A bold move to dismantle Iran's nuclear program could potentially backfire, pushing the country closer to developing a nuclear weapon, according to experts in the field. This is a complex and controversial issue that warrants a deeper look.
The ongoing US-Israeli offensive against Iran aims to resolve a long-standing dispute over Tehran's nuclear ambitions, but it carries the risk of unintended consequences. The Iranian regime has consistently maintained that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, yet the discovery of undeclared sites in 2002 has cast a shadow of suspicion.
A nuclear deal in 2015 imposed strict limits and rigorous inspections, but its collapse in 2018, triggered by Donald Trump's withdrawal, led Iran to accelerate its enrichment activities. By last summer, Iran had amassed a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (HEU) with a purity of 60%, which is a significant concern for the international community.
Here's where it gets controversial: Once uranium reaches 60% enrichment, it's relatively simple to take it to 90%, the level required for a compact warhead. With further enrichment and conversion, Iran's current stockpile could produce over 10 warheads.
The US-Israeli strikes in June 2025 were a response to this growing stockpile, but the operation, codenamed Midnight Hammer, fell short of its goals. While extensive damage was inflicted, certain underground facilities, hidden deep beneath mountains, remained intact.
In retaliation, Iran barred UN inspectors from accessing these sites, leaving the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the dark about the fate of the HEU stockpile and activities within these secure locations.
The IAEA's latest report acknowledges its inability to verify Iran's compliance with enrichment-related activities and the size of its uranium stockpile at affected facilities. Despite this uncertainty, the IAEA director general, Rafael Grossi, stated that they do not see evidence of a structured nuclear weapons program.
However, nuclear proliferation experts express concern that this could change in the aftermath of an attack aimed at toppling a regime that has ruled Iran for decades.
And this is the part most people miss: Jeffrey Lewis, a distinguished scholar, highlights the risk of a "tremendous roll of the dice." He explains that even if the strike fails to remove the regime, there are still thousands of capable individuals in Iran who could restart the program.
Kelsey Davenport, a nonproliferation expert, agrees that the remnants of the regime may be more motivated to pursue weaponization due to the nature of the conflict. Davenport also raises the concern that if Iran descends into civil war or regime collapse, the fate of its HEU stockpile would become a global crisis.
"There's a real nuclear terrorism risk to Trump's regime change objective that I have not heard the administration acknowledging," Davenport warns.
This complex situation leaves us with a thought-provoking question: In attempting to prevent a potential nuclear threat, have we inadvertently created a more dangerous scenario? What are your thoughts on this delicate balance between security and potential unintended consequences?
