Yes, There IS Evidence That Iran Is Pursuing Nuclear Weapons

A relatively new talking point has been floated that there is no evidence independent from Israel’s intelligence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. 

In the most narrow of senses, one could argue that this is true. After all, none of us is a mind-reader, and it is conceivable that the Iranian regime just loves the idea of having stockpiles of enriched Uranium whose only use is building nuclear bombs. 

Is there absolute PROOF that Ayatollah Khamenei doesn’t find the metal pretty? Maybe he believes that the radiation has life extension properties, and he basks in the glow of the radiation. Who knows?

“Iran is weeks away from having a nuke!” is Global Warming for neocons.

Source: the timelines.
Both are doomsday cults.

Climate Change Nuclear Iran pic.twitter.com/kbTxCRmc4F

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) June 16, 2025

However, Occam’s Razor suggests that when billions of dollars are spent to enrich Uranium beyond the point where it has any civilian use, the likely reason is that a military use is in mind. 

UN nuclear chief says Iran has material to build bombs, but no plan to do so https://t.co/z9W08rXKhj

— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 20, 2025

The International Atomic Energy Agency has been very clear that Iran has been cheating on its commitments to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, so the fact that it has been hiding elements of its nuclear program from the world is not in dispute. 

https://t.co/ydbab17SIE pic.twitter.com/WxnmyHuKuZ

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) June 20, 2025

The findings are damning, making it clear that Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched Uranium is growing, its enrichment program is being hidden and expanded, and that there is no mechanism available to the international community to ensure that it is not creating a weapon. Unless the principle is that the only proof that would satisfy us is a radioactive crater centered on Tel Aviv, the only rational explanation for all that is that Iran wants a nuke. 

As President Donald Trump weighs joining Israel’s war to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities, the world’s chief nuclear official tells Fox News that he sees no evidence Iran’s leaders are racing to build a nuclear bomb.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi said, “We have confirmed that Iran does have, even now, enough material for several warheads.

“But this should not be equated with a nuclear weapon,” Grossi continued, adding, “We do not have at this point, if you ask me, at this time, any tangible proof that there is a program, or a plan, to fabricate, to manufacture a nuclear weapon.”

What is the standard of proof? I would say that spending tens of billions of dollars on a program whose only possible purpose is producing a nuclear weapon is sufficient, but I am not quite the trusting soul others are. 

Notice he simply doesn’t have an answer. At the end Amanpour correctly notes that there is no country without a nuclear weapon that has collected such a stockpile of 60% enriched uranium because there is no other reason to do it.

The people pretending the Islamic Republic… https://t.co/Y0aY67XuIE

— AG (@AGHamilton29) June 20, 2025

I do think that claims that Iran’s leaders are so irrational that they would risk Israeli retaliation on Tehran are unproven. Those of us who are hostile to Iran’s regime–I count myself among them–often claim that a death cult runs Iran and would not care if Israel struck back. Obviously, Iran’s leaders are thrilled to have useful idiots die for their cause, but assuming that they would be willing to have their country immolated to kill off the Jews is a big leap to make. 

Maybe yes, maybe no. I suspect Iran wants nukes as a deterrent, and as a tool to free them up to use more terrorism and conventional weapons against Israel. 

Nuclear weapons do have use as a strong deterrent, but only if they exist and are deliverable. Saddam Hussein found that projecting the intent to produce nuclear weapons without having the capacity to do so or to deliver one is the opposite of a deterrent. While critics of that war are correct that Iraq was nowhere near producing weapons of mass destruction, they often forget that Saddam wanted us to believe he did. That is why he kept inspectors out of his country. 

That was a foolish move. Proving his inability to produce a nuclear weapon would likely have prevented the war, saving Iraq from two decades of hell. 

It is possible that Iran’s leadership really is that irrational, and even if they aren’t, all limiting factors for Iranian aggression would disappear if they had a sufficiently strong deterrent to retaliation. A nuclear Iran is unacceptable. Whether it is 15 days, 30 days, or two years from having a deliverable bomb, the time is almost irrelevant. It cannot have one, and refuses to be deterred from pursuing one. 

Should we wait until the components are assembled before preventing their actual use? 

Even if an unprovoked nuclear strike on Israel is a low probability event–we really can’t judge, but I suspect it is–the risk is way too high to accept. If there is a 50% or a 1% chance, the risk is too great.