The warnings were clear, but we chose not to listen. For years, experts cautioned that Iran’s nuclear program would reach a critical threshold. That moment has arrived.
Recent data from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) paints a stark picture: Iran now possesses 274.8 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity, up by 92.5 kilograms since November 2024. This isn’t just another statistic—it’s enough material, once further enriched, to produce six nuclear warheads.
Let’s be clear about what this means. Iran isn’t just tiptoeing toward nuclear capability; it’s sprinting. The regime has mastered advanced centrifuge technology, dramatically cutting the time needed to reach weapons-grade enrichment. Meanwhile, new intelligence reveals that China has supplied Iran with materials for roughly 260 medium-range ballistic missiles—the very vehicles that could carry nuclear warheads.
This isn’t speculation anymore. We’re watching a nuclear weapons program take shape in real time.
The diplomatic path has led us here. Each agreement, from the Non-Proliferation Treaty to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), has served as cover for Iran’s nuclear advancement. While negotiators drafted careful language in Vienna and Geneva, engineers in Natanz and Fordow refined uranium and perfected centrifuge cascades.
Iran’s network of proxy forces—Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis—adds another layer of danger. A nuclear-armed Iran would not just threaten with conventional missiles. It could distribute nuclear material to terrorist groups, creating a nightmare scenario of nuclear blackmail or asymmetric warfare.
So what now?
The comfortable options are exhausted. Sanctions haven’t worked. Diplomacy has failed. The West faces a choice between accepting a nuclear-armed Iran or taking decisive action to prevent it.
This means considering options we’d rather avoid: targeted strikes on nuclear facilities, enhanced cyber operations against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and expanded support for internal opposition groups. It means strengthening regional missile defense systems and making it unequivocally clear that any nuclear aggression will face overwhelming response.
Critics will call this warmongering. But consider the alternative: an ideologically driven regime with nuclear weapons, a track record of supporting terrorism and a stated desire to reshape the Middle East’s power structure.
The Biden administration’s approach—unfreezing $6 billion in Iranian assets while hoping for diplomatic breakthrough—has proven dangerously naive. Each concession has been met with further nuclear advancement and regional aggression.
We stand at a crossroads. One path leads to a nuclear-armed Iran, regional proliferation, and the constant threat of nuclear terrorism. The other requires difficult decisions and calculated risks, but offers the last real chance to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.
The choice is ours, but time is running out. History will judge harshly those who saw this threat clearly but lacked the courage to act.
Louis Libin is an expert in military strategies and innovation, and advises and teaches military innovation, wireless system operations and emergency communications at military colleges and agencies. He founded a consulting group for emergency management, cybersecurity, IP and communications.
Dr. Michael J. Salamon is a psychologist and strategic consultant specializing in trauma and abuse. He is director of ADC Psychological Services in Netanya and Hewlett, New York, and is on staff at Northwell, New Hyde Park, New York.
