How Trump’s Plot to Grab Iran's Nuclear Fuel Would Actually Work | WIREDSkip to main contentMenuSECURITYPOLITICSTHE BIG STORYBUSINESSSCIENCECULTUREREVIEWSMenuAccountAccountNewslettersSecurityPoliticsThe Big StoryBusinessScienceCultureReviewsChevronMoreExpandThe Big InterviewMagazineEventsWIRED InsiderWIRED ConsultingNewslettersPodcastsVideoLivestreamsMerchSearchSearchCaroline HaskinsSecurityMar 26, 2026 5:42 PMHow Trump’s Plot to Grab Iran's Nuclear Fuel Would Actually WorkExperts say that an American ground operation targeting nuclear sites in Iran would be incredibly complicated, put troops’ lives at great risk—and might still fail.A highly enriched uranium billet.Photograph: RHJ; Getty ImagesCommentLoaderSave StorySave this storyCommentLoaderSave StorySave this storyPresident Donald Trump and top defense officials are reportedly weighing whether to send ground troops to Iran in order to retrieve the country’s highly enriched uranium. However, the administration has shared little information about which troops would be deployed, how they would retrieve the nuclear material, or where the material would go next.“People are going to have to go and get it,” secretary of state Marco Rubio said at a congressional briefing earlier this month, referring to the possible operation.There are some indications that an operation is close on the horizon. On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Pentagon has imminent plans to deploy 3,000 brigade combat troops to the Middle East. (At the time of writing, the order has not been made.) The troops would come from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, which specializes in “joint forcible entry operations.” On Wednesday, Iran’s government rejected Trump’s 15-point plan to end the war, and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the president “is prepared to unleash hell” in Iran if a peace deal is not reached—a plan some lawmakers have reportedly expressed concern about.Drawing from publicly available intelligence and their own experience, two experts outlined the likely contours of a ground operation targeting nuclear sites. They tell WIRED that any version of a ground operation would be incredibly complicated and pose a huge risk to the lives of American troops.“I personally think a ground operation using special forces supported by a larger force is extremely, extremely risky and ultimately infeasible,” Spencer Faragasso, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Science and International Security, tells WIRED.Nuclear AmbitionsAny version of the operation would likely take several weeks and involve simultaneous actions at multiple target locations that aren’t in close proximity to each other, the experts say. Jonathan Hackett, a former operations specialist for the Marines and the Defense Intelligence Agency, tells WIRED that as many as 10 locations could be targeted: the Isfahan, Arak, and Darkhovin research reactors; the Natanz, Fordow, and Parchin enrichment facilities; the Saghand, Chine, and Yazd mines; and the Bushehr power plant.According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Isfahan likely has the majority of the country’s 60 percent highly enriched uranium, which may be able to support a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction, though weapon-grade material generally consists of 90 percent enriched uranium. Hackett says that the other two enrichment facilities may also have 60 percent highly enriched uranium, and that the power plant and all three research reactors may have 20 percent enriched uranium. Faragasso emphasizes that any such supplies deserve careful attention.Hackett says that eight of the 10 sites—with the exception of Isfahan, which is likely intact underground, and “Pickaxe Mountain,” a relatively new enrichment facility near Natanz—were mostly or partially buried after last June’s air raids. Just before the war, Faragasso says, Iran backfilled the tunnel entrances to the Isfahan facility with dirt.The riskiest version of a ground operation would involve American troops physically retrieving nuclear material. Hackett says that this material would be stored in the form of uranium hexafluoride gas inside “large cement vats.” Faragasso adds that it’s unclear how many of these vats may have been broken or damaged. At damaged sites, troops would have to bring excavators and heavy equipment capable of moving immense amounts of dirt to retrieve them.A comparatively less risky version of the operation would still necessitate ground troops, according to Hackett. However, it would primarily use air strikes to entomb nuclear material inside of their facilities. Ensuring that nuclear material is inaccessible in the short to medium term, Faragasso says, would entail destroying the entrances to underground facilities and ideally collapsing the facilities’ underground roofs.Softening the AreaHackett tells WIRED that based on his experience and all publicly available information, Trump’s negotiations with Iran are “probably a ruse” that buys time to move troops into place.Hackett says that an operation would most likely begin with aerial bombardments in the areas surrounding the target sites. These bombers, he says, would likely be from the 82nd Airborne Division or the 11th or 31st Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU). The 11th MEU, a “rapid-response” force, and the 31st MEU, the only Marine unit continuously deployed abroad in strategic areas, have reportedly both been deployed to the Middle East.The goal, Hackett says, would be to “soften” the area so that ground troops can enter “unopposed”—likely under the “cover of darkness,” ideally with minimal moonlight. He says that troops would likely encounter armed resistance along the way.Faragasso, of the Institute for Science and International Security, says that establishing a secure perimeter around target sites “comes with lots of risk to ground forces,” adding that “casualties would be unsurprising.”If the target sites are secured, Hackett says, ground troops would likely come from a special missions unit run out of the military’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).Hackett says that, of the JSOC units, the most likely to be deployed would be either Delta Force or the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, which is better known as SEAL Team 6, the same group that carried out the raid that led to the death of Osama bin Laden. Both units, Hackett says, receive specialized training for missions focused on countering weapons of mass destruction.Hackett says that training exercises for Delta Force and SEAL Team 6 involve troops being briefed on a “full mission profile,” and then being immediately flown to a location inside the US meant to “replicate the target locations.” Hackett says that these specialized troops generally have “less than 72-hour notice” before their real missions begin, and that “they don't know what the mission's gonna be until they show up.”“There's a lot of uncertainty and unfamiliarity with the sand, the mountains, the atmosphere,” Hackett says. “All these things that seem simple to the outsider can really get in there and mess things up, especially doing it at night.”The Retrieval OperationThe JSOC unit would most likely lead the “first breaching of the skin of the structure or the facility” with nuclear material, according to Hackett. He adds that specialists would likely be "flowing in behind them,” and would handle specific tasks related to the nuclear material. Hackett says that some of these specialists may include Explosive Ordnance Disposal technicians, who are trained to disable nuclear, chemical, biological, and conventional explosive devices.Faragasso says that these specialists may also come from the Army's 20th CBRNE (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and high-yield Explosives) Command. This command includes the US military's only three Nuclear Disablement Teams (NDT).“These forces are well trained on how to handle nuclear materials and will be prepared with relevant equipment, including personal protective equipment like hazmat suits and detection equipment” should they be deployed, Faragasso says.The Army has released sparse information about what specific tools and methods NDTs are trained to use. However, the Army has published blogs with general information about their training exercises, which are conducted alongside Army Rangers and special forces. Some scenarios include shutting down a poorly managed nuclear reactor, while others involve being under fire at “clandestine” facilities that manufacture radiological dispersal devices, sometimes called “dirty bombs,” or “pulse radiation” facilities with powerful “fast-burst” nuclear reactors. During these exercises, troops use tools such as night vision tech, radiation detectors, and nuclear decontamination kits.If troops were to encounter broken or unsealed nuclear material, Faragasso says that it would be best to leave it in place.Moving the MaterialIf troops were to successfully retrieve nuclear material, they would have to determine where it would go. At a news briefing earlier this month, an unnamed “senior administration official” said that in this situation, the president, the Defense Department, and the Central Intelligence Agency would decide whether troops would “physically transport it or dilute it on premises."Faragasso says that, in his opinion, the safest option would be for troops to bring the nuclear material to the US, where it would then be blended in order to reduce its enrichment level.Hackett tells WIRED that most likely, the Department of Energy would take ownership of the nuclear material, and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency would likely help ensure that it’s stored safely. He says the nuclear material would be stored in a “highly classified” location, possibly in a state like New Mexico or Colorado. Any time the material may have to move, he adds, it would likely be accompanied by troops with the Marine Corps Security Force Regiment.Faragasso emphasizes to WIRED that any operation where ground troops are tasked with retrieving nuclear material would be “very dangerous” and “infeasible.”“There's pluses and minuses to this, and right now, the president has shown his appetite for risky operations,” Faragasso says. “But this would be a very large and very risky undertaking.”CommentsBack to topTriangleYou Might Also LikeIn your inbox: Upgrade your life with WIRED-tested gearNvidia plans to launch an open-source AI agent platformBig Story: He built the Epstein database—it consumed his lifeShould you leave your phone charging overnight?Watch: How right wing influencers infiltrated the governmentCaroline Haskins is a business reporter at WIRED, covering war and defense contractors, the surveillance industry, and corporate accountability. She was previously a staff reporter at Business Insider, BuzzFeed News, and Vice's Motherboard, as well as a research editor at Business Insider. Send tips to carolinehaskins.61 on Signal. ... Read MoreStaff WriterTopicsnukesIrannuclear warnuclear powernuclearDonald TrumpMilitarywarmilitary techRead MoreHow Each Gulf Country Is Intercepting Iranian Missiles and DronesAs missiles and drones cross the region’s skies, the Gulf’s layered air-defense networks—from THAAD to Patriot batteries—are being tested in real time.Dana AlomarThis Is the System That Intercepted Iran’s Missiles Over the UAEAs Iranian missiles targeted US-linked sites across the Gulf, the UAE’s missile shield was activated in real time.Dana AlomarAnduril Wants to Own the Future of War Tech. Mishaps, Delays, and Challenges AboundFrom drones to missiles to submarines, the $30.5 billion defense startup wants to transform how the tools of war are made. It’s not all going as planned.Paresh DavePalantir Demos Show How the Military Could Use AI Chatbots to Generate War PlansSoftware demos and Pentagon records detail how chatbots like Anthropic’s Claude could help the Pentagon analyze intelligence and suggest next steps.Caroline HaskinsHow Mexico's ‘CJNG’ Drug Cartel Embraced AI, Drones, and Social MediaDrug kingpin Nemesio “El Mencho” Oseguera Cervantes may be dead, but the Jalisco cartel he ran for years will likely outlive him—thanks, in part, to the criminal group’s embrace of technology.Fernanda GonzálezAttacks on GPS Spike Amid US and Israeli War on IranNew analysis shows that attacks on satellite navigation systems have impacted some 1,100 ships in the Middle East since the US and Israel attacked Iran on February 28.Matt BurgessIran War Puts Global Energy Markets on the Brink of a Worst-Case Scenario“This will be so, so, so, so, so bad,” one analyst says.Molly TaftHere’s Every Country Directly Impacted by the War on IranAs the conflict in the Middle East continues to escalate, more than a dozen countries in the region have reportedly been affected by air strikes.Maddy VarnerTrump Moves to Ban Anthropic From the US GovernmentPresident Donald Trump’s sudden order comes after the Defense Department pressured Anthropic to drop restrictions on how its AI can be used by the military.Will KnightWhat AI Models for War Actually Look LikeWhile companies like Anthropic debate limits on military uses of AI, Smack Technologies is training models to plan battlefield operations.Will KnightHow Vulnerable Are Computers to an 80-Year-Old Spy Technique? Congress Wants AnswersA pair of US lawmakers are calling for an investigation into how easily spies can steal information based on devices’ electromagnetic and acoustic leaks—a spying trick the NSA once codenamed TEMPEST.Andy GreenbergFrom Ukraine to Iran, Hacking Security Cameras Is Now Part of War’s ‘Playbook’New research shows hundreds of attempts by apparent Iranian state hackers to hijack consumer-grade cameras, timed to missile and drone strikes. Israel, Russia, and Ukraine have also adopted this trick.Andy GreenbergWIRED is obsessed with what comes next. Through rigorous investigations and game-changing reporting, we tell stories that don’t just reflect the moment—they help create it. When you look back in 10, 20, even 50 years, WIRED will be the publication that led the story of the present, mapped the people, products, and ideas defining it, and explained how those forces forged the future. WIRED: For Future Reference.More From WIREDSubscribeNewslettersLivestreamsTravelFAQWIRED StaffWIRED EducationEditorial StandardsArchiveRSSSite MapAccessibility HelpReviews and GuidesReviewsBuying GuidesStreaming GuidesWearablesCouponsGift GuidesAdvertiseContact UsManage AccountJobsPress CenterCondé Nast StoreUser AgreementPrivacy PolicyYour California Privacy Rights© 2026 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. WIRED may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Ad ChoicesSelect international siteUnited StatesLargeChevronItaliaJapónCzech Republic & SlovakiaFacebookXPinterestYouTubeInstagramTiktok

President Donald Trump is reportedly considering a ground operation in Iran aimed at retrieving the country’s highly enriched uranium, a move that would involve deploying approximately 3,000 brigade combat troops from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division. This initiative, spurred by the administration’s 15-point peace plan and Trump’s declaration of “unleashing hell” if a deal isn't reached, is fraught with complexity and significant risk to American forces. Experts, including Spencer Faragasso of the Institute for Science and International Security and Jonathan Hackett, a former operations specialist for the Marines and the Defense Intelligence Agency, have outlined the likely contours of such an operation, emphasizing its potential infeasibility and the dangers involved. Hackett estimates that as many as 10 Iranian nuclear sites, including research reactors and enrichment facilities, could be targeted, potentially involving the retrieval of up to 60 percent enriched uranium. The operation would likely necessitate air strikes to "soften" the area and create an unopposed entry for troops, potentially utilizing forces from the 82nd Airborne Division or Marine Expeditionary Units. Special forces, most likely from Delta Force or SEAL Team 6, would likely spearhead the initial breaching of facilities, supported by Explosive Ordnance Disposal technicians and specialists from the Army’s 20th CBRNE Command, trained in handling nuclear material. If nuclear material were recovered, it would likely be transported to the United States for blending and dilution, overseen by the Department of Energy and potentially aided by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, with troop support from the Marine Corps Security Force Regiment. However, these experts caution that such a venture would be exceptionally dangerous and, in the opinion of Faragasso, “very dangerous” and “infeasible,” given the risks to ground forces and the uncertain nature of the mission. Hackett highlights the significant challenges of operating at night in unfamiliar terrain, and the potential for casualties, even if the operation is largely a ruse to buy time.