Middle East Forum chief strategist Jim Hanson joined Fox News to assess the feasibility of a U.S. operation to extract uranium from inside Iran, arguing that while such a mission is possible, it would be a complex and high-risk undertaking. Hanson emphasized that forces would need to operate hundreds of miles inland under hostile conditions, with the primary vulnerability coming not from Iranian ground forces but from drone swarms capable of overwhelming limited air defenses. He also warned of escalation risks, including the potential for a “dirty bomb”–like scenario if nuclear sites are struck during an operation, and suggested that intelligence-driven alternatives or increased economic pressure on Iran’s oil exports may offer more effective paths forward.
FOX: Jim Hanson, former U.S. Army Special Forces and chief strategist at the Middle East Forum, joins us now. Jim, how confident are you that the U.S. could pull off some sort of uranium extraction under enemy fire?
HANSON: We can absolutely do it. But from the beach to the places we have to go is almost 500 miles. That’s a logistical nightmare. It’s not quite as simple. It can be done—we have the capabilities and the people—but everyone should be cognizant that it’s a heavy lift.
FOX: It is, and you don’t want to trivialize it like, “we’ll just go take the uranium.” What kind of consistent close air support would an operation like that require deep inside Iranian airspace?
HANSON: I’d be less worried about them sending a reaction force. If we go in—82nd, SEALs, Delta, Rangers—we surround the compound and start searching. They’re not going to send forces to fight that because they know we have air supremacy. We’ll kill anybody who comes. But they can send drone swarms. And what those guys won’t have a lot of is air defense. That’s the big weakness. It’s hard to defend against a bunch of drones, so we’d have to find a way to bring in air defense long enough to do what needs to be done—find it, get it on a bird, and get out.
FOX: Is there a risk of fallout? If the Iranians start lobbing everything they have at these remaining nuclear sites, is that a real concern?
HANSON: As Secretary Rubio said, this is an apocalyptic death cult. You can’t say they won’t do it. And if they somehow manage to hit those sites, you’ve got the equivalent of a dirty bomb. Our guys would be in deep trouble. That’s the nightmare scenario. The better case is we get a tip—Mossad or the CIA turns someone—and they tell us exactly where it is, maybe even bring it out. There are better ways than a raid, but if it comes down to it, President Trump’s going to get that job done.
FOX: The raid is obviously a last option. What have you heard about these so-called “discombobulator” systems?
HANSON: There are a lot of directed energy weapons we’ve had and tested. Some create intense heat, others use sound waves to disorient. What exactly has been used hasn’t been publicly announced, but it gives us an advantage. When you’re going into a place where the enemy knows you’re coming, you don’t want to lead with your face. This is essentially a directed-energy version of a flashbang—to disorient and give our guys a better chance to get in and out safely.
FOX: The Iranian regime—what’s left of it—do you think it can withstand another two weeks of aerial strikes, or would it take some kind of fast ground operation to force their hand?
HANSON: I think leverage is needed. We’ve bombed so much that we either need to turn up the volume or do something that causes more damage. Their economy is a shambles. Without the revenue from oil out of Kharg Island, they’re toast. Whether you seize it or blockade it and say any ship that loads there loses its oil, those are the kinds of moves that could push them over the edge.
FOX: Do you see the next couple of weeks as decisive?
HANSON: Yeah, we’re coming to the end. The target list is shrinking, and we’re moving toward the next phase—opening the Strait of Hormuz, securing the uranium, and figuring out who’s going to lead Iran forward.
FOX: Jim, great to talk to you as always.
