Iran’s nuclear strategy has undergone a radical shift in recent weeks.
The regime chose to bury its uranium rather than protect it, and the timing of this choice reveals the motivation behind it.
According to five separate US intelligence sources, a systematic sealing operation was carried out at the Isvahan nuclear complex.
The physical integrity of the tunnels was compromised and entrances were secured with highlevel military barriers and approximately 500 kg of uranium enriched to 60% a stockpile just a few centrifuge cycles from weapons grade was effectively rendered inaccessible underground.
Behind this move lay a very concrete threat.
In midMay, the US military had prepared an operation to physically seize this uranium.
Satellite imagery had shown ongoing excavation work at Isfahan tunnel entrances since the June 2025 US and Israeli strikes.
Iran was already trying to access the stockpile, but the US operation was cancelled with a too high risk assessment.
Iran seized this opportunity and took an entirely different path, eliminating access altogether by collapsing tunnels and booby trapping entrances.
It prevented the US from seizing the material while also apparently cutting off its own access.
IAEA director GCI had confirmed in March that nearly half of this stockpile was located in the Isvahan tunnel complex.
Additional material is believed to be held at other sites such as Fordo and Natans.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the total stockpile is approximately 440 kg and enriching this material to 90% that is reaching weapons grade is assessed as relatively easy if centrifuges are running.
A strategic paradox emerges here.
Iran could say even we can’t reach it.
But only Iran knows what is actually behind those tunnels.
Arms Control Association analyst Roker puts his finger on exactly this point.
I would worry that Iran would claim some portion was irretrievable.
We wouldn’t have full confidence that Iran couldn’t retain access to it at some point in the future.
Trump had told Fox News, “We know exactly what’s happening, but between knowing and physically verifying lie collapsed galleries and explosive barriers.
” The strategic meaning of this paradox runs very deep.
Iran actually accomplished three things with a single move.
It invalidated the US military seizure option.
It gained the uncontrollable stockpile card at the negotiation table.
And it left the door open for secret future access.
At minimum, this possibility cannot be ruled out.
The history of nuclear disarmament negotiations shows us one thing clearly.
A stockpile that cannot be physically verified cannot be secured by any commitment on paper.
However, evaluating Iran’s uranium move as an isolated decision would be misleading.
While the regime was hiding its nuclear trump card underground, it was facing a far more urgent and far hotter struggle on the surface.
Iran had attempted to hold the world’s oil traffic hostage by closing the straight of Hormuz, but the US military response fundamentally broke that calculation.
On June 5th, Sentcom shot down at least four Iranian attack drones over Hormuz munitions that posed an immediate threat to commercial tankers.
The US then struck the coastal surveillance radar at Guruk and the military control station on strategic Keshum Island.
Iran’s surveillance infrastructure over the strait was dismantled piece by piece.
The 11 A10C warthogs of the 75th Fighter Squadron returning to RAF Lake and Heath documented the operation scale through kill markings on their fuselages, GBU31 and GBU38 precisiong guided munitions, AGM65 Maverick missiles, APKWS guided rockets, and 30mm GAU8 cannon rounds were used.
General Kaine outlined the picture at the Pentagon.
We have destroyed more than 120 vessels and 44 mine layers.
We are flying further east, penetrating deeper into Iranian airspace to hunt one-way attack capability.
In addition to A10s, AH64 Apache helicopters and 5,000lb bunker buster bombs had also been deployed.
The US was systematically crushing Iran’s naval surface capacity, air assets, and coastal infrastructure.
Every tool Iran had relied on when closing the straight in February.
Drones, speedboats, mine layers, coastal surveillance network had been largely eliminated within months.
But Iran’s most insidious move had already been made.
The deployed mines were waiting beneath the water, and clearing these mines by military force was a far more complex task than destroying Iran’s surface assets.
Hormos is only 33 km wide at its narrowest point.
And Iran had laid sea mines in this narrow passage.
How many were laid, where they were placed, and what types were used is still not fully known.
This uncertainty is a weapon in itself.
A single mine can be enough to sink a super tanker.
And when insurers begin pricing this risk, commercial traffic stops on its own.
This waterway through which approximately 20% of the world’s oil supply and nearly all of the Gulf States export capacity passes had effectively been closed and the cost to the global economy was growing by the day.
The US had imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports in response.
Trump had sent a clear message.
The blockade will continue at full force until this transaction is completed.
Both sides were strangling each other’s maritime logistics.
Iran was targeting world trade with mines.
The US was targeting Iran’s economy with the blockade.
Insurance premiums had skyrocketed.
Tanker companies were avoiding the strait.
Caught in between oil exports from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Q8, and Qatar, and the world’s energy security.
Mine clearance had taken top priority on the G7 agenda.
Britain and France offered to participate in operations, but naval mine clearance ranks among the most arduous and dangerous tasks in maritime history.
It can take weeks or even months.
Even if a deal says the strait is open, convincing tanker captains, insurers, and safely transiting those waters is a separate matter.
The maritime insurance sector bases risk pricing not on announcements, but on concrete data.
Premiums do not drop until mine maps are produced and clearance operations are independently verified as complete.
This situation elevated the Hormuz crisis from a purely military matter to a global energy security and economic battleground.
Gulf states, the majority of world oil exports, were forced to seek alternative routes with their exit door closed.
Saudi Arabia tried exporting via the Red Sea, the UAE via Indian Ocean routes, but these routes were longer, more expensive, and far from being able to replace Hormuz in capacity.
The de facto closure of Hormuz had held hostage not just Iran, but the entire region and global energy markets.
However, in response to Iran’s attack in the Strait of Hormuz and its attempts to sabotage the Gulf country’s projects to bypass the strait, the US responded in June 2026 by expanding the blockade in the region and providing escorts for these new pipelines and ships.
This also nullified Iran’s latest efforts.
In fact, the EU joined the US in this fight.
On June 8th, a first in European Union history took place.
And this first is a very serious signal for Iran.
The EU council used its newly established maritime security and freedom of navigation sanctions framework for the first time against Iran.
targets the IRGC Navy’s Hormuzan Provincial Command, the deputy commander in charge of political affairs and spokesperson Muhammad Akbazad and Hamid Husseini, a representative of the Iranian Oil Exporters Association and one of the architects of the crypto extortion system.
The sanctions include asset freezes, a travel ban to the EU, and a ban on the transfer of economic resources.
And the EU is not alone.
The UK and France along with 36 other countries have signed a safe passage declaration.
This picture squeezed Iran from two directions.
Externally, the US military’s overwhelming force and blockade.
Internally, the economic collapse created by this pressure.
And it was the wounds on this internal front that were the real force that pushed the regime to the negotiation table.
Military pressure and economic blockade deeply shook Iran’s internal structure.
And the regime, unable to withstand this pressure any longer, sat down at the negotiation table.
But the Iran that sat down was not an Iran that had completely surrendered.
It hid its most valuable trump card by burying its uranium, used the mines in Hormuz as a bargaining tool, and managed to keep the nuclear issue outside the deal.
A regime cornered but still capable of strategic calculation even in the corner.
And at the foundation of this strategy lay a very rational calculation.
Get economic relief in the first phase.
Buy time on nuclear issues in the second phase.
Hold the underground uranium as unverifiable stockpile.
Examples of such long-term calculations in Iranian diplomatic history are not few.
A similar step-by-step concession strategy had been followed during the 2015 JCPOA process and the results of this strategy showed themselves at the table.
On June 15th, 2026, the US and Iran reached an agreement through the mediation of Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif.
Qatar and Oman are also known to have contributed through diplomatic channels.
Trump announced on Truth Social, “The deal with Iran is now complete.
I authorize the immediate toll-free opening of the Straight of Hormuz and the simultaneous lifting of the US naval blockade.
The official signing ceremony will take place on June 19th in Switzerland.
The 14-point memorandum of understanding envisages a two-phase structure.
Phase one now entering into force.
Ceasefire on all fronts including Lebanon.
Opening of the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days.
Lifting of the US naval blockade.
Release of $25 billion in frozen Iranian assets including direct cash transfers and suspension of oil sanctions.
The uranium issue is not addressed in this phase.
Phase two, a 60-day negotiation period, full lifting of sanctions.
a uranium enrichment moratorium, the future of existing stockpiles and Iran’s reconstruction fund.
In other words, the truly critical issue, the nuclear crisis has been entirely deferred to the second phase.
Iranian foreign minister Iraqi laid out this structure explicitly.
The nuclear issue and the lifting of sanctions have been deferred to the second stage.
In the second stage, enrichment, the future of existing stockpiles and the reconstruction fund will be discussed and he clearly stated Iran’s position on uranium.
From our perspective, the only acceptable method for dealing with the enriched material is dilution within Iran.
In other words, Iran refuses to surrender the stockpile or remove it from the country.
It wants the material processed on its own soil under its own control.
The US was demanding a 12 to 20year enrichment moratorum and the opening of stockpiles to IAEA inspection.
Iran had proposed a 5-year moratorum and internal dilution.
There is a serious gap between positions and whether this gap can be closed within 60 days will determine the deal’s future.
From an analytical perspective, the first phase gives Iran nearly everything it wants.
ceasefire blockade lifted $25 billion sanctions relief.
But what the US actually wants, namely resolution of the nuclear issue, has been entirely left to the second phase.
This structure clearly reflects Iran’s strategic skill at the negotiation table.
It secured its most urgent needs, economic relief and ceasefire in phase 1 and deferred its biggest concession, uranium, to 60 days later.
Trump presented the deal as a wall to no nuclear weapon.
Macron announced at the G7 that we will discuss the lasting reopening of Hormuz and concluding an accord on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic activities.
Global markets responded positively.
Stock markets opened higher.
Pressure on oil prices eased.
However, the deal’s fragile points surfaced very quickly.
Israel carried out a strike in Lebanon on the very day the deal was announced.
Trump reacted sharply.
This morning’s Beirut attack should not have happened, but Israel is not a party to this deal.
And the Hezbollah issue appears to be superficially glossed over in the text with the phrase ceasefire on all fronts.
And beneath all this diplomatic framework, two unresolved problems remain.
One beneath the water, the other beneath the earth.
The deal is impressive on paper, but two physical realities remain beyond the paper.
The mines in Hormuz.
The first phase says the straight will open within 30 days, but how many mines are underwater, where they are, and what type they are remains unclear.
Naval mine clearance can take weeks or even months.
Britain and France have offered assistance, but operational preparations have not yet begun.
Even if the deal says open, convincing tanker captains, insurers and safely transiting those waters is a process in itself.
The uranium beneath Isvahan is an even deeper crisis.
The nuclear issue is not addressed in phase 1.
It has been deferred to the 60-day negotiation period.
During this period, approximately 500 kg of 60% enriched uranium will wait beneath rubble behind booby trapped entrances.
Iran wants internal dilution.
The US wants surrender under IAEA supervision.
There is a major gap between positions.
Who will carry out physical access? How it will be done? How long it will take? Entirely unclear.
Roker’s warning is critical here.
Iran could claim some portion of the stockpile is irretrievable and there is no guarantee it won’t secretly dig through and access it in the future.
And this deal also has a direct connection to the Russia Ukraine war.
Iran is one of Russia’s most critical military suppliers, producer of Shahed Kamicazi drones and a sanctions evasion channel.
Iran reaching a deal with the US could mean a serious strategic loss for Moscow.
The Shahed supply chain could come under risk.
Sanctions evasion capacity has already shrunk due to the blockade.
Complete closure of this channel after the deal is possible.
If US military resources on the Iran front are freed up, more support could go to Ukraine.
However, the other side of the coin also exists.
The $25 billion and sanctions relief could economically strengthen Iran.
Some of these resources could flow to proxy forces or Russia relations.
The 60-day ceasefire provides Iran with breathing room.
Whether this room will be used for rearmament will be the most critical indicator to watch.
Historical precedents do not permit much optimism on this front.
After the 2015 JCPOA, some of the funds released to Iran were channeled to proxy forces.
The risk of the same pattern repeating this time has not fully disappeared.
From a broader perspective, this deal could also reshape US strategic priorities in the Middle East.
The calming of the Iran front could provide Washington the opportunity to shift more resources to the Pacific, that is to the China focused strategy.
At the same time, the freeing up of military assets and intelligence capacity that could be directed to the Ukraine front could produce a secondary outcome that may affect the Russia Ukraine balance.
The lines of this crisis are clear.
Iran was cornered, its military capacity was crushed, its economy strangled, its home front cracked.
When the regime was left with no options, it sat at the table.
But even at the table, it made strategic moves.
It buried its uranium, turned the straight into a bargaining tool, and kept the nuclear issue outside the deal.
On paper, peace is beginning.
Ceasefire, the straight opening, billions of dollars being released.
But beneath the paper lie two unresolved realities, the mines beneath Hormuz and the uranium beneath Isvahan.
One threatens maritime traffic, the other nuclear security.
and the time needed to clear both may be far longer than the deal’s timeline.
This deal’s real test will begin in 60 days.
The ease of the first phase should not obscure the difficulty of the second.
How much Iran will concede on nuclear issues after receiving economic relief, how much pressure the US can maintain during the ceasefire period, and how the actual condition of the stockpile beneath Isvahan will be verified.
These three questions will determine the deal’s fate.
We will all see together in 60 days whether this deal evolves toward peace or a new crisis.
So, what do you think about this? Share in the comments.
Don’t forget to subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications to stay updated on PPR Global’s latest analyses.
Thank you for choosing
