*Israel’s airstrikes on Tehran* have intensified regional tensions, with Israeli experts claiming Iran was nearing the assembly of a nuclear weapon. Critics, however, argue the attack might accelerate Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The strike has sparked global calls for de-escalation as the U.S. and Iran face uncertainty over future negotiations.
Israel’s airstrikes on Tehran, Iran, on Friday morning marked a dramatic escalation in the proxy war between the two regional rivals. The event has reignited one of the most consequential questions in international security: Just how close was Iran to building a nuclear weapon?
Israeli experts have long warned that Iran was enriching uranium at a level that put it ‘weeks away’ from a nuclear weapon. However, in recent days, there has been a shift. According to Israeli intelligence sources, Iran was on the verge of assembling a crude nuclear device, according to Beni Sabti, an Iran expert at the Institute of National Security Studies, who told Fox News Digital that Tehran was moving materials to “a secret place near Tehran to make a primitive warhead.”
Gregg Roman, executive director of the Middle East Forum, stated that since the Trump administration reinitiated nuclear negotiations, Israel had been collecting fresh intelligence that raised alarm bells. Roman pointed to several key indicators, including the reactivation of an explosives manufacturing line at the Times Enrichment facility, which could be used for nuclear weapon production. He also noted that Iran’s efforts to put fissile material into a usable form for a nuclear weapon had resumed, mirroring work Iran halted in 2003 when it froze its military nuclear program.
Experts believe Iran is enriching uranium to 60%, which puts it just below the 90% needed for a nuclear weapon. This level has no civilian use, according to sources. However, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told a Senate hearing that Iran is not moving toward a nuclear weapon. In her statement, Gabbard also expressed concerns about an erosion of the decades-old taboo in Iran regarding nuclear weapons, which could embolden advocates within the Iranian decision-making apparatus.
President Donald Trump, who gave Iran a 60-day ‘ultimatum’ to make a deal, noted that Friday marked the end of that deadline. Nuclear negotiations between Washington and Tehran were scheduled for this weekend, but the future of these talks remains uncertain. Rosemary Kelanic, a political scientist and nuclear deterrence expert, urged caution about the narrative coming from Israeli officials. Kelanic argued that those in favor of the attack, including Israel, would try to make it look like Iran was on the brink of a bomb. However, she emphasized that U.S. intelligence assessments have consistently judged that Iran was not pursuing an active weaponization program.
Kelanic raised the possibility that the Israeli strikes may push Iran to reconsider its restraint. She warned that, in the current situation, Iran might choose to run a crash program and test a nuclear device as soon as possible. This would be a high-risk move, as it could lead to a dangerous escalation. Kelanic further suggested that even if the U.S. and Iran had reached a deal on Iran’s nuclear program, Israel might still have carried out strikes, stating that they wouldn’t trust Iran to truly give up nuclear weapons.
The competing intelligence narratives reflect the deep uncertainty about Iran’s intentions, and the broader uncertainty about what comes next. While Israel argues that its strikes disrupted a dangerous escalation, critics fear they may have accelerated it. The situation remains tense as the world watches to see whether Israel’s actions will decimate Iran’s nuclear capabilities or if the decades-long threat will endure.