Iran's Arak Reactor, Hit By Israeli Strike, Was Part Of Tehran's Nuclear Deal
Dubai:
Much of the focus on Iran's nuclear program has been on Tehran's enrichment of uranium, but experts also keep a close watch on the Islamic Republic's Arak heavy water reactor.
That's because the facility, some 250 kilometers (155 miles) southwest of Tehran, could produce plutonium, which can be used to make an atomic bomb.
Israel pointed to just that concern when it launched airstrikes Thursday on the reactor, following its attacks on other Iranian nuclear sites, including the Nantanz enrichment facility, centrifuge workshops near Tehran, and laboratories in Isfahan. Iran acknowledged the strikes, saying at least two projectiles slammed into the compound, without giving any specifics about damage.
Never online, the reactor had no uranium fuel and saw no nuclear release from the strike. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, has warned repeatedly that such sites - whether in Iran or Ukraine - should not be military targets.
Arak grew out of Iran's onetime military nuclear program
After Iran's devastating 1980s war with Iraq, it began a secret military program to seek a nuclear weapon and approached four nations to purchase a heavy water-moderated reactor. After getting turned down, Iran decided to build its own.
Heavy water is water in which hydrogen is replaced by deuterium and is used as a coolant for heavy water reactors.
The reactors can be used for scientific purposes, but plutonium is a byproduct of the process. Before the centrifuge technology that enriches uranium to levels high enough for use in weapons became widespread, many states used heavy water reactors to pursue plutonium-fueled bombs.
India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed states, have heavy water reactors, as does Israel, which has never acknowledged having atomic weapons but is widely believed to have them.
Though Iran ultimately embraced uranium-enriching centrifuges as the main driver of its program, it built the reactor, which never went online.
Iran has long maintained its program is for peaceful purposes. However, it also had been enriching uranium up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. Iran was the only non-nuclear-weapon state to enrich at that level.
Arak was part of Iran's nuclear deal with world powers
Iran agreed under its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers to redesign the facility to alleviate proliferation concerns. That included pouring concrete into part of it, though the overall work never was completed.
The Arak reactor became a point of contention after US President Donald Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal in 2018. Ali Akbar Salehi, a high-ranking nuclear official in Iran, claimed on Iranian state television in 2019 that Tehran bought extra parts to replace the portion of the reactor into which officials poured concrete.
Due to restrictions Iran has imposed on inspectors, the IAEA has said it lost "continuity of knowledge" about Iran's heavy water production - meaning it could not absolutely verify Tehran's production and stockpile.
Israeli strike likely heavily damaged the inert reactor
On Thursday morning, Israel carried out an airstrike on the reactor. Black-and-white footage of the strike it released showed a bomb dropping on its dome and sending up a massive plume of fire and smoke. The U.N. nuclear watchdog noted that since it was not in operation and contained no nuclear material, there was no danger to the public after the strike from any "radiological effects." The IAEA said it had no information on whether the facility nearby where heavy water is produced had been hit.
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," the Israelis said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
22 minutes ago
- NDTV
What Is 'Doomsday Plane' Spotted In US Skies Amid Iran-Israel Conflict
New Delhi: As tensions continue to flare between Israel and Iran, and Washington ponders over potential military action against the Islamic Republic, one of the US' most secretive aircraft quietly entered the skies above the US capital. On the night of June 17, the E-4B Nightwatch — a hardened airborne command centre built to keep America's top defence and security officials operational during a nuclear crisis — made a flight to Joint Base Andrews. Known as the 'doomsday plane,' the aircraft was spotted by flight trackers taking an unusually circuitous route to Washington, triggering speculation about its timing and purpose. What is the E-4B Nightwatch? The E-4B Nightwatch is a militarised version of the Boeing 747-200. It was repurposed by the US military into a flying war room. It is formally known as the National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC) and is designed to function as a mobile command post during a nuclear conflict or national catastrophe. When ground-based communication or leadership infrastructure is compromised, the E-4B helps top American officials to continue coordinating operations from the sky. It functions as an airborne command centre, enabling the President, Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff to maintain command, control and communication capabilities during times of national emergency. Why is it called the 'doomsday plane'? The aircraft is built to withstand nuclear blasts, electromagnetic pulses (EMPs) and other extreme disruptions. It is often described as the 'flying Pentagon' because of its ability to operate as a command-and-control centre even in the event of full-scale war. The E-4B has an unrefuelled endurance of 12 hours, but with mid-air refuelling, it is known to have remained airborne for as long as 35.4 hours, according to a report in The New York Post. Is its recent flight a cause of concern? E-4B flights are not uncommon. They are conducted regularly to maintain operational readiness — this particular sortie stood out. As per data from flight tracking site FlightRadar, the aircraft departed Bossier City, Louisiana, shortly before 6 pm, local time, on June 17 and touched down in Maryland around 10 pm, The New York Times reported. What drew attention was the flight path, which curved along the eastern coastline and looped over Virginia and North Carolina before heading to Maryland. Even more unusual was the callsign — instead of the routine ORDER6, the aircraft used ORDER01. E-4B flight amid geopolitical tensions? The flight coincided with an escalation in the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict. US President Donald Trump has demanded Iran's 'unconditional surrender' as the conflict continues to escalate, according to AP. Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a warning to the US, threatening 'irreparable damage' if it directly intervened. FlightRadar data showed two Iranian government aircraft departed the country's airspace on Wednesday for Oman. It fuelled speculation that Iranian officials might be evacuating amid rising tensions, or that urgent diplomatic talks were being arranged in Muscat, Oman's capital, reported The New York Post. How many E-4B aircraft are there? The United States Air Force operates four E-4Bs, all as part of the 1st Airborne Command and Control Squadron. At any given time, at least one aircraft is on high alert and ready for immediate deployment.
Economic Times
23 minutes ago
- Economic Times
As US weighs Iran strike, Pakistan tries to recast itself as anti-terror ally — and India is watching closely
New Delhi: India is watching closely as Pakistan tries to reinvent itself as a victim of terrorism and is seeking to find a place as a key actor against extremism and a possible ally to the US in the conflict with several accounts, the meeting between Pakistani Field Marshal Asim Munir and US President Donald Trump lasted almost three hours, extending beyond the one hour allocated, and included key US administration advisors for West growing conflict in the region - with the attack on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israel overshadowing other issues and increasingly pointing towards a US intervention - has placed Pakistan in an advantageous position that it will try to leverage, people tracking the situation the core of Pakistani moves, sources feel, is an attempt to rebrand itself from a fountainhead of terrorism to a victim that is seeking Western help to counter outfits that present threats to the West. This is an old plot that Pakistan has successfully played against the West in the past before the discovery of Osama Bin Laden at Abbottabad and the subsequent distancing of the US administration and pulling back of military aid. A renewed attempt is being made, with the Iran crisis coming at a particularly fortunate time for Pakistan as the US looks for allies who can pressurise Tehran and provide support in case American forces decide to enter the battlefield. Sources said Pakistan has managed to find some success in getting to Washington DC by exploiting the gap in the Pentagon that exists due to the structuring of its military commands across the world. The US Central Command (CENTCOM), which deals with Pakistan, is at the centre of action right now due to the troubles in West Asia. The Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) which deals with India and China was earlier more central to decision-making and planning in Washington DC. Its views of Pakistan as a close partner of China, increasingly dependent on Beijing for military equipment, training and intelligence, were a counter to the CENTCOM's motives of using Pakistani support for anti-terror operations in its area of said Pakistan is likely to use the situation to play the US against China, though in the long term it will remain dependent on Beijing for weapons, training and funding. The worry is, that in the short run, Pakistan may bargain to get access to US equipment and technology in the garb of fighting terror. It has been seen in the past, including when India attacked terror camps in Balakot in 2019, that equipment provided to Pakistan to fight terrorism were used against at stake for India will be the partnership with the US that has been growing in the military sphere and includes plans to co-develop cutting edge weapon systems. India has been increasing its dependence on the US for critical defence equipment, including engines for indigenous LCAs, maritime surveillance equipment and satellite difference is that while India is seeking technology and equipment from the US to counter an increasingly aggressive China, Pakistan may try to seek the same against India, in the garb of fighting terrorism.
Mint
24 minutes ago
- Mint
America is making a dangerous bet by trading principles for short-term expediency in its engagement with Pakistan
Srinath Sridharan Washington under Trump opting to engage with Pakistan's military chief despite Rawalpindi's record on terror undermines the values the US champions. Transactional geopolitics may serve the short-term interests of some, but cannot shape the destiny of nations that seek dignity, stability and peace. The US–Pakistan relationship has long been a case study in diplomatic cynicism. Gift this article 'I love Pakistan," said US President Donald Trump this week, quickly following up with another flourish: 'I stopped the war." He was referring to the ceasefire that followed India's Operation Sindoor, implying that his intervention averted an escalation between two nuclear powers. 'I love Pakistan," said US President Donald Trump this week, quickly following up with another flourish: 'I stopped the war." He was referring to the ceasefire that followed India's Operation Sindoor, implying that his intervention averted an escalation between two nuclear powers. In a country where 'I love New York" or 'I love Boston" merchandise is part of pop-cultural retail tradition, it is perhaps the first time that a sitting American president has publicly professed such open affection—not for a US city but for a foreign nation, and one long entangled with terror networks and given to military overreach. Also Read: Pakistan's economy must escape the clutches of its armed forces Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi promptly corrected the record the same day, clarifying (yet another time) that it was Islamabad that had sought de-escalation unilaterally. But Trump's insistence on claiming credit for a crisis he neither resolved nor influenced reveals a deeper, far more disturbing pattern: America's habitual romanticism of tactical deals with regimes entangled in terrorism while ignoring the long-term consequences for regional stability. This is not just bad optics. It is bad policy. The US, once considered the torchbearer of democratic values, seems increasingly willing to bypass elected governments in favour of military establishments and shadow power centres. Nowhere is this more evident than in its dealings with Pakistan. A nation that has harboured extremist groups, undermined civilian authority and used terror as statecraft continues to enjoy relevance in Washington's foreign policy playbook. The White House praises the arrest of a single militant as evidence of cooperation, even as Pakistan's terror infrastructure remains intact—undisturbed, deliberate, and institutional. Also Read: Nitin Pai: How to dissuade Pakistan from deploying terrorism It is hard to ignore the irony. America claims to lead the free world, yet chooses to transact with regimes that represent the antithesis of the values it espouses. The consequence is moral abdication. This dynamic plays out repeatedly: from the resurgence of Taliban in Afghanistan to the safe haven for Osama bin Laden near a military cantonment in Abbottabad in Pakistan; from cross-border attacks in Mumbai, Pathankot, Pulwama and Uri to the continued radicalization in Pakistan's heartlands. The fingerprints are clear. So is the complicity. Yet, the US persists in treating Islamabad as a necessary partner—sometimes to broker influence in Kabul, other times to play the middleman in Kashmir, and often just to retain access and leverage in the region. It would be naïve to believe that the US-Pakistan relationship incentivizes reform. In truth, it legitimizes impunity. The Pakistani military, emboldened by its transactional value to Washington, continues to weaken democratic institutions at home and fund destabilizing proxies abroad. Every such engagement strengthens the perception that terrorism can be bartered for aid and extremism for arms. The contradiction becomes even sharper when viewed in the context of the Indo-Pacific. The US claims to rely on India as a democratic counterweight to China. It deepens defense ties, invests in the Quad and speaks of a free and open Indo-Pacific. Yet, it simultaneously chooses to ignore the very forces that threaten that vision by rewarding a regime that profits from regional unrest. This inconsistency is not lost on New Delhi. The US–Pakistan relationship has long been a case study in diplomatic cynicism. From selective partnerships to a repeated pattern of 'doing more" without consequence, Washington is an expert in the language of strategic necessity while turning a blind eye to long-term costs. But tactical flexibility cannot replace principled engagement. It does not produce allies; it breeds dependencies. Pakistan, meanwhile, has mastered the art of offering just enough cooperation to keep US interest alive while maintaining its core strategy of plausible deniability and proxy warfare. Credibility, not convenience, must now become the real currency of global order. Especially in a world grappling with great-power tensions—from Ukraine to the Taiwan Strait to West Asia—the US must ask itself a fundamental question: Can it afford to keep trading principles for short-term proximity? The answer becomes clearer when we examine Washington's recent diplomatic posturing over multiple global flashpoints—Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Iran and India-Pakistan. In each, the pattern is strikingly similar: choreographed pronouncements of peacemaking, fleeting moments of engagement and self-congratulatory claims of having 'brokered peace." For India, the implications are significant. A natural partner to the US, India must now calibrate its engagement with clarity and conviction. If the foundation of partnership is shared democratic values, then New Delhi must insist on consistency, not just in defence or economics but in principle. A rules-based international order cannot be built on selective amnesia or political expedience. It requires holding rule-breakers accountable. And it demands that peace not be sacrificed at the altar of tactical diplomacy. Affection in diplomacy is not measured by slogans, but by the values one chooses to embrace—and the silences one is willing to overlook. India, with its civilizational depth and global aspirations, must engage the world on its own terms. Our diplomacy must be grounded in self-respect, not shaped by shifting Washington moods. Because, at the end of the day, transactional geopolitics may serve the short-term interests of some, but cannot shape the destiny of nations that seek dignity, stability and real peace. The author is a corporate advisor and author of 'Family and Dhanda' Topics You May Be Interested In
