enrichment halls at the Natanz facility, leaving them "severely damaged, if not destroyed all together".
According to the IAEA, the Natanz site was one of the facilities at which Iran was producing uranium enriched up to 60 per cent U-235.
After the attack, the IAEA found radioactive contamination at the site, but it said the levels of radioactivity outside remained unchanged and at normal levels.
Israel Defense Forces spokesperson Effie Defrin said: "We've struck deep, hitting Iran's nuclear, ballistic and command capabilities."
A nuclear complex at Isfahan and centrifuge production facilities in Karaj and Tehran were also damaged.
Israel said on Wednesday it had targeted Arak, also known as Khondab, the location of a partially built heavy-water research reactor.
The IAEA said it had information that the heavy-water reactor had been hit, but that it was not operating and reported no radiological effects.
Experts say attacks on enrichment facilities are mainly a "chemical problem", not radiological.
Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at London think tank RUSI, says the main concern from destroying an enrichment plant is releasing the harmful uranium hexafluoride gas — highly corrosive and toxic — that's contained in centrifuges.
"When UF6 interacts with water vapour in the air, it produces harmful chemicals," Ms Dolzikova said.
The extent to which any material is dispersed would depend on factors including weather conditions, she added.
"In low winds, much of the material can be expected to settle in the vicinity of the facility; in high winds, the material will travel farther, but is also likely to disperse more widely."
Peter Bryant, a professor at the University of Liverpool who specialises in radiation protection science and nuclear energy policy, says nuclear facilities are designed to prevent the release of radioactive materials into the environment.
"Uranium is only dangerous if it gets physically inhaled or ingested or gets into the body at low enrichments," Professor Bryant said.
While there so far has been no major radiological incidents as a result of the attacks, IAEA director-general Rafael Mariano Grossi stressed the possible nuclear safety and security risks.
"There is a lot of nuclear material in Iran in different places, which means that the potential for a radiological accident with the dispersion in the atmosphere of radioactive materials and particles does exist," he said.
In a post on X, World Health Organization chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus also voiced his concern about the potential "immediate and long-term impacts on the environment and health of people in Iran and across the region".
Well that's a different story.
A strike on Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr could cause an "absolute radiological catastrophe", says James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
While most reactor vessels are protected by steel and concrete containment structures, Dr Cook says the surrounding infrastructure, like spent fuel pools and cooling equipment, would "definitely be a concern" if targeted.
For Gulf states, the impact of any strike on Bushehr would be worsened by the potential contamination of Gulf waters, jeopardising a critical source of desalinated potable water.
In the UAE, desalinated water accounts for more than 80 per cent of drinking water.
While Bahrain and Qatar are fully reliant on desalinated water.
"If a natural disaster, oil spill, or even a targeted attack were to disrupt a desalination plant, hundreds of thousands could lose access to freshwater almost instantly," said Nidal Hilal, professor of engineering and director of New York University Abu Dhabi's Water Research Center.
"Coastal desalination plants are especially vulnerable to regional hazards like oil spills and potential nuclear contamination," he said.
On Thursday, an Israeli military spokesperson said the military has struck the Bushehr nuclear site in Iran.
However, an Israeli military official later said that comment "was a mistake".
The official would only confirm that Israel had hit the Natanz, Isfahan, and Arak nuclear sites in Iran.
Pressed further on Bushehr, the official said he could neither confirm or deny that Israel had struck the location.
Bushehr is Iran's only operating nuclear power plant, which sits on the Gulf coast, and uses Russian fuel that Russia then takes back when it is spent to reduce proliferation risk.
Heavy water is H20 made up of hydrogen-2 instead of hydrogen-1.
Dr Cook says it's a little heavier than normal water.
"When you use heavy water, you can run your reactor on non-enriched uranium, avoiding the expense of enriching it in the first place, though the water does cost more.
"But the problem is that heavy-water reactors can also be used to produce plutonium, which can be used in nuclear weapons."
Israel's military said its fighter jets targeted the Arak facility and its reactor core seal to halt it from being used to produce plutonium.
"The strike targeted the component intended for plutonium production, in order to prevent the reactor from being restored and used for nuclear weapons development."
India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed states, have heavy-water reactors.
So does Israel, but it has never acknowledged having atomic weapons but is widely believed to have them.
ABC with wires
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Global Islamic politics expert says Israel's claims about Iranian nuclear weapon 'at odds' with intelligence reports as Netanyahu 'desperate' to involve Trump in war
An Australian global Islamic politics expert has urged the world to be "sceptical" of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claims after numerous intelligence reports concluded that Iran is not "close at all" to building a nuclear weapon. Professor Greg Barton from Deakin University told Sky News Netanyahu's strategy to close down Iran's nuclear program may not be as "clear cut and simple", as he would present it to be to President Donald Trump, in an attempt to persuade the US to join the Israeli assault. "I think that the way that Benjamin Netanyahu will sell it to Trump is that you just send in a couple of B2s over Fordow and it's done," Mr Barton told Sky News host Steve Price. "You've closed down the nuclear program and we're good. "But of course, it is not likely to be so clear cut and so simple." According to Axios, President Trump believes the US has leverage over Iran due to its bunker buster munitions – which Israel does not have – that are capable of destroying the Fordow nuclear enrichment facility that sits deep under a mountain. Mr Barton added the bunker buster bombs are unlikely to demolish Iran's nuclear program and could instead result in dangerous escalation of war in the Middle East. 'First of all, those B2 strikes with massive ordnance, penetrator bombs over Fordow, 90 metres underground, that likely wouldn't finish Iran's nuclear program,' he said. 'They'd probably scramble to take what they have left and actually move towards nuclear weapons. 'In the meantime, they're likely to strike out against US targets all around the Middle East and use their proxies to do so. 'So a very dangerous risk of escalation and a prolonged conflict.' When questioned about the validity of Netanyahu's claims about Iran's existential threat to Israel, Mr Barton said they were 'at odds' with other publicly available intelligence reports have said, including what Trump was briefed on by his own security adviser. Mr Barton highlighted Israel's remarkable capabilities at penetrating Iranian society and its defence apparatus, but noted other intelligence reports suggest 'Iran is some way off, it's not close at all' to building a nuclear weapon. 'It is possible they know something that no one else knows, but what all the other intelligence reports are saying is that Iran is some way off, it's not close at all,' he said. 'We can't know, we're sort of making a claim from Netanyahu who is desperate to involve Trump and America in this programme, and on balance you sort of want to be a bit sceptical about what he's saying for that reason.' Israel has been trading missiles with Iran since last Friday in an attempt to shut down any efforts of Tehran building an atomic weapon to wipe out the existence of the Jewish state. Netanyahu said the operations were to "strike the head of Iran's nuclear weaponisation program". White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told a media briefing on Thursday, local time, she had been asked to pass on a 'direct quote' from President Trump on the possibility of US intervention in the Israel-Iran war. 'Based on the fact that there is a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,' she said, quoting the President. Ms Leavitt also urged sceptics of US involvement to 'trust' in President Trump's judgement, before emphasising his 'top priority' was to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.
SBS Australia
an hour ago
- SBS Australia
'Unmitigated disaster': What Donald Trump could be weighing up on Iran
US President Donald Trump says he's considering whether or not to involve the US in the Israel-Iran conflict. Source: AAP, Press Association / Suzanne Plunkett As hostilities between Israel and Iran continue, United States President Donald Trump is keeping the world guessing as to what he might do next. Israel launched a sweeping aerial campaign against Iran a week ago, calling it a "pre-emptive" strike to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Iran has denied plans to develop such weapons and retaliated by launching counterstrikes on Israel. Trump has repeatedly criticised Iran, called for an "unconditional surrender", and floated the possibility of US action in Iran. On Thursday, Trump said he has yet to decide how the US would proceed, but will do so in the next two weeks. He has indicated there is still a chance of negotiating with Iran. "Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks," press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters, quoting a message from Trump. Leavitt told a regular briefing at the White House that Trump was interested in pursuing a diplomatic solution with Iran, but his top priority was ensuring that Iran could not obtain a nuclear weapon. Professor Wesley Widmaier, from the Australian National University's Department of International Relations, said domestic policies could play a major role in Trump's decision. Widmaier said a portion of Trump's voter base may not support involvement in the conflict. "I think right now he is poised on the horns of a dilemma between the isolationist MAGA [Make America Great Again] coalition base and anti-Iran pro-Israel kind of foreign policy imperative," he said. "And politicians like to keep things ambiguous for as long as possible; it gives them maximum mobility." Widmaier said the two-week time frame will provide Trump with an extension to weigh up tensions in his supporter base, political strategy and pressure, and the US relationship with Israel. Michael Green, professor and CEO of the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, said Trump is likely deciding whether or not to use a 13,000kg Massive Ordnance Penetrator 'bunker buster' bomb on an Iranian underground nuclear facility. Only the US military has the bunker buster bomb. "I believe that the decision he has to make is whether or not the US drops that bunker-busting bomb on Fordo, the remaining intact part of Iran's nuclear weapons programs," he said. "The reason he might do it is because the Israelis believe that the Iranians are weeks away from creating nuclear weapons capability. The reason to not do it is because there's no guarantee of success." Trump has not outlined exactly what US involvement in Iran could look like, but he has floated several possible scenarios. Comments and social media posts about his plans have veered from proposing a swift diplomatic solution to suggesting the US might join the fighting on Israel's side. On Wednesday, he said nobody knew what he would do. A day earlier, he mused on social media about killing Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, then demanded Iran's unconditional surrender. Iran has warned of "all-out war" if the US joins the military action. Green said while the Iranian regime is vulnerable, it could still "lash out" and cause threats to US forces and allied interests. He said Trump may be hoping the threat of the bunker buster bomb could influence Iranians to agree to peacefully give up their nuclear capability. "I am sceptical that Iran will, even under this huge amount of pressure, give up their nuclear program, [but] they might agree to meet, they might agree to talk about it, to dissipate the pressure," he said. "The most likely scenario is they put something out there to save themselves and it will be debated whether it's enough, and Donald Trump may or may not take it." Widmaier said he believes the US bombing Iran would be a "disaster". "My sense is this would all be leading to a disaster. It would just be a disaster for the region, it would be a disaster for American foreign policy," he said. If the Trump administration decides to pursue US action in Iran, Widmaier said it would need to have clear aims and a clear exit strategy. He said the US government would also want to be sure of public support if it were to take action. "These are lessons of the Vietnam war, these are lessons of the Iraq war, and I see no sense that they really know what they want," Widmaier said. Wars are easy to start, but hard to end. Wesley Windmaier "I say with a high level of confidence that it would be an unmitigated disaster, and it's something absolutely to be avoided. "I don't think you need a PhD to see that, given the disastrous military interventions that are a history of US foreign policy." While Trump has publicly criticised Iran and sided with Israel, US action against Iran is not guaranteed. In the next two weeks, Trump will weigh up different factors and scenarios, including opposition from some of his Republican colleagues, some of whom have said the US should avoid war. Kentucky senator Rand Paul said he hoped Trump would not give in to pressure to get involved. "It's not the US' job to be involved in this war," Paul said on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday. Republican representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky said on X: "This is not our war. We should not engage our military here." Widmaier said it's possible the president could opt out of the US becoming directly involved in another Middle East conflict. He pointed out Trump does have a record of holding off in the context of Iran. "In his first term, he came right up to the brink of ordering some strikes against Iranian sites, and he backed off at the last possible minute," Widmaier said. "So he does seem to have some inhibitions against, it may be that at the last minute he pulls back ... he does have a pragmatic streak too." — Additional reporting by Reuters and the Australian Associated Press
SBS Australia
2 hours ago
- SBS Australia
Australian embassy officials in Iran evacuate as conflict grows in Middle East
Australian embassy officials in Iran evacuate as conflict grows in Middle East Published 20 June 2025, 8:37 am Australian officials and their families have been evacuated from Tehran. Threats of a major regional war have prompted Australia to close its embassy. The Federal government is urgently warning Australians in Iran to leave if safe to do so.
