US weighs special forces raid to seize Iran's uranium

The Trump administration is actively debating whether to send US or Israeli special operations forces into Iran to seize approximately 450 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity. Axios reported the discussions on March 8, 2026, based on four sources with direct knowledge. The uranium is enough raw material to produce weapons-grade fuel for up to 11 nuclear devices if centrifuges could be brought back online, according to US intelligence estimates cited in the reporting.

The stockpile was last formally verified by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors nine months before the latest round of US and Israeli strikes. Monitors in Vienna had observed sustained activity outside tunnel entrances near Isfahan in the weeks before Operation Epic Fury began on February 28, 2026, raising the possibility that at least some material had been relocated before the bombs fell. US officials publicly project confidence they know where the uranium is. Privately, according to Bloomberg reporting citing three diplomatic officials, there is considerably less certainty.

Operation Epic Fury, the joint US-Israeli air campaign that began February 28, 2026, targeted the entrances to Iran''s top enrichment facilities, including Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. Satellite imagery published by the monitoring organization Vantor shows significant structural damage at multiple sites. But physically destroying or permanently sealing enriched uranium buried dozens of meters underground is not the same as destroying centrifuges or reactor infrastructure.

The uranium itself remains a proliferation risk as long as it can eventually be retrieved, relocated, or handed to a proxy force. Former Defense Secretary MEMark Esper, who held the role during Trump''s first term, told NewsNation on March 9 that a ground mission to secure the uranium would be 'very perilous, very dangerous.' He said the scope of the task would require a force far larger than a typical special operations raid.

The administration is weighing two options for dealing with the uranium, according to a senior Trump official who spoke to reporters on March 3. The first option is physically removing the material from Iran and transporting it to another country or US facility. The second is sending in nuclear scientists, possibly from the IAEA, to dilute the uranium on-site so it can no longer be enriched to weapons grade. The on-site dilution option would still require ground forces to secure the area while scientists work.

CNN reported on March 9, citing seven current and former officials familiar with military planning, that either approach would require a significant number of US troops beyond a small special operations footprint. One former official described the basic decision tree this way: go in, take what you can, and destroy anything you can''t take. Achieving that goal inside a network of reinforced underground tunnels during an active air campaign would represent one of the most complex commando operations in US history.

The constitutional question at the center of this debate is whether the president can deploy ground troops into Iran without explicit congressional authorization. The existing authorization for use of military force, passed in 2001 after the September 11 attacks, does not cover Iran and has never been amended to do so. Operation Epic Fury itself was launched under the president''s Article II commander-in-chief authority, a legal theory that critics argue has been stretched far beyond its original limits.

Sending ground forces into Iran to seize nuclear material would almost certainly require troops to fight their way to and from a heavily defended site. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing US forces into hostilities and limits unauthorized combat to 60 days without a vote. Congress has never formally voted on the Iran conflict, and no war powers notification for a uranium seizure operation has been filed as of March 12, 2026.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also serves as acting national security advisor, made the most direct public statement about the uranium problem at a March 3 congressional briefing. When asked whether Iran''s enriched uranium would be secured, Rubio said, 'People are going to have to go and get it,' declining to specify whether that meant US forces, Israeli forces, or a joint team. The remark alarmed some members of Congress who heard it as an admission that a ground operation is likely.

President Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on March 7 that he was not ruling out ground troops in Iran. 'We wouldn''t do it now, maybe later,' Trump said when asked specifically about using troops to secure the enriched uranium. White House Press Secretary KLKaroline Leavitt later said Trump 'wisely keeps all options available to him open, and does not rule things out.' Neither statement offered any indication that Congress had been consulted on a potential ground deployment.

The nonproliferation stakes are unusually high because enriched uranium, unlike a destroyed centrifuge, can be physically recovered and used by whoever controls the territory. If the Iranian government collapses suddenly, there are serious concerns about the material falling into the hands of regional proxies, non-state actors, or foreign buyers on the black market. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and IAEA safeguards agreements are designed to prevent exactly this kind of uncontrolled proliferation.

However, the IAEA''s ability to verify Iran''s compliance collapsed months ago. The agency''s inspectors have been unable to access key sites, and the chain of custody for the uranium stockpile is effectively broken. Arms control experts cited in Stars and Stripes described a potential US ground seizure operation as 'the mother of all commando raids,' noting that US forces would have to locate, secure, and extract or neutralize nearly 1,000 pounds of highly radioactive material from underground bunkers in the middle of a war zone.

The political and legal divide over a potential ground operation runs deep. At a March 11, 2026 Senate floor session, Sen. Jack Reed of ⚓Rhode Island raised Iran policy directly. Representative RKRo Khanna and Representative Thomas Massie have pushed for a war powers resolution that would require Congress to vote before any further escalation in Iran. That resolution failed a House floor vote earlier in March, but the margin was closer than leadership expected.

Constitutional law scholars note that the founding generation viewed the power to send Americans into combat as the most consequential power in the constitutional system and deliberately assigned it to the collective judgment of Congress rather than a single executive. The current Iran conflict, now two weeks old, has involved massive US military spending with no formal declaration or authorization vote, continuing a pattern that has accelerated through every administration since 1945.