Fact Focus: Israeli strikes on Iran nuclear sites pose limited radiation risks
With Israel intensifying its attacks on Iran's nuclear program, and President Donald Trump hinting the U.S. might join the effort, here is what we know about the radiation threat, and other health risks.
No elevated radiation levels detected yetIran enriches uranium at two key sites, Natanz and Fordo.
The Islamic Republic's leaders say their nuclear program is for the peaceful purpose of harnessing atomic energy. But highly enriched uranium — which is radioactive — is used in the manufacture of atomic weapons, and Israel is determined to prevent Iran from having them.
At Natanz, some 220 kilometers (135 miles) southeast of Tehran, uranium had been enriched to up to 60% purity — a mildly radioactive level and a short step away from weapons grade — before Israel destroyed the aboveground part of the facility, according to the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Another part of the Natanz facility is below ground, and where most of its centrifuges are to protect them from airstrikes. The IAEA said Tuesday it believes that most if not all of these centrifuges were destroyed by an Israeli strike that cut off power to the site. These centrifuges had been enriching up to 5% purity, according to experts.
While radiological and chemical contamination are likely inside Natanz, radiation levels outside the complex remain normal, Rafael Grossi, chief of the IAEA, said during an urgent session of the IAEA board on June 16.
The Fordo nuclear enrichment site is buried deep below a mountain, around 100 kilometers (60 miles) southwest of Tehran, and is close to the Shiite holy city of Qom.
Iran produces most of its near weapons-grade material there — and for that reason it is considered a high-value target for the Israelis. But its location deep underground makes it difficult to attack, which is why the U.S. is considering deploying powerful 'bunker buster' bombs to destroy Fordo.
Even so, experts said any potential radiation impact from a strike on Fordo is likely to be similar to the impact at Natanz. In short, there would be some chemical hazards on site, and some radiation, but at levels that would be manageable with respiratory devices and other protective gear.
Last week, Israel struck four buildings at the Isfahan nuclear site, among them a uranium conversion facility. The IAEA said there has been no sign of increased radiation at Isfahan, which is roughly 350 kilometers (215 miles) southeast of Tehran.
Risk from uranium is minimal
Even if radiation did leak from either Natanz or Fordo, experts said, the amount would be unlikely to pose a risk to people near the facilities or in the wider region.
'Very little uranium will be released in these kind of attacks,' said David Albright, a physicist and nuclear weapons expert who founded the Institute for Science and International Security, based in Washington.
Uranium itself is not especially toxic, he said, and is common in parts of the environment. A person standing near an enrichment facility with a leak would probably be exposed to no more radiation than someone who took several trans-Atlantic flights, which receive slightly higher radiation because radiation doses are larger at high altitudes, he said.
In order to become sick, someone would have to ingest large quantities of uranium, Albright said, pointing out that the element can be found naturally in seawater and the earth's crust.
A chemical used in uranium enrichment could be a threat
Rather than radiation, experts said the greater risk from any attack on nuclear enrichment sites might be from fluorine gas.
Fluorine is mixed with a concentrated form of uranium to create uranium hexafluoride, which is then fed into centrifuges. Fluorine is extremely volatile, will quickly corrode and can burn the skin. It is especially deadly if inhaled.
A far greater concern to the public would be if Israel were to attack Iran's only nuclear power plant, said Fabian Hinz of the International Institute of Strategic Studies.
In a nuclear power plant, the reactor core and the spent nuclear fuel are the most radioactive components. Some of it remains dangerous for thousands of years.
The Bushehr power plant is 750 kilometers (465 miles) south of Tehran. But 'it seems very unlikely that the Israelis are going to strike' Bushehr, Hinz said, because it isn't considered to be part of the Iranian nuclear program geared toward developing weapons.
___
Mroue reported from Beirut. Liechtenstein reported from Vienna.
—-
The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
—-
Additional AP coverage of the nuclear landscape: https://apnews.com/projects/the-new-nuclear-landscape/
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
31 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Biden Diplomat: American Public Not Ready for Iran Intervention
"There's no question that the American public is not ready, has not been prepared, by the president or his administration for the prospect of US military intervention in Iran," says Barbara Leaf, former US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. Leaf suggests the fear is now that Israel's war aims have shifted from destroying Iran's nuclear program and attriting its military to regime change. "That opens up a Pandora's box of possibilities," she adds. (Source: Bloomberg)
Fox News
34 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump's unpredictable Middle East moves actually follow a brilliant master plan
President Donald Trump came back into office promising no new wars. So far, he's kept that promise. But he's also left much of Washington — and many of America's allies — confused by a series of rapid, unexpected moves across the Middle East. In just a few months, Trump has reopened backchannels with Iran, then turned around and threatened its regime with collapse. He's kept Israel at arm's length — skipping it on his regional tour — before signaling support once again. He lifted U.S. sanctions on Syria's Islamist leader, a figure long treated as untouchable in Washington. And he made headlines by hosting Pakistan's top general at the White House, even as India publicly objected. For those watching closely, it's been hard to pin down a clear doctrine. Critics see improvisation — sometimes even contradiction. But step back, and a pattern begins to emerge. It's not about ideology, democracy promotion, or traditional alliances. It's about access. Geography. Trade. More specifically, it may be about restarting a long-stalled infrastructure project meant to bypass China — and put the United States back at the center of a strategic economic corridor stretching from India to Europe. The project is called the India–Middle East–Europe Corridor, or IMEC. Most Americans have never heard of it. It was launched in 2023 at the G20 summit in New Delhi, as a joint initiative among the U.S., India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and the European Union. Its goal? To build a modern infrastructure link connecting South Asia to Europe — without passing through Chinese territory or relying on Chinese capital. IMEC's vision is bold but simple: Indian goods would travel west via rail and ports through the Gulf, across Israel, and on to European markets. Along the way, the corridor would connect not just trade routes, but energy pipelines, digital cables, and logistics hubs. It would be the first serious alternative to China's Belt and Road Initiative — a way for the U.S. and its partners to build influence without boots on the ground. But before construction could begin, war broke out in Gaza. The October 2023 Hamas attacks and Israel's military response sent the region into crisis. Normalization talks between Saudi Arabia and Israel fell apart. The Red Sea became a warzone for shipping. And Gulf capital flows paused. The corridor — and the broader idea of using infrastructure to tie the region together — was quietly shelved. That's the backdrop for Trump's current moves. Taken individually, they seem scattered. Taken together, they align with the logic of clearing obstacles to infrastructure. Trump may not be drawing maps in the Situation Room. But his instincts — for leverage, dealmaking and unpredictability — are removing the very roadblocks that halted IMEC in the first place. His approach to Iran is a prime example. In April, backchannels were reopened on the nuclear front. In May, a Yemen truce was brokered — reducing attacks on Gulf shipping. In June, after Israeli strikes inside Iran, Trump escalated rhetorically, calling for Iran's "unconditional surrender." That combination of engagement and pressure may sound erratic. But it mirrors the approach that cleared a diplomatic path with North Korea: soften the edges, then apply public pressure. Meanwhile, Trump's temporary distancing from Israel is harder to miss. He skipped it on his regional tour and avoided aligning with Prime Minister Netanyahu's continued hard-line approach to Gaza. Instead, he praised Qatar — a U.S. military partner and quiet mediator in the Gaza talks — and signaled support for Gulf-led reconstruction plans. The message: if Israel refuses to engage in regional stabilization, it won't control the map. Trump also made the unexpected decision to lift U.S. sanctions on Syria's new leader, President Ahmad al-Sharaa — a figure with a past in Islamist groups, now leading a transitional government backed by the UAE. Critics saw the move as legitimizing extremism. But in practice, it unlocked regional financing and access to transit corridors once blocked by U.S. policy. Even the outreach to Pakistan — which angered India — fits a broader infrastructure lens. Pakistan borders Iran, influences Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and maintains ties with Gulf militaries. Welcoming Pakistan's military chief was less about loyalty, and more about leverage. In corridor politics, geography often trumps alliances. None of this means Trump has a master plan. There's no confirmed strategy memo that links these moves to IMEC. And the region remains volatile. Iran's internal stability is far from guaranteed. The Gaza conflict could reignite. Saudi and Qatari interests don't always align. But there's a growing logic underneath the diplomacy: de-escalate just enough conflict to make capital flow again — and make corridors investable. That logic may not be ideologically pure. It certainly isn't about spreading democracy. But it reflects a real shift in U.S. foreign policy. Call it infrastructure-first geopolitics — where trade routes, ports and pipelines matter more than treaties and summits. To be clear, the United States isn't the only player thinking this way. China's Belt and Road Initiative has been advancing the same model for over a decade. Turkey, Iran and Russia are also exploring new logistics and energy corridors. But what sets IMEC apart — and what makes Trump's recent moves notable — is that it offers an opening for the U.S. to compete without large-scale military deployments or decades-long aid packages. Even the outreach to Pakistan — which angered India — fits a broader infrastructure lens. Pakistan borders Iran, influences Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and maintains ties with Gulf militaries. For all his unpredictability, Trump has always had a sense for economic leverage. That may be what we're seeing here: less a doctrine than a direction. Less about grand visions, and more about unlocking chokepoints. There's no guarantee it will work. The region could turn on a dime. And the corridor could remain, as it is now, a partially built concept waiting on political will. But Trump's moves suggest he's trying to build the conditions for it to restart — not by talking about peace, but by making peace a condition for investment. In a region long shaped by wars over ideology and territory, that may be its own kind of strategy.
Fox News
34 minutes ago
- Fox News
REP RO KHANNA: A commonsense, bipartisan plan for immigration
The crisis in Los Angeles is a test of federalism and American values. I unequivocally condemn anyone who engaged in political violence, vandalism or harassed law enforcement. There is no denying that violence we saw from some of the protesters in LA was wrong. But President Donald Trump's attempt to override California Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom's authority over the National Guard was not prudent and damaged the principle of limited federal power. Californians did not ask for the Marines or the National Guard. They wanted local and state law enforcement to restore order. In a House Armed Services Committee hearing last week, I asked Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth if he would abide by a district court ruling if they were to decide that deploying active-duty troops to Los Angeles was illegal. He refused to say if he would obey the district courts. Only after being pushed again by Maryland Democrat Rep. Sarah Elfreth, did he acknowledge that he would obey the Supreme Court. The administration's disregard for checks and balances and nonchalance about following court orders should be alarming to every American. We need leaders of both parties to stand up for the Constitution and offer a commonsense plan for those undocumented immigrants who are paying taxes and working hard. Even Trump is starting to recognize this. After facing backlash from industry leaders, he appeared to be considering an exemption for farms, hotels, and restaurants from the ICE raids, which his administration has now reversed. Of the 2.4 million farmworkers in the U.S., an estimated 40% lack legal status. They are critical to our country's food production. Instead of deporting all hardworking farmworkers, we need to create a path to legalization and citizenship. That is why I support the bipartisan "Farm Workforce Modernization Act" that would create a program for agricultural workers to earn legal status through continued employment. Now is the time to pass bipartisan legislation, Mr. President. Let's pass a law supporting a path to legalization and the citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are working hard and paying taxes in, as you define it, farming, hotels, and restaurants. Doing so would be a first step in getting something done on immigration and bringing this country together instead of just hurling insults at each other. More broadly, as Americans stand up for due process at town halls and at rallies, we should understand what peaceful protest, at its best, looks like. We can take inspiration from the tradition of Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and my grandfather, Amarnath Vidyalankar, who was an Indian freedom fighter. He spent several years in jail as part of Gandhi's movement. I am reminded of how the freedom fighters dressed well, were polite, and avoided confrontation with law enforcement. The same was true of civil rights freedom riders. We need this discipline today in order to break through and claim the moral high ground. We should also share the story of immigrants who believe in hard work, love of country, and patriotism. This was the story Mario Cuomo told about his uneducated father who worked 16-hour days and bled from the bottom of his feet. In my case, my father woke up at the crack of dawn to be one of the first at his workplace. My parents taught me that by being born in America I won the lottery. They instilled in me a love for American history, for the English language, and for our country's story and a relentless commitment to hard work. I believe by creating pathways to legalization and citizenship for hardworking immigrants who pay taxes, we can have social cohesion and build a nation where everyone can thrive. That spirit of finding common ground is what will allow our democracy to lead over China and be a model to the world.
