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 15 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 14 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.

	▲	throwworhtthrow an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think our discussion hinges on the definition of "program". I agree that Iran was attempting to reduce its breakout time. "doing the research and design required to build a nuclear weapon" ... "enriching uranium for the purpose of building a nuclear weapon" Gabbard says "Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons," but if there was knowledge they were actually building a nuclear weapon, she would have said so. I could believe, but haven't seen claimed, that Iran was doing R&D in order to shorten the time between deciding they want an atomic bomb and having one completed. Or perhaps to have a second-order deterrent ("we could make a bomb") not a first order deterrent ("we have a bomb"). I think it's a big difference from actually trying to make one. Maybe you disagree on that point.

▲

csomar 15 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 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

▲

einpoklum 13 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