Israel launched a large-scale offensive against Iranian nuclear and military targets, including the key uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, amid growing concerns that Iran was nearing the capability to build a nuclear bomb.
Israel Strikes Amid Fears of Imminent Nuclear Threat
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu justified the attacks by reportedly warning, “If not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time. It could be a year. It could be within a few months.” He framed the strikes as a measure to protect Israel’s “very survival,” according to the BBC.
In response, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the strikes as “reckless,” claiming that they endangered “peaceful nuclear facilities” and risked a “radiological disaster.” Iran subsequently launched retaliatory missile strikes against Israel.
Was Iran Close to Making a Nuclear Weapon?
According to Israeli military intelligence cited by the British broadcaster, Iran had made “concrete progress” in producing key components of a nuclear bomb, including a uranium metal core and a neutron source initiator—technologies associated with detonating a nuclear explosion.
But experts have questioned whether this truly indicated a bomb was imminent.
Kelsey Davenport, director for non-proliferation policy at the Arms Control Association, told the BBC, “Iran has been at a near-zero breakout for months… The assessment that Iran could develop a crude nuclear weapon within a few months is not new.”
She added that while some of Iran’s nuclear activity could be applicable to weaponisation, there was no clear sign it had resumed the actual building of a bomb.
What Does US Intelligence Say?
In March, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified before Congress that “Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was at its highest levels and unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.”
“The US intelligence community continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons programme that he suspended in 2003,” Gabbard had reportedly said at the time, reinforcing intelligence assessments that Iran maintains technical capability but not political authorisation for a nuclear weapons program.
What Is the IAEA Saying?
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently confirmed that Iran has stockpiled enough 60%-enriched uranium to theoretically build nine nuclear bombs if further enriched to weapons-grade (90%), the BBC reported.
While enrichment to 60% is not, on its own, evidence of weaponisation, the IAEA called it “a matter of serious concern,” noting that Iran had not provided explanations for man-made uranium particles found at three undeclared nuclear sites, the report said.
The IAEA also warned that Iran was not cooperating with ongoing investigations, limiting the agency’s ability to confirm that its nuclear program remains purely peaceful.
Was There a Justification for the Strikes?
The central question remains whether Israel had solid intelligence to back the claim that Iran was on the verge of building a bomb, or whether the strikes were preemptive rather than reactive.
Davenport told the UK-based publication, “If Netanyahu was purely motivated by Iran’s proliferation risk, Israel would likely have shared that intelligence with the United States and the initial attack would likely have targeted all of Iran’s key nuclear facilities.”
A Tense Standoff with No Clear End
While Iran’s uranium stockpile and enrichment levels are undeniably alarming, multiple assessments from international experts and intelligence agencies suggest the country had not resumed full-scale weaponisation.
The Israeli strikes mark a significant escalation in the region and have already triggered retaliatory attacks.
ALSO READ: Explained: How Effective is Israel’s Air Defense System Against Iranian Missiles?
