President Donald Trump claims that the United States has succeeded in eliminating Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons. In reality, however, there is no clear evidence to support this claim, according to an analysis published by The New York Times.
Iranian nuclear centers bombed by Americans and Israelis/PHOTO: X
The statement was made on Tuesday, March 31, and comes at a time when the US administration appears to be recalibrating its goals in the conflict. Senior officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth, have begun talking about a “restriction of targets,” interpreted by analysts as an attempt to set the stage for a declaration of victory and an eventual exit from the war.
Iran's nuclear program was the main argument invoked by Washington when, on February 28, the military operation was launched. At the time, Trump justified the action by citing the risk that Tehran could develop long-range missiles capable of threatening US allies in Europe and even US territory.
However, the problem is far from being solved. US and Israeli airstrikes have also targeted facilities in Isfahan and Natanz, where much of this material is believed to be stored. However, there is no indication that the stocks were destroyed or moved.
The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, recently said that no evidence of the removal of nuclear materials had been identified either before or after the attacks.
“We cannot deny that the program has been significantly slowed down, but fundamental problems remain,” he warned.
Removing the nuclear program from the Trump administration's list of strategic objectives, or declaring the problem solved while Iran retains control of nuclear fuel, now poses a factual, political and rhetorical challenge.
If nothing changes in the next two weeks – Trump's deadline to begin withdrawing from the war – it will leave the Iranians with nearly 450 kg of highly enriched uranium, enough for 10 to 12 bombs. Tehran will retain control of even larger stockpiles of intermediate enriched uranium, which could be further enriched into bomb fuel if the Iranians can restore that capacity after a month of continuous bombing.
What options does Trump have
Trump's statement to reporters could, of course, be a strategic deception. The United States and Israel have long planned and practiced attacks on Iranian sites in Isfahan and Natanz, where much of Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium is believed to be “buried”. Both sites were hit by US airstrikes last June. And while there is evidence that the Iranians have regained access to the site in Isfahan, where international inspectors believe the vast majority of the fuel is stored, there is no indication that the material has been removed.
Behind the scenes, the US administration also considered an extremely risky operation: sending special forces to capture uranium stocks. The plan would have targeted the facility in Isfahan, located inside the country and protected by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. However, the risk of major losses led to the abandonment of the idea.
Another option remains the diplomatic one. There is precedent: In 2015, the Barack Obama administration negotiated a deal in which Iran transferred about 97 percent of its uranium stockpile to Russia. However, the agreement was later denounced by Trump in 2018.
In this context, analysts warn that ending the conflict without solving the uranium problem could expose the current administration to criticism, because it would achieve weaker results than those of the previous agreement.
Trump's recent statements, however, suggest a possible acceptance of the status quo. The White House leader said the operation could end in “two to three weeks” and that Iran would not be able to produce nuclear weapons “for many years.”
His claims contrast with previous positions. Just a few weeks ago, Trump claimed that Iran was “a month away” from getting a nuclear bomb — an estimate considered exaggerated by experts, who say it would take much longer to develop a working weapon.
Before the launch of the military operation, most Western intelligence agencies did not consider Iran to be an imminent nuclear threat. Now, the speech in Washington seems to oscillate between alarmism and downplaying.
On Wednesday, April 1, Trump said the U.S. could halt strikes on Iran within weeks without Tehran first agreeing to a deal. Earlier, the US leader had threatened to escalate attacks if Iran did not accept strict conditions, including a total abandonment of uranium enrichment and the full opening of the Strait of Hormuz.
The conflicting messages reflect a still-unclear strategy—and leave open the crucial question: Has Iran's nuclear threat really been eliminated or merely postponed?
