Dismantle, weaponize, or rebuild: Why the Iran nuclear threat isn’t going away

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists | Sina Azodi

Iranian nuclear facilities degraded by US and Israeli military strikes in 2025 and 2026 have left Tehran evaluating three strategic pathways: total dismantlement, nuclear weaponization, or rebuilding its pre-war latent capability. Although threshold status failed to deter military intervention, rebuilding threshold infrastructure remains Iran's most probable trajectory. Reconstruction preserves essential technological autonomy.

Satellite observations reveal rapid reconstruction at Taleghan 2 alongside construction of a fortified enrichment facility at Pickaxe Mountain. Iranian public support for acquiring nuclear weapons reached 73 percent by August 2025 following regional escalation. However, full weaponization risks triggering a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race involving Saudi Arabia while inviting further military strikes. Dismantlement remains unviable given deep-seated distrust following Washington's JCPOA withdrawal and Muammar Gaddafi's 2011 fate in Libya. Remaining within the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty enables Tehran to leverage restored enrichment capacity for sanctions relief, mitigating an estimated $270 billion in conflict-related economic damage.

Comment

Deep-subterranean construction at Pickaxe Mountain demonstrates the physical limits of conventional precision-guided penetrators. Massive rock overburden shielding Pickaxe Mountain alters the structural survivability equation for underground enrichment halls. Kinetic strikes on surface facilities fail to eliminate decentralized IR-6 centrifuge rotor fabrication across domestic workshops.

This industrial resilience relies on dispersing critical machine tooling rather than maintaining vulnerable monolithic complexes. Reconstructing the Taleghan 2 facility reflects a modular fabrication model where explosive containment diagnostics are located deep underground. Consequently, kinetic degradation of primary enrichment cascades at Pickaxe Mountain merely delays rather than destroys the underlying industrial infrastructure.

Strategic Question for Discussion

If deep-subterranean construction at Pickaxe Mountain successfully neutralises heavy earth-penetrating munitions, which factor becomes more decisive for future non-proliferation efforts — international inspection access under the NPT or covert intelligence operations?

The trajectory indicates that physical subterranean hardening shifts the burden of deterrence almost entirely onto intrusive verification mechanisms and human intelligence networks. While deep excavation at Pickaxe Mountain reduces vulnerability to kinetic strikes, it simultaneously increases reliance on continuous IAEA monitoring to detect hidden cascade activity. My assessment is that diplomatic inspection protocols will remain the primary barrier against breakout, as kinetic options yield diminishing operational returns against heavily buried targets.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

Read the original article