The United States and Israel are actively discussing deploying special operations forces to Iran to physically secure or destroy its stockpile of highly enriched uranium — a mission that would put troops on Iranian soil in the midst of a live war, navigate heavily fortified underground facilities and potentially involve scientists from the International Atomic Energy Agency operating under fire.
The discussions, first reported by Axios, citing four officials with knowledge of the talks, represent the most significant escalation in strategic planning since last June’s US-Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. At the heart of the operation is 450 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium, material that could be converted to weapons grade within weeks and, if fully enriched to 90%, enough to build eleven nuclear bombs.
The Trump administration has identified neutralizing Iran’s nuclear capabilities as a primary war objective. How he intends to achieve this goal is now clearer – and more consistent.
What the US and Israel are planning – two options on the table
According to a US official familiar with the internal negotiations, the administration is considering two different courses of action: physically removing Iran’s enriched uranium from the ground or deploying nuclear experts to dilute the material on site, rendering it unusable for weapons purposes.
Each of these options would require special operations forces to enter Iran, locate the stockpiles, establish physical control, and either extract or neutralize them—all while operating in a zone of active conflict. The mission would likely involve special operators working alongside scientists, possibly including personnel from the IAEA.
The operational complexity is impressive. “The first question is where is it? The second question is how do we get there and how do we gain physical control?” the US official said. “And then it would be the decision of the president and the War Department, the CIA, whether we want to physically transport it or dilute it in the premises.”
Where is Iran’s uranium? Can anyone achieve this?
Strikes by US and Israeli forces on Iran’s nuclear facilities in June buried uranium stockpiles under debris in many locations. Crucially, Iranian authorities themselves have not had access to the material since the strikes, according to US and Israeli officials — a detail that complicates and potentially aids any future rescue mission.
U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies estimate that most of the stockpile lies in the Isfahan nuclear facility’s network of underground tunnels. The remainder is split between facilities in Fordow and Natanz. In the early days of the war, the attacks on Natanz and Isfahan appeared to be deliberately aimed at sealing off the entrances to those facilities—a move interpreted as an effort to prevent Iran from moving material before any rescue operation began.
The attacks also destroyed almost all of Iran’s centrifuges, and there is no evidence that uranium enrichment has resumed.
Marco Rubio’s unequivocal signal to Congress
The clearest public indication that a ground operation is being actively considered came at a congressional briefing on Tuesday, when Secretary of State Marco Rubio was asked directly whether Iran’s enriched uranium would be secured.
“People are going to have to go and get it,” Rubio said, declining to specify who would carry out the mission or in what timeframe.
An Israeli defense official subsequently confirmed to Axios that the Trump administration is seriously considering deploying special operations forces to Iran for specific, targeted missions — a characterization echoed by several sources familiar with the negotiations.
Trump: Ground troops possible – ‘for a very good reason’
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Saturday, Trump refused to rule out the deployment of ground forces in Iran, setting a deliberately high bar for such a decision.
“If we ever did, (the Iranians) would be so decimated that they wouldn’t be able to fight on the ground,” he said.
Asked specifically whether troops could enter Iran to secure nuclear material, Trump did not close the door. “At some point we might be. We didn’t go for it. We wouldn’t do it now. Maybe we will later.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt reinforced the administration’s characteristic ambiguity about strategic intentions, telling Axia that Trump is “wisely keeping all options open to him and not ruling things out.”
Kharg Island also in the picture – Iranian oil in danger
In addition to the nuclear stockpile, Axios reports that administration officials have discussed a separate and potentially equally follow-up operation — the seizure of Kharg Island, a strategic terminal responsible for about 90% of Iran’s oil exports. Such a move would effectively cut off Iran’s primary source of revenue, adding to the economic pressure already exerted by the war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
Discussions surrounding Kharg Island have not been confirmed by the White House, but their emergence, along with planning to restore nuclear weapons, suggests that the administration is considering a significantly broader set of strategic goals than has been publicly acknowledged.
‘Not Fallujah’ – How the Administration Defines ‘Boots on the Ground’
The discussions prompted a deliberate effort by administration officials to reframe what the deployment of ground forces would actually mean in this context — anticipating the political and media response such an announcement would generate.
“Boots on the ground for Trump is not the same as it is for the media,” a senior US official told Axios. “Small special raids – not large forces,” another source added.
A third source was equally clear: “What was discussed was not meant to be boots on the ground. People are thinking of Fallujah. That was not discussed.”
Framing is prominent. The administration appears keenly aware that any proposal for a large-scale ground invasion of Iran would draw enormous domestic and international opposition — and is trying to distinguish targeted special operations missions from the kind of protracted military deployments that defined the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
