Iran Expands Natanz Nuclear Facility by Digging Underground Tunnels

This satellite photo from Planet Labs PBC shows construction on a new underground facility at Iran's Natanz nuclear site near Natanz, Iran, on April 14, 2023. (Planet Labs PBC via AP)
This satellite photo from Planet Labs PBC shows construction on a new underground facility at Iran's Natanz nuclear site near Natanz, Iran, on April 14, 2023. (Planet Labs PBC via AP)
TT

Iran Expands Natanz Nuclear Facility by Digging Underground Tunnels

This satellite photo from Planet Labs PBC shows construction on a new underground facility at Iran's Natanz nuclear site near Natanz, Iran, on April 14, 2023. (Planet Labs PBC via AP)
This satellite photo from Planet Labs PBC shows construction on a new underground facility at Iran's Natanz nuclear site near Natanz, Iran, on April 14, 2023. (Planet Labs PBC via AP)

Near a peak of the Zagros Mountains in central Iran, workers are building a nuclear facility so deep in the earth that it is likely beyond the range of a last-ditch US weapon designed to destroy such sites, according to experts and satellite imagery analyzed by The Associated Press.

The photos and videos from Planet Labs PBC show Iran has been digging tunnels in the mountain near the Natanz nuclear site, which has come under repeated sabotage attacks amid Tehran’s standoff with the West over its atomic program.

With Iran now producing uranium close to weapons-grade levels after the collapse of its nuclear deal with world powers, the installation complicates the West’s efforts to halt Tehran from potentially developing an atomic bomb as diplomacy over its nuclear program remains stalled.

Completion of such a facility “would be a nightmare scenario that risks igniting a new escalatory spiral,” warned Kelsey Davenport, the director of nonproliferation policy at the Washington-based Arms Control Association. “Given how close Iran is to a bomb, it has very little room to ratchet up its program without tripping US and Israeli red lines. So at this point, any further escalation increases the risk of conflict.”

The construction at the Natanz site comes five years after then-President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew America from the nuclear accord. Trump argued the deal did not address Tehran’s ballistic missile program, nor its support of militias across the wider Middle East.

But what it did do was strictly limit Iran’s enrichment of uranium to 3.67% purity, powerful enough only to power civilian power stations, and keep its stockpile to just some 300 kilograms (660 pounds).

Since the demise of the nuclear accord, Iran has said it is enriching uranium up to 60%, though inspectors recently discovered the country had produced uranium particles that were 83.7% pure. That is just a short step from reaching the 90% threshold of weapons-grade uranium.

As of February, international inspectors estimated Iran’s stockpile was over 10 times what it was under the Obama-era deal, with enough enriched uranium to allow Tehran to make “several” nuclear bombs, according to the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

President Joe Biden and Israel’s prime minister have said they won’t allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon. “We believe diplomacy is the best way to achieve that goal, but the president has also been clear that we have not removed any option from the table,” the White House said in a statement to the AP.

Iran denies it is seeking nuclear weapons, though officials in Tehran now openly discuss their ability to pursue one.

Iran’s mission to the United Nations, in response to questions from the AP regarding the construction, said that “Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities are transparent and under the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.” However, Iran has been limiting access for international inspectors for years.

Iran says the new construction will replace an above-ground centrifuge manufacturing center at Natanz struck by an explosion and fire in July 2020. Tehran blamed the incident on Israel, long suspected of running sabotage campaigns against its program.

Tehran has not acknowledged any other plans for the facility, though it would have to declare the site to the IAEA if they planned to introduce uranium into it. The Vienna-based IAEA did not respond to questions about the new underground facility.

The new project is being constructed next to Natanz, about 225 kilometers (140 miles) south of Tehran. Natanz has been a point of international concern since its existence became known two decades ago.
Protected by anti-aircraft batteries, fencing and Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, the facility sprawls across 2.7 square kilometers (1 square mile) in the country’s arid Central Plateau.
Satellite photos taken in April by Planet Labs PBC and analyzed by the AP show Iran burrowing into the Kūh-e Kolang Gaz Lā, or “Pickaxe Mountain,” which is just beyond Natanz’s southern fencing.

A different set of images analyzed by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies reveals that four entrances have been dug into the mountainside, two to the east and another two to the west. Each is 6 meters (20 feet) wide and 8 meters (26 feet) tall.

The scale of the work can be measured in large dirt mounds, two to the west and one to the east. Based on the size of the spoil piles and other satellite data, experts at the center told AP that Iran is likely building a facility at a depth of between 80 meters (260 feet) and 100 meters (328 feet). The center’s analysis, which it provided exclusively to AP, is the first to estimate the tunnel system’s depth based on satellite imagery.

The Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington-based nonprofit long focused on Iran’s nuclear program, suggested last year the tunnels could go even deeper.

Experts say the size of the construction project indicates Iran likely would be able to use the underground facility to enrich uranium as well — not just to build centrifuges. Those tube-shaped centrifuges, arranged in large cascades of dozens of machines, rapidly spin uranium gas to enrich it. Additional cascades spinning would allow Iran to quickly enrich uranium under the mountain’s protection.

“So the depth of the facility is a concern because it would be much harder for us. It would be much harder to destroy using conventional weapons, such as like a typical bunker buster bomb,” said Steven De La Fuente, a research associate at the center who led the analysis of the tunnel work.

The new Natanz facility is likely to be even deeper underground than Iran’s Fordo facility, another enrichment site that was exposed in 2009 by US and other world leaders. That facility sparked fears in the West that Iran was hardening its program from airstrikes.

Such underground facilities led the US to create the GBU-57 bomb, which can plow through at least 60 meters (200 feet) of earth before detonating, according to the American military. US officials reportedly have discussed using two such bombs in succession to ensure a site is destroyed. It is not clear that such a one-two punch would damage a facility as deep as the one at Natanz.

With such bombs potentially off the table, the US and its allies are left with fewer options to target the site. If diplomacy fails, sabotage attacks may resume.

Already, Natanz has been targeted by the Stuxnet virus, believed to be an Israeli and American creation, which destroyed Iranian centrifuges. Israel also is believed to have killed scientists involved in the program, struck facilities with bomb-carrying drones and launched other attacks. Israel’s government declined to comment.

Experts say such disruptive actions may push Tehran even closer to the bomb — and put its program even deeper into the mountain where airstrikes, further sabotage and spies may not be able to reach it.

“Sabotage may roll back Iran’s nuclear program in the short-term, but it is not a viable, long-term strategy for guarding against a nuclear-armed Iran,” said Davenport, the nonproliferation expert. “Driving Iran’s nuclear program further underground increases the proliferation risk.”



USS Gerald R. Ford Aircraft Carrier Leaves Middle East

 The USS Gerald R. Ford in the waters of the Eastern Mediterranean, Oct. 11, 2023. (Jacob Mattingly/US Department of Defense/AFP)
The USS Gerald R. Ford in the waters of the Eastern Mediterranean, Oct. 11, 2023. (Jacob Mattingly/US Department of Defense/AFP)
TT

USS Gerald R. Ford Aircraft Carrier Leaves Middle East

 The USS Gerald R. Ford in the waters of the Eastern Mediterranean, Oct. 11, 2023. (Jacob Mattingly/US Department of Defense/AFP)
The USS Gerald R. Ford in the waters of the Eastern Mediterranean, Oct. 11, 2023. (Jacob Mattingly/US Department of Defense/AFP)

The USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier has left the Middle East after taking part in operations against Iran, a US official said Friday, leaving two of the massive American warships in the region.

The Ford is currently in the US European Command area of responsibility, according to the official, who put the number of remaining US Navy ships in the Middle East at 20, including the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS George H.W. Bush aircraft carriers.

The Ford has been at sea for more than 10 months -- a deployment that has already seen it take part in US operations in the Caribbean, where Washington's forces have carried out strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats, interdicted sanctioned tankers and seized Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.

A fire broke out in a laundry room aboard the carrier on March 12, injuring two sailors and causing major damage to some 100 beds, according to the US military.

The carrier has also reportedly suffered significant problems with its toilet system while at sea, with US media reporting clogs and long lines for restrooms on the ship.

The United States and Iran are currently in an open-ended ceasefire, but the conflict remains unresolved, with Tehran blocking the vital Strait of Hormuz waterway and Washington's forces blockading Iranian ports.


US Treasury Warns Shippers Not to Pay Hormuz Tolls, Even in Form of Charity

 An Emirati patrol boat, left, is near a tanker anchored in the Gulf of Oman near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from a coastal road near Khor Fakkan, United Arab Emirates, Friday, May 1, 2026. (AP)
An Emirati patrol boat, left, is near a tanker anchored in the Gulf of Oman near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from a coastal road near Khor Fakkan, United Arab Emirates, Friday, May 1, 2026. (AP)
TT

US Treasury Warns Shippers Not to Pay Hormuz Tolls, Even in Form of Charity

 An Emirati patrol boat, left, is near a tanker anchored in the Gulf of Oman near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from a coastal road near Khor Fakkan, United Arab Emirates, Friday, May 1, 2026. (AP)
An Emirati patrol boat, left, is near a tanker anchored in the Gulf of Oman near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from a coastal road near Khor Fakkan, United Arab Emirates, Friday, May 1, 2026. (AP)

Any shippers paying tolls to Iran for passage through the Strait of Hormuz, including charitable donations to organizations such as the Iranian Red Crescent Society, are at risk of punitive sanctions, the US Treasury warned on Friday.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most strategically vital maritime routes, with about 20% of the world’s ‌seaborne crude ‌oil and liquefied natural gas ‌flows passing ⁠through it.

Tehran has ⁠proposed fees or tolls on vessels passing through the Strait, as part of proposals to end the war with Israel and the United States.

The advisory, from Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, said ⁠the US is aware of Iranian ‌threats to ‌shipping and demands for payments to receive safe passage ‌through the Strait.

The warning came as Iran ‌sent its latest proposal for negotiations with the US to Pakistani mediators, a move that could improve prospects for breaking an impasse in ‌efforts to end the Iran war.

OFAC said demands may include several ⁠payment ⁠options, including fiat currency, digital assets, offsets, informal swaps, or other in-kind payments, such as nominally charitable donations made to the Iranian Red Crescent Society, Bonyad Mostazafan, or Iranian embassy accounts.

"OFAC is issuing this alert to warn US and non-US persons about the sanctions risks of making these payments to, or soliciting guarantees from, the Iranian regime for safe passage," it said. "These risks exist regardless of payment method."


NATO and China: A Slow Alliance Confronts a Fast-Rising Rival

People visit the BYD booth at the Beijing Auto Show in Beijing on April 30, 2026. (Photo by Adek BERRY / AFP)
People visit the BYD booth at the Beijing Auto Show in Beijing on April 30, 2026. (Photo by Adek BERRY / AFP)
TT

NATO and China: A Slow Alliance Confronts a Fast-Rising Rival

People visit the BYD booth at the Beijing Auto Show in Beijing on April 30, 2026. (Photo by Adek BERRY / AFP)
People visit the BYD booth at the Beijing Auto Show in Beijing on April 30, 2026. (Photo by Adek BERRY / AFP)

NATO was established in 1949 to provide collective defense against the Soviet Union, based on the principle that an attack on one member is an attack on all. At the time, US President Harry Truman also sought to anchor an American presence in war-ravaged Europe to ensure security and prevent a strategic vacuum.

The collapse of the Soviet Union, along with the socialist bloc, brought the Cold War to an end and forced NATO to adapt. The alliance expanded its operations beyond Europe, intervening in the Balkans during the Bosnia and Kosovo wars, then in Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States. It also undertook maritime missions to combat piracy, including off the Horn of Africa, alongside intelligence-sharing and counterterrorism cooperation.

NATO has since built partnerships with countries beyond its traditional scope and broadened its definition of threats to include cybersecurity, hybrid warfare, and energy security, as well as, more recently, the challenge posed by China.

In sum, NATO has evolved from a purely European defensive alliance into a broader global security actor, largely driven by the United States, while still maintaining a central focus on deterring threats within Europe.

In recent years, the Brussels-based alliance has expanded its attention toward the Indo-Pacific region for strategic reasons that extend beyond Europe. Chief among these are the interconnected nature of global security, particularly in cyberspace, the need to ensure resilient and unobstructed supply chains, and the rapid spread of advanced technologies that increasingly diminish the importance of geographic boundaries.

FILED - 03 April 2025, Belgium, Brussels: A NATO flag flies in the wind in front of the NATO headquarters in Brussels. Photo: Anna Ross/dpa

China’s Rise

Another key factor is the view of China’s rise as a strategic challenge reshaping the global balance of power. For NATO’s 32 member states, up from 12 at its founding, safeguarding trade routes is a priority, especially maritime corridors in the Indo-Pacific that are critical to the global economy.

These include the Strait of Malacca between Malaysia and Indonesia, the world’s most important shipping lane, linking the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea and carrying roughly 25 percent of global trade annually. It is also a vital artery for oil and energy flows to major Asian economies such as China, Japan, and South Korea.

NATO member states express “strategic concern” over China for several core reasons. First, China is rapidly modernizing its military, particularly in areas such as missile systems, space capabilities, and cyber operations, developments that are shifting the global balance of power.

Second, and closely linked, is China’s economic rise, reflected in initiatives such as the Belt and Road, which provide Beijing with avenues to expand its economic and political influence across Asia, Africa, and Europe. This expansion risks creating dependencies among countries in or near NATO’s strategic periphery.

Concerns are also fueled by growing ties between China and Russia, particularly following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, which could signal coordination between two major powers against the West.

At the same time, an indirect competition is underway over leadership in fields such as artificial intelligence, telecommunications networks, and semiconductors. NATO sees technological superiority as a core component of security.

The alliance has concluded partnership and cooperation agreements with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, encompassing joint military exercises, intelligence sharing, and political coordination. However, NATO does not appear to be planning an expansion of membership into the Indo-Pacific, instead favoring flexible partnerships over a permanent military presence.