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.