> a former member of the parliament of Iran

He wasn't a member at the time of those statements nor did he have any involvement in their nuclear program. That's misleading to say the least.

Ali Motahari—former member of Iran’s Parliament—clarified that the interview dates back to May 2022, when he neither held a parliamentary seat nor any official role in nuclear affairs.[0]

So besides a single guy in Iran, are there official delegations that have concluded Iran was developing nuclear weapons? The US has had two National Intelligence Estimates, which consists of all 18 agencies in the intelligence community, conclude that they were not developing nukes.

0: https://wanaen.com/trump-shares-old-ali-motahari-interview-o...

▲ tristanj 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> "conclude that they were not developing nukes."

You're misreading your own sources. The 2007 NIE and Gabbard's 2025 testimony both describe a nuclear weapons program that Iran "suspended in 2003". They confirm a nuclear weapons program existed, the opposite of what you're claiming.

And you want an official source: the IAEA concluded in May 2025 that Iran ran an "undeclared structured nuclear program" until the early 2000s using undeclared material. Then it found Iran in formal non-compliance in June of last year.

"Not building a warhead today" and "never pursued weapons" are different claims, and you swapped one for the other.

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/iaea-director-gen...

▲

hypeatei 14 hours ago | parent [-]

I never swapped claims. We're talking about nuclear weapons and why the US started a war with Iran this year due to this supposed "crisis" (in your words) but there's no evidence that a threat is imminent. The NIEs were just one data point against your claim; the burden is still on you to show who else agrees with the assesment that this is a crisis.

> IAEA concluded in May 2025 that Iran ran an "undeclared structured nuclear program" until the early 2000s

"nuclear program" is not the same as a weapons program and the IAEA sounding alarm bells over policy violations is not a conclusion that Iran is/was on a nuclear warpath.

▲

tristanj 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Name the civilian use for Iran's 440 kg of 60% enriched uranium. There isn't one. No power reactor uses it (those run on 3-5%), no research reactor needs it (~20% max), and it sits 98-99% of the way enriched weapons-grade. Iran has enough fissile material for multiple bombs with under two weeks of further enrichment. There is no civilian use for this material. Iran enriched this material, under a mountain, in violation of IAEA requirements, at a site it hid from IAEA investigators until it got caught lying, while stonewalling compliance investigators for years.

Even your own source, the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment report, states: "Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons."

What's your justification for Iran producing this material, if not for a nuclear weapons program?

▲

kelnos 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Did that 2025 assessment conclude that Iran was building toward a nuclear weapon, or didn't it?

	▲	tristanj 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The 2025 unclassified report does not assess that, but the 2024 one did. Money quote: Iran has greatly expanded its nuclear program, reduced IAEA monitoring, and undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so. Also, that 2025 unclassified report was released before the June 2025 enrichment numbers I shared; these numbers would have influenced the report, and you dodged the question: What's your justification for Iran producing 440kg of highly enriched 60% material, in secret deep under a mountain in violation of IAEA agreements, if not for a nuclear weapons program?

▲ defrost 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

For unrelated reasons I personally don't believe Iran was ever pursuing a nuclear weapon, just edging enrichment for leverage.

That said, this:

  The US has had two National Intelligence Estimates, which consists of all 18 agencies in the intelligence community, conclude that they were not developing nukes.

has little weight given these were / are the same US intell agencies that were blindsided and caught pants down unaware and in the dark about the 1998 India / Pakistan nuclear test exchange.