Iran's Nuclear Journey: Unpacking Its Controversial Program

Dedric Borer 23 Jun 2025

After decades of threats, Israel launched an audacious attack on Iran, targeting its nuclear sites, scientists, and military leaders, bringing the world's attention once again to a long-standing and deeply contentious issue. Here’s what to know about its controversial nuclear program. The critical question on everyone's mind is: How did Iran’s nuclear program get this far?

The story of Iran's nuclear ambitions is not a simple one, marked by shifting alliances, geopolitical tensions, and a complex interplay of international diplomacy and regional rivalries. It’s a narrative that stretches back decades, evolving from a seemingly innocuous civilian energy project to a source of profound global concern, constantly teetering on the brink of escalation. Understanding this intricate history is crucial to grasping the present predicament and the potential paths forward.

The Unlikely Beginning: American Support for Iran's Nuclear Ambitions
From Civilian Dreams to Suspected Weapons Program
What Does It Mean to "Have Nukes"? Understanding the Technology
The JCPOA: A Diplomatic Attempt to Curb Iran's Nuclear Program
The Trump Withdrawal: A Turning Point
Escalating Tensions and the Current State of Iran's Nuclear Program
The Global Nuclear Landscape: Where Does Iran Fit?
The Path Forward: Diplomacy or Confrontation?
- The Diplomatic Imperative
- The Waiting Game

The Unlikely Beginning: American Support for Iran's Nuclear Ambitions

It might come as a surprise to many, but Iran’s nuclear journey began with American support. Far from being a clandestine operation, the initial steps were taken with the explicit backing of the United States. In 1957, the United States helped launch Iran’s atomic energy program under President Dwight D. Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" initiative. This program was designed to share nuclear technology with countries worldwide for peaceful purposes, promoting the idea that atomic energy could be harnessed for electricity generation, medicine, and agriculture, rather than solely for weapons.

Under the Shah's rule, Iran, a key Cold War ally of the U.S., received a research reactor and enriched uranium from the Americans. This early collaboration laid the foundational knowledge and infrastructure for what would eventually become a highly sophisticated nuclear program. The intent at the time was purely civilian, aimed at diversifying Iran's energy sources and fostering scientific advancement. However, the geopolitical landscape would soon undergo a radical transformation, irrevocably altering the trajectory of Iran's nuclear aspirations.

From Civilian Dreams to Suspected Weapons Program

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 marked a seismic shift in the country's political alignment and, consequently, its nuclear program. The new Islamic Republic, vehemently anti-Western, continued to pursue nuclear technology, but now largely in secret and without the transparency that characterized the Shah's era. International suspicions began to mount in the early 2000s when revelations emerged about undeclared nuclear facilities and activities, raising concerns that Iran was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons capabilities.

The primary concern revolved around Iran's enrichment of uranium and its heavy water reactor program, both of which could potentially lead to the production of fissile material for a bomb. Despite Iran consistently asserting that its program was for peaceful energy purposes, the lack of full cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the discovery of covert sites fueled fears that the country was indeed attempting to figure out how did Iran build a bomb. This period saw Iran face increasing international sanctions and diplomatic isolation, as the world grappled with the implications of a potential nuclear-armed Iran in the volatile Middle East.

What Does It Mean to "Have Nukes"? Understanding the Technology

To understand the global concern surrounding Iran's nuclear program, it's essential to grasp the fundamental components of a nuclear weapon and the processes involved. The question "How did Iran build a bomb?" isn't just about assembling a device; it's about acquiring the necessary fissile material. This primarily involves two key substances: enriched uranium and plutonium.

Enriched Uranium: Natural uranium contains only a small percentage (about 0.7%) of the fissile isotope Uranium-235 (U-235), which is needed for nuclear fission. For nuclear power plants, uranium is typically enriched to 3-5% U-235. However, for a nuclear weapon, uranium needs to be highly enriched, typically to 90% U-235 or more, known as Weapons-Grade Uranium (WGU). The process of enriching uranium is complex and energy-intensive.
Plutonium: Another pathway to a nuclear bomb is through plutonium (specifically Plutonium-239). This is produced in nuclear reactors when Uranium-238 (U-238), the more common isotope, absorbs neutrons. Once produced, the plutonium must be chemically separated from the spent nuclear fuel in a reprocessing facility.

So, what role do centrifuges play? Centrifuges are the workhorses of uranium enrichment. These rapidly spinning machines separate the lighter U-235 isotopes from the heavier U-238 isotopes. Thousands of centrifuges, arranged in cascades, are required to produce significant quantities of highly enriched uranium. The more advanced and numerous the centrifuges, the faster a country can produce fissile material. Iran has invested heavily in its centrifuge technology, developing more efficient models over time.

While the immediate focus is on fissile material, the overall picture of a nuclear program also includes delivery systems. Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons, but it does have the largest ballistic missile inventory in the Middle East. These missiles, while conventional, could theoretically be adapted to carry nuclear warheads if Iran were to develop them. The destruction of a reactor buried 90 meters underground, as some of Iran's facilities are, would require highly specialized bunker-buster munitions, a capability few nations possess. Below is a summary of what is known on the subject, indicating the complexity and technical hurdles involved in any such operation.

The JCPOA: A Diplomatic Attempt to Curb Iran's Nuclear Program

Years of escalating tensions, sanctions, and diplomatic efforts culminated in 2015 with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), often referred to as the Iran nuclear deal. This landmark agreement was a multilateral effort involving Iran and the P5+1 group (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Under the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, Iran agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons and allow continuous monitoring of its compliance in exchange for relief from economic sanctions.

The deal placed significant restrictions on Iran's nuclear activities, including limits on the number and type of centrifuges, the level of uranium enrichment, and the size of its enriched uranium stockpile. It also required Iran to redesign its Arak heavy water reactor to prevent plutonium production suitable for weapons. Crucially, the JCPOA implemented an intrusive verification regime, allowing IAEA inspectors unprecedented access to Iran's nuclear facilities to ensure compliance. For a few years, the agreement was hailed as a diplomatic triumph, effectively pushing back Iran's "breakout time" – the time it would take to produce enough fissile material for one nuclear weapon – from a few months to over a year.

The Trump Withdrawal: A Turning Point

The delicate balance established by the JCPOA was shattered in 2018. After a little over two years of implementation, President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA on May 8, 2018, citing Iran’s lack of transparency about its past nuclear weapons work and faulting the agreement for not curbing Iran’s missile program or Iran’s funding of militant groups. This unilateral decision by the U.S. was met with dismay by the other signatories, who largely maintained that Iran was complying with the terms of the deal.

The withdrawal plunged the situation into renewed uncertainty. It’s difficult to know exactly what Iran, the U.S., and other countries would have done if the agreement remained in place. The U.S. reimposed crippling sanctions on Iran, aiming to pressure the country into negotiating a new, more comprehensive deal. However, Iran responded by gradually rolling back its commitments under the JCPOA, increasing its uranium enrichment levels and expanding its stockpile, arguing it was no longer bound by an agreement from which the U.S. had withdrawn.

The consequences of this decision are still being felt. "I don’t know what would have happened if he hadn’t withdrawn the U.S. from the deal," Lisa Koch, an expert on American foreign policy and nuclear weapons and a Claremont McKenna College associate professor of government, told Politifact. The withdrawal arguably accelerated Iran's nuclear advancements, pushing it closer to weaponization capabilities than it was under the deal, and certainly complicated any future diplomatic efforts to contain Iran's nuclear program.

Escalating Tensions and the Current State of Iran's Nuclear Program

The period following the U.S. withdrawal has been marked by escalating tensions, covert operations, and increased regional instability. Iran's nuclear program has continued to advance, raising alarms across the globe.

Israel's Aggression and Its Unintended Consequences

Israel, viewing Iran's nuclear program as an existential threat, has reportedly engaged in a shadow war, including sabotage, cyberattacks, and assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. When Israel launched its series of strikes against Iran last week, it also issued a number of dire warnings about the country’s nuclear program, suggesting Iran was fast approaching a point of no return, where its ability to produce a bomb would be irreversible.

However, paradoxically, such aggression might be counterproductive to international oversight. Further, even if Iran has a secretive program to obtain nuclear weapons, Israel’s aggression is actually making it harder for inspectors to make a determination either way. Bloomberg reported on Wednesday that inspectors are currently unable to determine the location of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile because of the war. This lack of transparency and access makes it incredibly difficult for the IAEA to monitor Iran's activities effectively, increasing global anxiety. At least until Israel's attacks, Iran was enriching uranium to up to 60% purity and had enough material at that level for nine nuclear weapons if enriched further, according to a theoretical IAEA assessment. While 60% is not weapons-grade, it is a significant step closer, and the process from 60% to 90% is much faster than from natural uranium to 60%.

The Public Sentiment Within Iran

Beyond the geopolitical chess game, there's a crucial domestic dimension. While the Iranian government officially maintains its program is peaceful, public opinion within Iran appears to be shifting. Meanwhile, some analysts report that nearly 70 percent of Iranians seem to support the idea that the country should possess nuclear weapons. This sentiment, likely fueled by decades of sanctions, perceived external threats, and national pride, adds another layer of complexity to any future negotiations or coercive measures. A population that views nuclear capability as a necessary deterrent or a symbol of national strength makes it harder for any Iranian government to back down.

Deterrence or Provocation? Iran's Stance

Iran's official position on nuclear weapons has historically been that they are forbidden under Islamic law. However, recent statements suggest a potential shift, especially in response to heightened threats. Iran would have to acquire a nuclear weapon if attacked by the United States or its allies, an adviser to the country's supreme leader warned on Monday, following a threat by US President Donald Trump. This statement, while conditional, signals a potential strategic pivot, suggesting that Iran might view nuclear weapons as a necessary deterrent against external aggression, rather than an offensive tool. This 'deterrence' argument is often used by other nuclear powers, but in the context of Iran, it raises significant proliferation concerns.

The Global Nuclear Landscape: Where Does Iran Fit?

To put Iran's nuclear ambitions into perspective, it's important to understand the current global nuclear landscape. According to the Federation of American Scientists, nine countries possessed nuclear weapons at the start of 2025. These include the established nuclear powers: the U.S., Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, and the undeclared or newer nuclear states: India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea.

It is crucial to reiterate that Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons. Despite its advanced enrichment capabilities and significant stockpile of enriched uranium, it has not yet crossed the threshold of building or testing a nuclear device. This distinction is vital, as it means there is still a window for diplomacy to prevent full weaponization. However, the international community remains deeply concerned that Iran is steadily accumulating the technical knowledge and materials that would allow it to "break out" and build a bomb relatively quickly if it chose to do so. The presence of other nuclear powers in the region, particularly Israel, which is widely believed to possess an undeclared nuclear arsenal, adds another layer of complexity and perceived justification for Iran's pursuit of similar capabilities.

The Path Forward: Diplomacy or Confrontation?

The question of how to manage Iran's nuclear program remains one of the most pressing and complex foreign policy challenges. The options appear stark: renewed diplomacy or an escalating confrontation.

The Diplomatic Imperative

Many experts and international actors believe that diplomacy remains the most viable and safest path to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. If the new Trump administration still hopes to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons, its best bet is to resume direct bilateral talks—either privately or publicly. This approach acknowledges that while the JCPOA had flaws, it was effective in limiting Iran's nuclear program and providing transparency. A return to some form of negotiated settlement, perhaps building on the framework of the JCPOA or a new, broader agreement, could offer Iran sanctions relief in exchange for verifiable and stringent limits on its nuclear activities. The goal would be to re-establish a pathway for inspectors and rebuild trust, preventing the scenario of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

Such talks would need to address not only Iran's nuclear program but also its ballistic missile capabilities and regional activities, which were key criticisms of the original deal. However, getting all parties back to the negotiating table, especially given the deep distrust and recent hostilities, would be an immense diplomatic challenge.

The Waiting Game

Currently, the situation is fraught with uncertainty. The world is on edge waiting for Donald Trump to decide if he will order the U.S. to take further action, or whether a new diplomatic initiative might emerge. And according to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, everyone will have to wait. This period of waiting is dangerous, as it allows Iran to continue its nuclear advancements and increases the risk of miscalculation or unintended escalation.

The broader implications of nuclear proliferation also weigh heavily on international policy. While some might argue for a more aggressive stance, the rapid spread of nuclear weapons would not be a good thing for the international system. The global consensus remains that preventing more countries from acquiring nuclear weapons is paramount for international stability. The challenge lies in finding a solution that addresses Iran's security concerns while also reassuring the international community that its nuclear program will remain exclusively peaceful.

Conclusion

The journey of Iran's nuclear program, from its American-backed origins to its current controversial status, is a testament to the volatile nature of international relations. While Iran does not yet possess nuclear weapons, its increasing enrichment capabilities and the erosion of international oversight have brought it dangerously close to a "breakout" capability. The withdrawal from the JCPOA, coupled with escalating regional tensions and Israel's proactive measures, has created a highly precarious situation.

The fundamental question of how did Iran get nukes remains unanswered in the sense that they haven't yet, but the path they're on is clear. The path forward is fraught with challenges, demanding a delicate balance of diplomacy, deterrence, and de-escalation. The international community, including the U.S., must decide whether renewed engagement, even with its complexities, offers a better chance of preventing a nuclear-armed Iran than continued confrontation. The stakes are incredibly high, not just for the Middle East, but for global security.

What are your thoughts on the future of Iran's nuclear program? Do you believe diplomacy can still prevail, or is confrontation inevitable? Share your perspective in the comments below and join the conversation on this critical global issue.

Do Does Did Done - English Grammar Lesson #EnglishGrammar #LearnEnglish

DID vs DO vs DONE 🤔 | What's the difference? | Learn with examples

Do Does Did Done | Learn English Grammar | Woodward English

Celebrity Homes & Lifestyles