Fact check: Why did Iran enrich to 60%?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, Iran's enrichment to 60% uranium appears to be primarily a response to the US withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal. Iran has increasingly breached restrictions of the existing nuclear deal in retaliation for the US withdrawing from the agreement in 2018 ^[1]. The nuclear program has progressed rapidly since 2018, with Iran's enrichment activities becoming more sophisticated after the US withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal ^[2].

Iran currently possesses more than 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium, which is enough for around ten bombs ^[3]. This level of enrichment is strategically significant because 60% is only a short step away from weapons-grade levels of 90% ^[4]. The Fordow facility is believed to be capable of increasing enrichment from 60 to 90 percent for weapons-grade uranium, suggesting that Iran's enrichment to 60% may be a step towards producing weapons-grade uranium ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial pieces of context:

• Timeline and escalation pattern: Iran's nuclear program expansion occurred specifically after the 2018 US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), not as an unprovoked action ^{[1] [2]}.
• Iran's official position: Iranian officials maintain that they will not abandon their right to uranium enrichment and claim their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes ^[6]. This represents Iran's perspective that enrichment is a sovereign right under international law.
• Strategic leverage: The 60% enrichment level may serve as negotiating leverage rather than purely weapons development, as it demonstrates Iran's technical capability while remaining below weapons-grade levels.
• Infrastructure targeting: The Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant site was targeted in attacks, which may have influenced Iran's decision to diversify and accelerate its enrichment activities ^[7].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question, while factually accurate about Iran's 60% enrichment, presents the issue without crucial context about the sequence of events. By asking "why" without acknowledging the 2018 US withdrawal from the nuclear deal, it could imply that Iran's actions were unprovoked rather than responsive.

The question also omits the diplomatic context - that Iran's enrichment activities represent a departure from previous compliance with international agreements following the collapse of the JCPOA ^[8]. This framing could benefit those who wish to portray Iran as inherently aggressive rather than reactive to policy changes.

Missing from the analyses is Iran's own official explanation for the 60% enrichment decision, which would provide direct insight into their stated motivations beyond the circumstantial evidence of retaliation for the US withdrawal.