Iran's ‘mine war’ claims questioned as UN warns over uranium buried at secret nuclear site

Iran reported another series of explosions involving oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday, claiming the vessels had struck naval mines while attempting to pass through restricted waters without Tehran's permission. But U.S.-based military analysts are casting doubt on those accounts, suggesting that Iranian forces may instead be deliberately attacking commercial ships as part of an effort to undermine confidence in American naval protection.

The latest incidents come as negotiations between Washington and Tehran remain stalled, with President Donald Trump signaling that he prefers to maintain economic pressure on Iran rather than resume a full-scale military campaign. The Strait of Hormuz, which connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, is one of the world's most important maritime trade routes. Before the war, roughly one-fifth of global oil consumption passed through the narrow waterway.

Iran announced restrictions on shipping when the war began in late February and has since attempted to enforce its blockade through repeated attacks on commercial vessels. Tehran insists ships must obtain its authorization before crossing, although international maritime law protects passage through the strait. The United States has responded with a naval blockade targeting Iranian oil exports, maintained since July, in an effort to increase pressure on the country's struggling economy.

At the same time, the U.S. Navy has been escorting commercial vessels through the strait to protect them from Iranian missiles and drones. Trump has claimed that oil shipments through Hormuz have returned to prewar levels, but Tehran has intensified its attacks in recent weeks, apparently seeking to challenge that assertion and push global energy prices higher. The International Maritime Organization, the United Nations agency responsible for shipping safety, reported that October saw the highest monthly number of attacks in the area since the war began.

By November 11, it had recorded more than 130 incidents involving commercial vessels in Hormuz and the wider Middle East, with at least 25 seafarers killed and others injured or missing. Iran has increasingly attributed explosions aboard tankers to naval mines, frequently accompanying its announcements with footage showing ships engulfed in flames. Iranian officials claim the vessels entered restricted areas, sometimes along the southern side of the strait farther from Iran's coastline, and disabled their identification and tracking systems to conceal their movements.

Tehran portrays the explosions as the consequences of ignoring its warnings. However, there is considerable doubt that the vessels actually struck mines, with analysts suspecting that Iranian forces are attacking them directly. On Friday, Iran claimed that two oil tankers and a liquefied natural gas carrier had been damaged by mines. In its statement about the gas carrier, Tehran warned that the vessel had ignored the fate of previous ships and relied on American military aircraft for protection.

"The vessel, having failed to learn from the fate of previously destroyed tankers, chose to rely on the escort of American combat aircraft to enable its passage, without realizing that naval mines do not coordinate their actions with the American military," the statement said. Iranian naval officials issued further warnings Saturday as they reported additional incidents involving oil tankers. In one announcement, the Iranian navy claimed that a vessel had entered a prohibited area east of the Strait of Hormuz with its tracking and identification systems switched off.

It allegedly struck a naval mine, caught fire and came to a halt. The navy warned that any tanker entering the restricted area risked suffering a similar fate, accusing shipping companies of failing to learn from previous incidents. Several hours later, Tehran reported another tanker fire, again blaming a naval mine. "Another oil tanker operating without authorization caught fire after striking a naval mine in a prohibited area east of the Strait of Hormuz," the Iranian navy said.

It claimed complete control and supervision over the waters east of the strait and warned that vessels disabling their tracking systems or entering restricted areas would face the same consequences. Are the tankers really hitting mines? The repeated Iranian explanations have raised serious questions among military analysts, particularly because the United States says it has already cleared the principal shipping routes of naval mines. There are growing suspicions that Iran is deliberately striking vessels with missiles, drones or other weapons and then presenting the damage as the result of mine explosions.

In October, Reuters reported an unusual incident in which attackers traveling in a small boat attached magnetic mines to a tanker, demonstrating another possible method of targeting commercial shipping. The Washington-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW), which monitors military conflicts, has also challenged Tehran's version of events. In its latest assessment, published Friday with the Critical Threats Project, the institute argued that Iran's repeated mine claims appear designed to undermine shipping operators' confidence in U.S. naval escorts and encourage vessels to enter waters closer to Iran's coastline, where Tehran seeks to exercise greater control over maritime traffic.

The institute noted that U.S. Central Command announced on August 27 that American forces had completed mine-clearing operations in the strait. Iranian claims about vessels striking mines continued afterward, despite the lack of evidence that Tehran had successfully laid new minefields. The assessment also recalled American strikes on August 31 against Iranian missiles reportedly intended for deploying additional naval mines. Earlier U.S. attacks had already damaged other Iranian minelaying capabilities, potentially limiting Tehran's ability to restore those defenses.

According to the institute, it has observed no indications that Iran has successfully re-mined the strait. Instead, analysts believe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Iran's conventional military are continuing to attack ships with drones, missiles and potentially other weapons. They also noted a shift in Iranian messaging, with officials increasingly emphasizing that vessels supposedly damaged by mines had been traveling under American military protection.

The apparent objective, according to the assessment, is to cast doubt on the effectiveness of U.S. escorts and persuade shipping companies that American protection cannot guarantee safe passage. Despite the escalation, commercial vessels have continued crossing Hormuz, and Washington has so far avoided resuming a full-scale military offensive. U.S. forces have nevertheless carried out several limited strikes against Iranian targets in recent weeks, particularly near the strait.

One operation last week targeted Qeshm Island after Iranian forces reportedly fired on an American aircraft. On Thursday, Iranian authorities reported an "enemy attack" on a telecommunications tower near the coastal city of Sirik, close to the Strait of Hormuz. Hours later, early Friday, Iran claimed to have retaliated by destroying an American early-warning radar installation in Bahrain, which hosts the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet. U.S. Central Command rejected that account, saying American forces had intercepted two Iranian attack drones headed toward Bahrain.

"There were no injuries or damage," the command said. The incident marked another confrontation between Washington and Tehran at a time when both sides appear unwilling to return to full-scale war but remain engaged in military operations around the strategic waterway. Trump: ‘We don't need a deal with Iran’ The confrontation at sea is unfolding alongside a deepening diplomatic impasse. On Thursday, Trump announced that he had instructed Vice President JD Vance to shift his attention away from negotiations with Iran and focus instead on domestic issues.

The president argued that Washington no longer needed an agreement with Tehran because the American blockade and broader economic pressure were already weakening the Islamic Republic. "We don't need a deal with Iran. Those days have long since passed," Trump declared. Iranian leaders have responded with equally defiant rhetoric, publicly rejecting concessions over the country's nuclear program, which Washington considers essential to any future agreement.

Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, warned this week that Tehran would not allow even a "single nuclear particle" to leave its territory. He argued that Iran needed its enriched uranium for the development of nuclear-powered ships and submarines, rejecting demands that the material be transferred abroad. Rezaei has also raised the possibility of a more fundamental shift in Iran's nuclear policy. Late last month, he warned that renewed war could prompt Tehran to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the international agreement governing nuclear safeguards and inspection obligations.

Such a move would further undermine the framework through which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, monitors Iran's nuclear activities. The agency's inspections have already been severely restricted since the 12-day war between Israel and Iran in June 2025, during which the United States struck three major Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Tehran has not allowed inspectors to return to the bombed facilities or other key nuclear sites, apart from a visit in September to the Bushehr nuclear power plant, which operates using Russian-supplied uranium and has not been a central focus of Western proliferation concerns.

Rezaei has gone further than threatening withdrawal from the treaty, suggesting that Iran could reconsider its declared nuclear doctrine, which officially rejects the development of nuclear weapons. He said the government had not made a decision to change that policy but acknowledged an internal debate over whether it should remain in place if fighting resumed. According to Rezaei, repeated attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities have prompted questions among the public about the wisdom of maintaining the existing doctrine.

UN nuclear watchdog raises new alarm over secretive Isfahan facility Against that backdrop, a confidential IAEA report disclosed Friday has raised further concerns about the fate of Iran's enriched uranium. The report, obtained by Reuters, says the agency is "increasingly concerned" about an enrichment facility at the Isfahan nuclear complex that Tehran declared shortly before the June 2025 war but has never allowed inspectors to visit.

The site is believed to be connected to an underground tunnel network where a significant quantity of uranium enriched to 60% purity may be stored. That level is well above what is typically required for civilian nuclear power and could be enriched further to weapons-grade purity. According to the report, Iran informed the IAEA of the existence of the Isfahan Fuel Enrichment Plant, known as IFEP, on June 12, 2025, just one day before Israel launched its surprise attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Inspectors had planned to visit the site the following day, but the outbreak of war made the inspection impossible. The surrounding complex was subsequently targeted during the fighting, and Iran has continued to deny inspectors access to the facility. The precise location and present condition of IFEP remain unknown. Diplomats believe it may be situated within Isfahan's underground tunnel network, but a senior diplomat told Reuters that the agency has been unable to establish exactly where the plant is located or whether it remains operational.

"The Agency does not know IFEP's exact location, status for safeguards purposes or whether it contains nuclear material," the confidential report states. It also says Iran has refused to provide inspectors with access to the facility or its design information. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said in March that the agency believed a substantial portion of Iran's uranium enriched to 60% was buried in the Isfahan tunnel complex. Friday's report reiterated the need for Tehran to disclose the status of its nuclear facilities and enriched uranium stockpile, as well as allow inspectors to return to sites damaged in the war to determine where the material is now located.

The agency warned that the absence of reliable information about Iran's nuclear material, combined with its inability to inspect the relevant facilities, poses serious proliferation concerns requiring urgent action. With negotiations stalled, maritime attacks continuing and Tehran threatening to reconsider its nuclear commitments, the uncertainty surrounding Iran's uranium stockpile has become another major obstacle to resolving the confrontation between Washington and the Islamic Republic.