IAEA to remove uranium from Syrian Site 99 under US-brokered deal
Agreement follows months of secret talks between Washington, Damascus and Jerusalem to avert Israeli military action
AI-assisted coverage comparison, editor-supervised · How this was made
IAEA to remove uranium from Syrian Site 99 under US-brokered deal
Photograph: Jerusalem Post (embedded from source)
What this story says
- The IAEA plans to remove nuclear material, including yellowcake uranium, from a secret Syrian site called Site 99 under a deal brokered by the United States.
- The agreement follows months of secret talks between the US, Syria and Israel, during which Israel threatened to bomb the site if the material was not removed.
- The material is linked to Syria’s former nuclear programme, centred on the Al-Kibar reactor, which Israel destroyed in 2007.
- The removal has not yet begun, but US officials expect it to be completed by the end of 2026.
Who covered it
Percentages are shares of the 7 outlets carrying a published leaning rating. 2 of the 9 outlets we know ran this story carry no rating and are not counted in them. Coverage measured .
Trust
47/100
Craft
95/100
Hype
15/100
9 sources · methodology
Thin on the left so far
Only 1 of the 7 outlets with a published leaning rating that ran this story are rated left.
This story is still being watched, so it is a count and not yet a finding. Coverage keeps arriving for hours after an event, and a side that has published nothing this morning may publish by tonight. If it is still true when we stop checking, we will say so plainly.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will remove nuclear material from a clandestine Syrian site known as Site 99, following an agreement brokered by the United States. The deal involves Syria and Israel and was reached after months of secret diplomacy. The material includes yellowcake uranium, a powder produced from uranium ore, according to a US official cited by Axios.
The site is linked to Syria’s former nuclear programme, which centred on the Al-Kibar reactor in the Dayr Az Zawr region. Israel bombed the reactor in 2007. After the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, the IAEA signed an agreement with Syria’s new government to inspect several nuclear sites, including Al-Kibar and Site 99. Charles Lister, a resident fellow at the Middle East Institute, said Syria’s new government is eager to resolve inherited nuclear issues to improve its international standing.
Israel had threatened to bomb Site 99 if the material was not removed or if Syria attempted to access it. The US and Israel discussed the issue for over a year before agreeing that securing Syria’s cooperation was the best approach. A US official said the new Syrian government has been a "good partner" in the process. The agreement was signed three weeks ago, and the IAEA has not yet begun removing the material.
What the reports disagree on
The Jerusalem Post reported that the agreement "validates US President Donald Trump’s approach towards Syria and shows that his administration is utilizing close relations with Syria to neutralize a possible crisis." Ynet News did not include this claim. The Jerusalem Post also reported that Syrian officials denied knowledge of nuclear material at the site, while Ynet News did not mention this denial.
What the coverage left out
None of the right-rated digests mentioned the detail that Israel bombed the entrances to Site 99 after the fall of Assad’s regime. The Jerusalem Post did not include the potential use of the material in a dirty bomb, as reported by Ynet News. None of the digests or the Jerusalem Post mentioned Charles Lister’s comment on Syria’s new government resolving inherited nuclear and chemical weapons issues.
2007
Year Israel bombed the Al-Kibar reactor
The reactor was Syria’s main nuclear facility before its destruction.
Still developing. We have re-checked which outlets are covering this 4 times, most recently on 11 Aug 2026, 00:45, and will add the sides that appear.
How other outlets pictured it
Which photograph to run is each newsroom’s own choice. The leaning beside a name is that outlet’s published rating, not a claim that the pictures divide along it. Every picture is shown from the outlet’s own server and links to the article it ran in.
How each side covered it
Our own reading of the reporting listed below, written from the outlets’ articles rather than quoted from them. The reasoning is set out on our methodology page.
Left
1 rated outlet
- Ynet News led on the diplomatic effort to prevent escalation involving Israel, Syria and Turkey. It included the detail that Israel bombed the entrances to Site 99 after the fall of Assad’s regime to prevent access. The report quoted Charles Lister, who said Syria’s new government is eager to resolve inherited nuclear and chemical weapons issues. It also noted that the material could be used in a "dirty bomb."
Centre
1 rated outlet
- The Jerusalem Post led on the agreement as a validation of US President Donald Trump’s approach to Syria. It quoted Axios saying the deal shows the administration is "utilizing close relations with Syria to neutralize a possible crisis." The report included the detail that Syrian officials denied knowledge of nuclear material at the site. It also noted that the US and Israel had discussed the issue for over a year before reaching the agreement.
Right
5 rated outlets
- The four right-rated digests all led on the US-brokered deal to avert regional escalation. Observador noted that Israel had detected movements at Site 99 recently, which raised concerns. Arutz Sheva and Anadolu Ajansı emphasised the role of the IAEA in extracting the material. Al Bawaba framed the story as a secret deal reached by the Trump administration, citing Axios and Al-Arabiya. None of the digests mentioned the yellowcake uranium or the potential use of the material in a dirty bomb.
Read it at the source
9 outlets, grouped by the leaning a published rating gives them. Every headline links to the original; an underlined outlet name opens our profile of that publisher.
Left
1Centre
1Right
5- United States, Syria and Israel Reach Secret Agreement to Withdraw Material From Assad's Clandestine Nuclear Program (opens Observador in a new tab)
Observador — is Observador biased? Our profile of this outlet
- IAEA to extract nuclear materials from clandestine Syrian 'Site 99' (opens Arutz Sheva in a new tab)
Arutz Sheva — is Arutz Sheva biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Trump administration reaches secret deals with Syria and Israel to remove nuclear materials (opens Al Bawaba in a new tab)
- IAEA to remove nuclear material from clandestine Syrian site: Report (opens Anadolu Ajansı in a new tab)
Anadolu Ajansı — is Anadolu Ajansı biased? Our profile of this outlet
- US and Israel agree to remove nuclear material from secret Syrian site – Axios (opens ussanews.com in a new tab)
ussanews.com — is ussanews.com biased? Our profile of this outlet
Not rated
2Questions about this coverage
- How did the left and right cover IAEA to remove uranium from Syrian Site 99 under US-brokered deal?
- Of the 7 outlets on this story carrying a published leaning rating, 14% are rated left, 15% are rated centre, 71% are rated right. Those percentages are shares of the rated outlets, not of every outlet that ran it, which was 9. The sections above set out what each side emphasised, in its own terms.
- Is IAEA to remove uranium from Syrian Site 99 under US-brokered deal left or right?
- Too few of the outlets on this story carry a published leaning rating to say. 7 of them do, and this site does not characterise a field under 12: at that size one newsroom filing moves the share by ten points. The percentages above are the count as it stands.
- Is the coverage of IAEA to remove uranium from Syrian Site 99 under US-brokered deal biased?
- IAEA to remove uranium from Syrian Site 99 under US-brokered deal is one event reported by 9 outlets, and this page does not rate the story as biased or unbiased. What it publishes is the spread: which outlets ran it, where named rating organisations place each of them on the spectrum, and what each side chose to lead with. A leaning rating describes an outlet's record over time, not this article, and the two should not be run together.
- Which side is not reporting IAEA to remove uranium from Syrian Site 99 under US-brokered deal?
- When we first saw this story, outlets rated left had barely covered it. Coverage accretes for hours after an event, so that is where to look rather than a verdict — the split above is the current count, and it is the one to read.
- Which outlets covered IAEA to remove uranium from Syrian Site 99 under US-brokered deal?
- 9 that we know of, every one of them listed further up this page with a link to its own report and to what we hold on the publisher. Nothing here is a summary of somebody else's summary: the outlets are named so the original reporting can be read.
- What is Site 99 in Syria?
- Site 99 is a clandestine Syrian facility where nuclear material, including yellowcake uranium, was stored. It is linked to Syria’s former nuclear programme, which centred on the Al-Kibar reactor bombed by Israel in 2007. The IAEA plans to remove the material under a US-brokered deal.
- Why is the US involved in removing nuclear material from Syria?
- The United States brokered the deal to remove nuclear material from Site 99 to avert a potential military escalation between Israel and Syria. Israel had threatened to bomb the site if the material was not removed, and the US sought to secure Syria’s cooperation instead.
- What is yellowcake uranium?
- Yellowcake uranium is a powder produced from uranium ore. It can be further processed and enriched as part of the nuclear fuel cycle. While it cannot be used directly in a nuclear weapon, it could be used in a dirty bomb, which disperses radioactive material.
- When will the nuclear material be removed from Site 99?
- The removal has not yet begun, but US officials expect the process to be completed by the end of 2026. The agreement between the IAEA and Syria was signed three weeks before the reports were published.
How did this read?
About the coverage, not about the story. We do not ask whether you agree with what happened — we have no honest use for that answer.
,regionOfInterest=(627,294)&hash=30e8442f737059b4515b12e17c4f4c430d546cb478f14b29efbbc2971a650d63)
