With Israel and Iran at the brink of a war, read all about Iran’s nuclear program and how the threat posed by it has led to escalation of tensions between the two countries
On the night of 12th June, Israel launched a series of coordinated airstrikes targeting key nuclear infrastructure and personnel in Iran. Israel’s attack dealt the biggest blow to Iran’s nuclear program in years. The strikes began late Friday (local time) and were focused on the Natanz and Fordow enrichment sites. Several nuclear scientists and military officials associated with Tehran’s atomic operations were also killed in the strikes.
The Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, called the offensive “a strike at the head of Iran’s nuclear weaponisation program”. He vowed to continue the strikes until the threat is eliminated. In retaliation, Iran launched a cache of missiles into Israel. Explosions were reported over Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
As the tension in the region escalates and fears of open war mount, it is critical to understand what Iran’s nuclear program is, how it evolved over the decades, and why it has become the a cause for international alarm.
How Iran’s nuclear program began
Iran did not start its nuclear journey in secrecy. In fact, it began in 1957 with the help of the United States under President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” program. At that time, pro-Western Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi ruled the country. It was seen as a stable regional ally of the West. Support from the US and Europe enabled Iran to develop its nuclear infrastructure, including reactors and research capabilities.
By the 1970s, Iran had ambitious plans to build as many as 20 nuclear reactors. However, things did not go as planned following the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The Shah was deposed and the current theocratic regime came to power. The revolution delivered a major jolt to Iran’s relationship with the West, particularly the United States. Following the regime change, the US abruptly withdrew its support and imposed restrictions on nuclear cooperation.
Since then, Iran’s nuclear program has largely taken place in the shadows. In the early 2000s, when the Natanz enrichment site was revealed as part of a covert network of facilities that were not disclosed to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Tehran came under the radar of Western powers. Iran continued to claim that its nuclear activities were for peaceful purposes. However, as it failed to report sites to the international body, Western intelligence agencies raised concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.
Why the program is controversial
The controversy surrounding Iran’s nuclear program is the enrichment of uranium. The process can be used either for peaceful energy production or, when taken to higher levels, for developing nuclear weapons. Iran has claimed that its intentions are peaceful. However, its behaviour over the years has raised serious concerns among international agencies.
In the early 2000s, international inspectors discovered traces of highly enriched uranium at the Natanz facility. Iran temporarily suspended enrichment. However, it was resumed in 2006. Iran argued that it was permitted under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which it is a signatory. Despite the argument laid down by Iran, the IAEA consistently raised concerns over the scale of enrichment, the concealment of sites, and lack of transparency.
In 2015, Iran signed a landmark agreement with six world powers. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) imposed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for relief from economic sanctions. It required Iran to cap enrichment at 3.67%, reduce its stockpile of uranium, and dismantle many centrifuges. It also allowed the IAEA to conduct rigorous inspections of the nuclear sites in Iran.
In 2018, the agreement unravelled when the Trump administration unilaterally withdrew the US from the deal. The Trump administration labelled it “a disaster” and reimposed sanctions. Iran responded by breaching the deal’s restrictions and ramping up enrichment to 60% purity. For a nuclear bomb, 90% purity is required, and Iran was getting closer to it. Iran also removed IAEA monitoring equipment from its facilities.
Iran’s secrecy surrounding its newer sites, specifically the development of a third enrichment facility and its refusal to cooperate with inspectors, has added fuel to suspicions that the Islamic country’s true intentions are different from what it claims, namely energy production or peaceful use of nuclear power.
What is enriched uranium and why it matters
Enriched uranium is a critical component in both nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons. Natural uranium consists of about 99.3% uranium 238, which is not suitable for fission. Only 0.7% is uranium 235, which is the fissile material needed to generate nuclear energy or build a bomb.
Uranium needs to be enriched to increase the concentration of uranium 235 for nuclear applications. For civilian nuclear reactors, enrichment levels of 3% to 5% are required. However, to produce a nuclear weapon, uranium must be enriched to approximately 90% purity.
During the enrichment process, uranium is converted into gas form and spun at extremely high speeds in machines called centrifuges. These devices separate uranium 235 from uranium 238. Iran has developed increasingly advanced centrifuge models over the years. Machines developed by Iran, such as the IR 6 and IR 9, enrich uranium faster and more effectively than earlier versions.
As of 2024, Iran reportedly amassed a stockpile of over 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%. If further enriched to weapons-grade, it would have enough uranium to produce multiple nuclear bombs. The IAEA has warned that no other nation holds this level of uranium enrichment without having an actual weapons program.
The concern is not limited to the growing stockpile but also the speed at which it can now “break out”, the time required to enrich sufficient material for a nuclear weapon. Western intelligence agencies suggest that Iran may do so in as little as one to two weeks, making it a potentially short leap from nuclear capability to weaponisation.
Could Iran build a nuclear bomb and how soon?
Technically, Iran does not have a nuclear weapon yet. Furthermore, the Islamic nation has repeatedly claimed that it has no intention to do so. However, analysts agree that Iran now possesses both the knowledge and the infrastructure to cross that threshold, if it chooses.
According to the IAEA, Iran has enough material for multiple nuclear warheads if it further enriches uranium to 90%. Experts point out that the remaining technical leap, while significant, is not a major obstacle for a country with Iran’s scientific expertise and decades of nuclear development.
As Iran’s “breakout time” has shrunk dramatically, US intelligence and IAEA estimates put the timeline for becoming a nation with a nuclear bomb at roughly one to two weeks. This means that while Iran may not yet have a fully developed nuclear warhead, it could theoretically create one in an extremely short span of time, especially if diplomatic channels collapse or external pressures mount.
Notably, weaponising uranium is only one part of developing a usable nuclear weapon. Iran would also need to build a reliable delivery system, most likely a missile warhead, and ensure miniaturisation and detonation mechanisms. These steps would require additional time, testing, and technical sophistication. However, considering the opacity surrounding its current nuclear program, the exact timeline to full weaponisation remains uncertain, and this is exactly what worries the international community.
Why Israel and the West fear a nuclear Iran
For a country like Israel, a nuclear Iran is not just a strategic challenge but an existential threat. Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly warned that Iran’s leaders have openly spoken of wiping Israel off the map. He has argued that granting a regime with such rhetoric access to nuclear weapons would be equal to inviting catastrophe.
Following the recent strikes, Netanyahu said, “Eighty years ago, Jews were victims of a Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazi regime. Today, the Jewish state refuses to be the victim of a nuclear Holocaust perpetrated by the Iranian regime.”
Israel’s concerns are not limited to the possibility of a direct nuclear strike. A nuclear-armed Iran could embolden Tehran to act more aggressively across the Middle East. If Iran becomes a nuclear state and shows aggressive military behaviour in the region, the chances of retaliation would be limited. It would amplify support to proxy groups like terrorist organisations including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and various Shia militias in Syria and Iraq. All of these groups have engaged in conflict with Israel.
The US has similar concerns. While Washington acknowledges that Iran is not currently in possession of nuclear weapons, its proximity to weapons-grade enrichment is seen as deeply disturbing. The potential of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, should Iran succeed in making a nuclear bomb, adds another layer of risk. Regional rivals such as Saudi Arabia have already indicated they would seek similar capabilities if Iran becomes a nuclear power.
What Israel’s strikes have achieved so far
Israel’s recent strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure represent the most direct military intervention yet in Tehran’s atomic ambitions. On Friday, explosions were reported at multiple strategic sites, including the Natanz nuclear facility, which is long considered the heart of Iran’s uranium enrichment operations. Israeli defence sources claimed that underground halls housing advanced centrifuges at Natanz were plunged into darkness after power systems were destroyed, halting the enrichment activity.
According to Iranian state media, Fordow, another key enrichment facility buried deep within a mountain, was also targeted. Though its depth made it difficult to reach with conventional air munitions, satellite images and IAEA reports suggest limited damage may have been inflicted. A third site, Isfahan, which houses a uranium conversion facility, was also reportedly hit in the wider campaign.
Furthermore, the strikes were aimed at the human and organisational backbone of Iran’s nuclear program. Reportedly, six nuclear scientists and several members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) tasked with securing nuclear assets were killed in the strikes. Israeli intelligence sources later indicated that the targeted scientists were believed to be instrumental in Iran’s covert weaponisation research.
These operations might have set Iran’s nuclear progress back temporarily. However, analysts caution against declaring them a decisive blow. Iran has spent years decentralising its program and building redundancy into its nuclear infrastructure. Moreover, several of its technical experts and advanced centrifuges remain intact. Reports suggest that a comprehensive dismantling would require sustained strikes, cyber operations, and potentially ground forces, something Israel may not be equipped or politically able to carry out alone.
Uncertainty ahead
The recent confrontation between Israel and Iran marks a dangerous new chapter in the decades-long struggle over nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Israel has sent a strong message by striking Iran that it will not tolerate the Islamic Republic inching any closer to a bomb.
However, the consequences of this escalation remain unclear. Iran has vowed to respond with “maximum force” and hinted at further enrichment and possibly withdrawal from remaining international nuclear obligations. For its part, the IAEA has confirmed that Iran’s declared stockpile of enriched uranium continues to grow, even as access to inspect key sites remains limited.
One thing is certain that the question is no longer just whether Iran could build a bomb, but whether the region, and the world, can afford the consequences if it does.
News