Did a fleet of trucks remove Iran’s nuclear assets before US strikes?

In an already fraying global world order, the US attacks on three Iranian nuclear facilities have heightened fears of a potentially cataclysmic descent into further violence.

So far analysts and experts are struggling to grasp the full implications of the attacks. There remain far more unknowns than knowns. Here are some of the key questions.

A US Airforce B-2 of the sort used to attack Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend is refuelled in 2006.

Were Iran’s nuclear sites obliterated?

We don’t know. Announcing the strikes, US President Donald Trump said Iranian nuclear enrichment capacity had been “completely and totally obliterated”, but at a Pentagon briefing held later, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said Iran’s “nuclear ambitions” had been obliterated. Moments later Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Dan Caine said damage assessments would take some time. “Initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction.”

The world’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has released a statement saying that at Iran’s main location for enriching uranium to 60 per cent, craters were visible that were consistent with the US statement. “At this time, no one – including the IAEA – is in a position to assess the underground damage at Fordow,” it said.

The IAEA said other buildings were hit at the Isfahan nuclear site, including some related to the uranium conversion process, and that entrances to tunnels used for the storage of enriched material appeared to have been hit.

At a third site, the Natanz enrichment site, the fuel enrichment plant had been hit again. The US confirmed that it used ground-penetrating munitions.

The IAEA said Iran had informed it there had been no increase in off-site radiation levels at any of the three sites.

Where is the stockpile of already enriched uranium now?

We don’t know. IAEA Director-General Rafael Mariano Grossi told CNN that “Iran has made no secret that they have protected this material”, and later he confirmed to The New York Times that this meant he believed the material – compact enough to fit in a fleet of cars – had been moved from the Isfahan site.

Trucks line up at Fordow on Thursday, before the US strikes on the facility.Credit: Maxar Technologies

Satellite images taken last Thursday – two days before the US strike – also revealed there were 16 cargo trucks lined up along the access road leading to the Fordow complex, although what they were there to do is unknown.

Before the attacks, the IAEA estimated Iran had about 9250 kilograms of uranium, including more than 400 kilograms enriched to 60 per cent – a level considered highly enriched but not yet weapon-grade. That would be enough for about 10 nuclear weapons, however, were the uranium to be further enriched.

How close was Iran to having a nuclear bomb?

We don’t know. Grossi also told CNN after the strike that IAEA inspectors did not have any indication that Iran was seeking to weaponise its enriched uranium, but he noted that the IAEA reports only on what it has seen, not on what it believed to be the intentions of those directing the programs it inspects, as do US and Israeli intelligence agencies.

He said senior Iranian figures had said publicly that Iran had “all the pieces of the puzzle” and he confirmed that over recent months Iran had surged forward in its construction of centrifuges needed to enrich uranium to weapons grade. “This was not a healthy dynamic.”

Could this grow into a broader conflict?

Yes. On Tuesday morning (AEST) Iran fired missiles at US military assets in Qatar in the regime’s first act of retaliation for the US bombing of its nuclear facilities at the weekend. The Qatari Defence Ministry said its defence systems intercepted the attack on the Al Udeid Air Base and the incident “did not result in any deaths or injuries”.

Before that attack, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi declared Trump’s strike on Iran would have “everlasting consequences” and that Iran “reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interests and people”. Since the attacks, Iran has unleashed further volleys of missiles at Israel.

Araghchi also announced he would fly to Russia to meet President Vladimir Putin, emphasising the “strategic partnership” between Iran and Russia. “We always consult with each other and co-ordinate our positions,” he said in Istanbul, according to media reports.

China has condemned the American attacks via state media. “The actions of the United States seriously violated the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and international law, and have exacerbated tensions in the Middle East,” a Chinese government spokesperson said on state media.

On Sunday, Iran’s parliament approved a move to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly a quarter of the oil shipped around the world passes. (Though this option would damage both Iran and China, along with the rest of an energy-hungry world.)

The US has said any strikes on its bases in the region would prompt a massive escalation. Iran could also strike Israeli and US interests in the region via proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and the Houthis in Yemen. Though these proxies have been massively weakened since the October 7 attack, some still have capacity to launch strikes against US bases in the region, and international shipping.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres said on social media that the US attacks were “a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security”, while the IAEA’s Grossi said the attacks had caused, “a sharp degradation in nuclear safety and security”.

Grossi warned global ambassadors to the UN that if the short window of opportunity to return to dialogue closed then the destruction could be “unthinkable” while the global nuclear non-proliferation regime as we know it could “crumble and fall”.

Could Iran activate sleeper cells in the US?

NBC has reported that during last week’s G7 talks in Canada Iran used an intermediary to threaten Donald Trump that should the US bomb Iran it could activate “sleeper cells” of terrorists inside the US. It cited two unnamed official sources.

According to a second report, US Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott sent a memo to staff on Saturday night saying the threat of sleeper cells in the US had never been higher and urging vigilance.

Were the US attacks legal?

Probably not. Use of force is considered legal under international law in two circumstances, says Australian National University international law expert Professor Donald Rothwell. First, if it is conducted in accordance with a UN Security Council resolution, which did not happen, and secondly, if it is conducted in self-defence.

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth during a briefing at the Pentagon after the strikes.Credit: AP

The UN also recognises collective self-defence as legitimate. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth may have been alluding to this when he said the US operation had been authorised in order to “neutralise the threats to our national interest posed by the Iranian nuclear program and the collective self-defence of our troops and our ally Israel”.

But this would require the US and Israel being able to demonstrate Iran had the intent and capability to mount an attack on Israel, and that such an attack was imminent, says Rothwell.

When the US prepared to lead the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to prevent it from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, it went to considerable effort seeking to meet these standards, he says.

This time it has not bothered.

Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for our weekly What in the World newsletter.