The complex plan was briefed to the president in the past week after he asked for a proposal, they said, as were its significant operational risks.

Trump’s request for the plan, previously unreported, signals his interest in contemplating what would be an unusually sensitive and high-stakes special operations mission. The administration’s consideration of such an operation was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

Limiting Iran’s capacity to build a nuclear weapon remains a top goal of the administration. But this plan, experts say, would represent an enormously difficult endeavor of a type never before attempted during wartime. The mission would require the airlift of potentially hundreds or thousands of troops and heavy equipment to support the excavation and recovery of radioactive material. That could take weeks, former defense officials have estimated, and take place under fire deep inside Iran.

Administration officials recently presented Iran with a 15-point proposal to end the war by reportedly demanding, among other things, that Tehran relinquish its highly enriched uranium — what Trump has called “nuclear dust.”

Iran has rejected the U.S. proposal, although it suggested in negotiations just before the war began that it could “dilute” the enriched material to a lower level.

“This would be one of, if not the largest, most complicated special operations in history,” said Mick Mulroy, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense and retired CIA and Marine officer. “It’s a major risk to the force.”

In another sign of Trump’s interest in pursuing such an operation, he encouraged Americans to tune in to a show by Fox News host Mark Levin, a staunch pro-Israel advocate, on Saturday. During the episode, Levin said the United States should deploy “specialized” ground troops to snatch Iran’s uranium stockpiles.

“Why would we need troops on the ground? Well, there’s a lot of reasons — and we wouldn’t need 300,000 of them. It’s this uranium,” Levin said.

Trump, who campaigned on a promise to end wars, now finds himself entering the fifth week of a conflict he started, one conducted mostly by air in coordination with Israel. Launching an ambitious ground operation to seize the uranium would involve the deployment of commandos and a host of other troops and support personnel, introducing a significant new level of risk to the military.

“It’s the job of the Pentagon to make preparations in order to give the Commander in Chief maximum optionality. It does not mean the President has made a decision,” White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said in a written response to questions about the plan.

With polls showing a majority of Americans opposed to the war and, in particular, to sending in ground troops, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday sought to portray the president as a bold leader.

“As President Trump has said time and time again for years and in this administration, Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb — and it won’t,” Hegseth said at a Pentagon press briefing, speaking about one motive for the war.

This image from an April 17, 2021, video released by the state-run Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting shows centrifuge machines at the Natanz uranium facility. (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting/AP)

In June, the United States bombed nuclear facilities in Iran. But according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran has stockpiled about 970 pounds of uranium enriched to 60 percent — just short of weapons-grade level. More than half is stored in a nuclear facility outside Isfahan, a historic city in central Iran, in tunnels more than 300 feet deep, according to IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi, with the rest located at the Natanz nuclear site and, potentially, other areas.

Ask The Post AI

Dive deeper

Satellite imagery from early June published by France’s Le Monde newspaper and analyzed by the Institute for Science and International Security showed a large flatbed truck carrying 18 blue barrels toward the southern entrance of the Isfahan facility. Though it was not possible to reach a definitive conclusion about their contents, the institute assessed that “the best match” was that the barrels contained highly enriched uranium cylinders and were being moved for storage within the tunnel complex days before Israel and then the U.S. launched punishing airstrikes on Iranian targets.

Ask The Post AI

Dive deeper

Access to the Isfahan storage area, Grossi told reporters during a mid-March Washington visit for high-level meetings, remains buried under rubble left by the U.S. bombing in June. Since then, he said, “we haven’t seen big movements” indicating efforts to reach it. “Maybe a car or a truck” in the area, but “not bulldozers digging things out.”

The highly enriched material, in the form of uranium hexafluoride gas, is stored in sealed cylinders akin to scuba tanks, each about three feet high. Before it can be used in a weapon, it must be additionally enriched to more than 90 percent and processed into a metal.

Ask The Post AI

Dive deeper

Describing an inspection visit to the Isfahan site just before the June airstrikes, Grossi said the cylinders are “not very big” and “not specially protected,” although it is possible that some “decoys” have been placed among them to confuse and impede anyone trying to remove them.

While not privy to any military decisions, he said, “what I can say is that this considerable amount of material … is highly contaminant, so there could be some contamination if there was a direct hit on it.”

To get to the buried Isfahan stockpile, “you have to get excavation equipment, break through the concrete and the lead shield” and any other protective covering, “and then you somehow have to get to the bottom of this silo and remove the containers full of nuclear material and fly them out,” said one of the two people familiar with the matter, both of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. Estimates on how long that would take vary, ranging from weeks to several months.

The best way to recover the material would be after a ceasefire and accompanied by IAEA personnel, said retired Gen. Joseph Votel, who has led both U.S. Central Command and U.S. Special Operations Command. “But if you have to fight your way in,” he said, it could be feasible.

“There’s a lot of risks associated with it. This is a very high order of complexity. There likely will be casualties,” he said. “But this is the problem set for U.S. Special Operations forces. It’s what we do. We have people who are specifically trained to go into these types of environments.”

The scale and complexity would make the mission extraordinarily difficult, but it is possible, according to a former defense official with direct knowledge of Iran war plans and Special Operations capabilities. “Short of a largely symbolic quick strike to demonstrate we could do more, to recover much or all of the material requires a temporary occupation,” the former official said.

This image from a video posted to social media on Tuesday shows smoke billowing as explosions rock Isfahan. (UGC/AFP/Getty Images)

Former commandos and officials described the extraordinary complexities surrounding such an operation.

The logistics would probably start with striking Iranian defenses and equipment to create safer passage for the ground troops, who would then fly hundreds of miles into the country to establish a defense perimeter at the facilities. One option, experts have speculated, is the Army’s 82nd Airborne and Rangers parachuting to seize the ground, which could be within range of enemy artillery, missiles and drones.

From there, engineers would probably build an airstrip to bring in supplies and equipment, some of which may be airdropped from cargo aircraft or slung from utility helicopters. Both options would leave the slower-moving transport aircraft vulnerable to enemy fire.

Keeping the heavy excavation work going would require a deep bench of support troops, officials said. Mechanics, drivers, refuelers and others would work round-the-clock. Food and water would need constant resupply. Civilian nuclear specialists from the Energy Department and other agencies also would probably be on-site, former officials said, to assess risks and supervise the uranium removal.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5852486&forum_id=2\u0026hid=#49787008)