"Nuclear weapons experts are warning that
the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, ostensibly launched to prevent the country from obtaining nuclear weapons, may have instead made an Iranian bomb more likely.
That is because prior to the war, Iran was held back not by technical constraints but diplomatic considerations, say two nuclear weapons experts who were involved in past U.S. efforts to sanction and contain the country.
Those diplomatic calculations have changed.
Outcomes that Iran tried for years to avoid — bombing of its cities, assassination of its senior leadership, the destruction of its air force and navy — have now occurred.
...
Drozdenko says Iran chose to stop its enrichment at 60 per cent for political, rather than technical, reasons.
...
The
bomb design Iran would most likely aim for, says Fetter, "is a
gun-type device, the type of device the U.S. used on Hiroshima," which is "simple and easily within the range of what Iranian scientists and engineers could do." That bomb used a conventional-explosive "gun" to blast one block of 80 per cent-enriched Uranium-235 into another, thereby creating the critical mass necessary for a fission explosion.
...
Figures in the Iranian regime who could have argued that holding back from developing nuclear weapons would prevent attack have been left discredited, or been killed. "This is what I worry has shifted the equation, the decision calculus inside Iran," said Fetter.
...
He said talk of sending U.S. troops deep into Iran to retrieve its uranium is "extremely hazardous" and "unlikely to succeed. Unless you can somehow destroy the knowhow, kill all the scientists and engineers, unless you are willing to occupy the country, I don't see how you could eliminate this capability," he said.
"In fact, such missions are more likely to move Iran in the other direction: toward a commitment to rebuild the nuclear program."