In a notable shift, Tulsi Gabbard, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, now asserts that Iran possesses the capability to produce a nuclear weapon “within weeks to months.” This updated assessment marks a change from her previous testimony to Congress just months prior, where she stated that U.S. intelligence indicated Iran was not actively building such weapons.
Her revised public stance follows sharp criticism from former President Donald Trump, who publicly contested her earlier congressional testimony, declaring she was “wrong.” Trump had maintained that intelligence showed Iran possessed a “tremendous amount of material” and could develop a nuclear weapon “within months.”
Understanding the Shifting Timeline
Gabbard’s March testimony reflected the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment at that time: Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and had not resumed its suspended 2003 program. However, she also noted Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was at an “unprecedented” high for a state without nuclear weapons, a concern echoed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the global nuclear watchdog.
The White House’s current position aligns with the more urgent timeline. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that Iran has “all that it needs” to achieve a nuclear weapon, requiring only a decision from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Once authorized, Leavitt claimed production could take “a couple of weeks.” This ties into previous assessments, such as one in July 2024 suggesting Iran could enrich uranium to weapons-grade purity (90%) in just one to two weeks.
Expert Disagreements and Key Distinctions
Despite the White House’s “weeks” timeline for potential production once a decision is made, many experts caution about the distinction between possessing sufficient enriched uranium (fissile material) and actually building a functional, deliverable nuclear warhead.
While Iran may be close to having the material, experts like former UN nuclear inspector David Albright estimate that producing a crude nuclear “device” could take at least six months, and constructing a deliverable weapon capable of being mounted on a missile might take at least one to two years after achieving weapons-grade uranium. One source with access to U.S. intelligence reports suggested the IC assessment in March, which reportedly hasn’t changed, estimated up to three years for Iran to build a deployable warhead.
Gabbard herself has clarified her current position, stating on social media that her earlier testimony was taken “out of context” by “dishonest media.” She now aligns with President Trump’s view that intelligence indicates Iran is “at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly,” adding she agrees “that can’t happen.”
Rising Tensions and Trump’s Decision Point
This debate over Iran’s nuclear timeline unfolds against a backdrop of escalating tensions. Iran maintains its nuclear program is purely peaceful and denies ever seeking nuclear weapons.
However, recent events have heightened fears. Israeli strikes on Iran began on June 13th, targeting what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed was the “heart” of Iran’s nuclear program. Netanyahu asserted that Iran could produce a weapon “in a very short time” if not stopped. These strikes reportedly destroyed military facilities and killed commanders and scientists. Iran has retaliated with missile and drone strikes against Israel.
Amidst this conflict, President Trump has set a “maximum” two-week deadline to decide whether the U.S. will join Israel’s strikes. He indicated this decision window allows for a “substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran.” Sources suggest Trump has been briefed on potential military actions, including targeting Iran’s heavily fortified underground Fordo enrichment plant, seen as a high-risk site for rapid weapons production.
Trump’s public contradiction of his Director of National Intelligence regarding the intelligence community’s assessment is rare. While Gabbard has now publicly aligned with the administration’s more urgent timeline, expert assessments often provide a longer timeframe for the final step of assembling a deliverable weapon. The coming weeks are critical as the U.S. weighs potential military action against the possibility of diplomacy in addressing Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
