President Donald Trump has restated his determination to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. In discussions with Mark Wallace, CEO of United Against Nuclear Iran, concerns were raised about the ‘Pickaxe Mountain’ nuclear facility. This hidden site might house centrifuges and enriched uranium, posing a significant threat according to Wallace.
Trump threatens action against this fortified site, previously untouched by the U.S. during earlier engagements. Located under 100 meters of rock near the Natanz complex, the facility is said to replace an above-ground plant capable of assembling thousands of centrifuges annually before its 2020 destruction. The replacement claims to be larger and more modern, built ‘in the heart of the mountain.’
While analysts suggest these tunnels might eventually support a centrifuge assembly line or enrichment plant, there’s no confirmation on whether centrifuges are indeed within.
A satellite image provides an overview of the Natanz nuclear facility and Pickaxe Mountain in Iran.
Despite Trump’s aggressive stance, the administration’s lack of concrete public evidence on the movement of centrifuges to Pickaxe raises questions. Military experts are divided over whether airstrikes can penetrate the facility’s depths or only seal the entrances. The protected chambers might exceed the destructive reach of America’s most advanced bunker-busting weapons. Sealing entrance points could deny access, leaving the inner structures intact.
Despite reports suggesting thousands of centrifuges moved to Pickaxe, Trump’s comments reflect uncertainty. ‘We follow the material,’ Trump noted, referring to Iran’s enriched uranium which could be further enhanced to weapons-grade levels.
Before 2025’s confrontations, Iran reportedly held 440.9 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium, sufficient for multiple nuclear weapons if fully enriched. However, inspectors lost track of the stockpile post-attack.
The Institute for Science and International Security remains doubtful of enriched uranium entering Pickaxe. Without internal connections and supporting infrastructure, storing centrifuges does not equate to an operating plant. Satellite images from February show continued construction but lack evidence of operational activity. Analysts observed vehicles near tunnel entrances, but their purpose remains speculative.
Spencer Faragasso of the Institute highlights a strategic shift. U.S. and Israeli attacks targeted existing enrichment capabilities rather than speculative threats. He doubts that Pickaxe housed critical assets at the time of analysis.
Faragasso and others recognize the plausibility of undetected centrifuge transfers, lending credibility to Israeli intelligence claims, but outside confirmation remains elusive. The focus on Pickaxe, one of the last large unstruck sites, aligns with Trump’s intensified attention.
Trump’s rhetoric around a possible strike contrasts the facility’s undisturbed status. Nicole Grajewski of Sciences Po argues its destruction via airstrikes remains improbable given its depth and fortification. The site lacks publicly identified weaknesses.
Retired Brig. Gen. Robert Spalding remarked on strategy considerations, weighing between obliteration or disruption goals. If total destruction proves unfeasible, preventing personnel access emerges as a viable alternative. Analysts suggest targeting potential ventilation structures, potentially exposing weak points for strategic impact.
Faragasso emphasized the potential option of sealing entry points, potentially offering temporary disruption. Grajewski notes collapsing access could stymie operations, pending potential excavation and ongoing surveillance requirements.
Iran’s history of re-accessing affected sites suggests maintaining closure could demand persistent action. While a strike may signify a symbolic U.S. victory against a prominent facility, it won’t dismantle Iran’s broader nuclear ambitions.
Leave a Reply