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.

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

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.

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

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

False.

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