Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. That was the assessment of Trump's own government back in March, according to testimony of his national security advisor under oath before congress.

We knew about these sites because they have been under IAEA supervision for many years.

The smart thing for Iran to do at this point is do what Israel did: not submit to any arms control and develop their own weapons in secret. Clearly this is the only way to be safe when people in Tel Aviv and Washington are openly discussing the "Libya solution."

▲

dralley 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is grammar-hacking and misleading.

According to the IAEA, Iran has around 400kg of 60% enriched Uranium. Nobody disputes this. There is zero reason to ever enrich beyond around 5% for civilian purposes, and zero reason to ever enrich beyond around 20% for non-bomb purposes (naval ship reactors typically use higher enrichment to avoid refueling and increase power density). That's enough Uranium to build around 10 bombs if fully enriched. They've done work on designing the actual bomb itself, too, and there's very little dispute about that either.

They have a nuclear weapons program. What Iran hasn't done, or there's no evidence of them having done, is actually start putting one together. But many of the prerequisites to do so are in place, though people dispute exactly how long it would take them to pull it off once they decided to do so.

▲

throwworhtthrow 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Gaining the knowledge to build a nuclear weapon is not the same thing as assembling one.

Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, March 2025:

"the IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. The IC continues to monitor closely if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program." [1]

Please explain how "Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program" is grammar hacking the above quote.

[1] https://youtu.be/nOhOqjx1y18?t=701

	▲	dralley 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If you're actively doing the research and design required to build a nuclear weapon, and you're enriching uranium for the purpose of building a nuclear weapon, you have a nuclear weapons program. Whether you're actually physically assembling one immediately or not. You wouldn't argue that the Manhattan Project wasn't a "real" nuclear weapons program until they started physically building the prototype.

▲

csomar 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think his point is: you knew about this 60% because we have visibility into their plants. But if we didn't, we probably have less of an idea of what is going on there.

▲

TiredOfLife 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They also have the delivery mechanism. A huge ballistic missile program.

▲

einpoklum 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> There is zero reason to ever enrich beyond around 5% for civilian purposes,

False.

https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/69513/7643

▲

PeterHolzwarth 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is grossly incorrect: Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons and uranium enrichment for decades - and the west (and even the not-west) has been working to counter it the whole time.

Iran is considered a bellicose enemy in much of the middle east. A nuclear-armed Iran would quickly lead to the rest of the middle east pursing their own nuclear weapons programs to counter Iran.

A nuclear armed Iran leads to rapid nuclear proliferation throughout the middle east.

▲

noufalibrahim 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Indeed.

I remember an old interview of Robert Fisk where in which his analysis was that the only way to stay safe from attacks like this was to have a nuclear weapon.

I can't think of any other way. Their rhetoric is needlessly belligerent but it doesn't seem like there's anything they can do to guarantee their own safety.