Trump faces his most difficult Iran war decision: Will he deploy US troops to seize uranium?

President Trump Faces Critical Decision on Iran’s Nuclear Material

President Donald Trump confronts what may be the most consequential decision of the ongoing conflict with Iran: whether to deploy U.S. troops to secure approximately 970 pounds of enriched uranium that Tehran could potentially use to build nuclear weapons.

Since the outbreak of hostilities, Trump has offered varying justifications for joining Israel in military action against Iran. However, he has consistently emphasized that preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons remains a primary objective. “They will never have a nuclear weapon,” the president has repeatedly pledged.

Yet Trump has been notably less specific about how far he’s willing to go to fulfill this commitment, particularly regarding the seizure or destruction of Iran’s near-bomb-grade nuclear material. Much of this stockpile is believed to be buried beneath the rubble of mountain facilities targeted in U.S. bombings ordered by Trump last June—strikes he claimed had “obliterated” Tehran’s nuclear program.

Nuclear experts warn that securing this material would likely require a significant deployment of American forces inside Iran—a perilous undertaking with profound political implications for a president who has promised to avoid entangling the U.S. in protracted Middle East conflicts that still haunt the American consciousness.

The stakes could not be higher. Security analysts estimate Iran’s current enriched uranium stockpile could be sufficient to produce as many as ten nuclear bombs if weaponized. There is growing concern among defense officials that if Iranian hardliners emerge from the conflict in control, they may be more motivated than ever to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent against future U.S. and Israeli military actions.

Democratic lawmakers have expressed serious reservations about the president’s strategy. Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, voiced concern that Trump has set the nation on a path requiring boots on the ground in Iran. “Securing the uranium cannot be done without a physical presence,” Blumenthal emphasized.

Republican allies of the president have been more supportive, though details remain scarce. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman James Risch of Idaho referenced “a number of plans that have been put on the table” regarding the enriched uranium but declined to elaborate further.

Other Republican lawmakers acknowledged the complexity of the situation. “No one has given me a briefing on how you would do it without boots on the ground,” admitted Senator Rick Scott of Florida, also a member of the Armed Services Committee. However, he added, “I think it would be helpful to get rid of it.”

Nearly three weeks into a conflict that has claimed hundreds of lives, strained longstanding international alliances, and disrupted the global economy, the administration has remained deliberately vague about its intentions regarding Iran’s uranium stockpile.

When directly questioned about the enriched uranium, Trump deflected, saying, “I’m not going to talk about that.” He then added, “But we have hit them harder than virtually any country in history has been hit, and we’re not finished yet.” Later that same day, during an appearance in Kentucky, the president appeared to suggest the strikes had already neutralized the threat, stating, “They don’t have nuclear potential.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has similarly avoided specifics, telling reporters the administration sees no value in telegraphing “what we’re willing to do or how far we’re willing to go,” while asserting “we have options, for sure.”

Richard Goldberg, who served as director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction for the National Security Council during Trump’s first term, believes seizing or destroying the enriched uranium is feasible, albeit challenging. U.S. and Israeli forces have been working to establish total air superiority—a prerequisite for any special operations mission involving troops trained in disabling centrifuges and handling nuclear material.

International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi told reporters in Washington that intelligence suggests most of the enriched uranium remains at the three Iranian nuclear sites bombarded last year by the U.S. “The impression we have is that it hasn’t been moved,” said Grossi, adding that the bulk of the material is beneath the rubble at Iran’s Isfahan facility, with smaller amounts at the Natanz and Fordow facilities.

In recent testimony before a Senate committee, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard stated that U.S. attacks had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment program and buried underground facilities. She noted that while monitoring continues, Iranian leaders have not yet attempted to rebuild their nuclear enrichment capability.

Defense experts estimate that an operation to extract or neutralize the enriched material would likely require more than 1,000 troops at each Iranian site and take considerable time to complete—a substantial commitment that runs counter to Trump’s stated desire to avoid extended military engagements in the Middle East.

“Trump has put himself between a rock and a hard place,” observed Brandan Buck, a senior foreign policy fellow at the Cato Institute. “Throughout this, he has had maximalist aims, but he’s wanted to maintain minimal effort in order to keep the costs low.”

The president’s ultimate decision on whether to secure Iran’s nuclear material may well define his legacy in the region and shape Middle East security dynamics for decades to come.