Nuclear experts are challenging U.S. claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, when, in fact, it does not exist. One of the Trump Administration’s main assertions is that the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) is being used by Iran as a cover for its weapons program.
MS Now, in a report dated March 9, cited multiple nuclear scientists and nonproliferation experts saying that the TRR does not have the capacity to serve as an easy conduit to a bomb, as asserted by the U.S. administration. MS Now notes, the Trump administration has yet to provide evidence or intelligence—to the public or to Congress—demonstrating that Iran intended to use the uranium at the TRR, which runs on 20% enriched uranium, for weapon development or that the facility was being covertly used for stockpiling purposes. In two classified briefings provided to lawmakers since the attacks, administration officials made no assertion that the reactor was being used for stockpiling purposes for a potential weapon, according to two people familiar with their comments.
Several nuclear experts who spoke to MS NOW questioned the extent to which White House envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner—who led the nuclear negotiations and described the Iranian position to President Donald Trump—understood the technical details of the enrichment programs at the heart of the deliberations. Witkoff and Kushner did not even bring technical experts from the U.S. to sit in on their talks in Geneva, according to a senior Middle East diplomat with knowledge of the talks, and the White House opted to forgo scheduled technical talks set for this past Monday, March 9, in Vienna, where more detailed nuclear details were expected to be addressed.
There’s much more, including on Iran’s stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, but the evidence suggests throughout that the U.S. side willfully ignored what the Iranian side presented, in favor of its claims that Iran was on a short path to a nuclear weapons arsenal, in order to justify an aggressive war which it intended to launch all along.
A separate report in Scientific American makes the same point. “There was no evidence that Iran was close to a nuclear weapon,” said Jeffrey Lewis of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. His comment echoed those of other experts after the war’s start, as well as statements from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi at that time, and in 2025, and at last year’s “threat assessment” report by U.S. intelligence agencies.
Scientific American notes that Witkoff claimed on March 3 that Iran had the capability to make 11 nuclear bombs, but there were no technical experts included on the U.S. negotiating team. If Iran had really rebuilt these facilities that were bombed last June, that might have led—over months and not weeks—to the nation resuming its uranium enrichment, Lewis says. “But this is all ‘if,’ ‘maybe’ and ‘later,’” he adds.March 14, 2026 (EIRNS)—Nuclear experts are challenging U.S. claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, when, in fact, it does not exist. One of the Trump Administration’s main assertions is that the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) is being used by Iran as a cover for its weapons program.
MS Now, in a report dated March 9, cited multiple nuclear scientists and nonproliferation experts saying that the TRR does not have the capacity to serve as an easy conduit to a bomb, as asserted by the U.S. administration. MS Now notes, the Trump administration has yet to provide evidence or intelligence—to the public or to Congress—demonstrating that Iran intended to use the uranium at the TRR, which runs on 20% enriched uranium, for weapon development or that the facility was being covertly used for stockpiling purposes. In two classified briefings provided to lawmakers since the attacks, administration officials made no assertion that the reactor was being used for stockpiling purposes for a potential weapon, according to two people familiar with their comments.
Several nuclear experts who spoke to MS NOW questioned the extent to which White House envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner—who led the nuclear negotiations and described the Iranian position to President Donald Trump—understood the technical details of the enrichment programs at the heart of the deliberations. Witkoff and Kushner did not even bring technical experts from the U.S. to sit in on their talks in Geneva, according to a senior Middle East diplomat with knowledge of the talks, and the White House opted to forgo scheduled technical talks set for this past Monday, March 9, in Vienna, where more detailed nuclear details were expected to be addressed.
There’s much more, including on Iran’s stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, but the evidence suggests throughout that the U.S. side willfully ignored what the Iranian side presented, in favor of its claims that Iran was on a short path to a nuclear weapons arsenal, in order to justify an aggressive war which it intended to launch all along.
A separate report in Scientific American makes the same point. “There was no evidence that Iran was close to a nuclear weapon,” said Jeffrey Lewis of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. His comment echoed those of other experts after the war’s start, as well as statements from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi at that time, and in 2025, and at last year’s “threat assessment” report by U.S. intelligence agencies.
Scientific American notes that Witkoff claimed on March 3 that Iran had the capability to make 11 nuclear bombs, but there were no technical experts included on the U.S. negotiating team. If Iran had really rebuilt these facilities that were bombed last June, that might have led—over months and not weeks—to the nation resuming its uranium enrichment, Lewis says. “But this is all ‘if,’ ‘maybe’ and ‘later,’” he adds.
