[1] https://inis.iaea.org/records/fe51q-17w28/files/35015774.pdf

[2] https://fissilematerials.org/library/doe16.pdf

OP seems to expect everyone to believe that any regime invests years and small fortunes in research sites built in networks of bomb-proof bunkers buried inside mountains, right next to their network of ballistic missiles, to research medical applications.

HEU has clear advantages over LEU for submarines – LEU submarines need to be refuelled once every decade (give or take a few years), weapons grade HEU reactors are never refuelled – the initial fuelling is enough to last 30-40 years, and by the time refuelling is becoming needed, the submarine is retired/scrapped.

This was also part of Australia's justification for backstabbing France over AUKUS. Australia was paying France for diesel-electric submarines, but if it wanted nuclear, France can provide that too – but French nuclear submarines are LEU not HEU – the US and the UK are the only nations which have weapons grade HEU subs. [0] Of course, an arguably much bigger factor was Anglosphere strategic alliances versus greater cultural/political distance from France, but it is diplomatically helpful to be able to appeal to a justification which is more objectively technical in nature.

In an attempt to manage non-proliferation concerns, I understand the AUKUS plan is that when they start constructing nuclear submarines in Australia, they'll build and fuel the reactor in the UK (or possibly the US, but the UK is apparently more likely), ship it fuelled to Australia for installation in the submarine, and then at the end of the submarine's life, the reactor will be removed from it in Australia and then shipped back to the UK for defeuelling and disassembly. But, I guess it is an open question to what extent such an exercise is required by the letter of the non-proliferation treaty, versus whether it will be done that way simply to close down a potential line of diplomatic and political criticism.

[0] Russian and Indian sub fuel is HEU by IAEA definitions, but significantly less enriched than the US/UK subs, which use weapons grade uranium as fuel. Some Soviet era subs did use weapons grade HEU

[1]: https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-un-inspectors-b82c92... [2]: https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164291

Besides, wasn't this whole thing triggered by a UN report showing they had made a lot more 50% enriched stuff than expected? I.e. the monitoring "worked"

If you genuinely have no interest in uranium for weapons, it makes more sense to buy it from a country known to supply it at purities and quantities for peaceful purposes than to build you own centrifuges under mountains. Iran is/was either using uranium enrichment for weapons development or a political bargaining chip.

This blanket statement is so inaccurate it is useless. HEU is a range, medical or research applications usually use 20–30% enriched Uranium, not the >60% Iran is (has been?) currently working on.

A fifth column is a group of people who undermine a larger group or nation from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or another nation.

I am not sure the word is suitably used here.

Franco (loosely). "We'll be marching towards Madrid in four columns. The fifth column is already in the city".

Iran has produced a large amount of >60% U-235 (enriched), probably hundreds of kilograms, way more than would be required for any peaceful purpose. I don't think any modern medical uses actually require enriched uranium any more. And anyway, how much medical imaging or radiation treatment could you possibly be doing? And they could be developing propulsion systems, that wouldn't be a peaceful purpose (it would be a military ship).

Put all this together and it seems abundantly clear that the sole purpose of Iran's HEU program is the production of nuclear weapons. HEU isn't required in any significant amount for peaceful purposes.

Not true. One simple reason could be just to keep the appearance of the program ongoing in order to gain leverage in negotiations. Remember that Trump pulled US out of the negotiations on his first term, this could easily just be Iran's response to it.

E: and is it acceptable when used against Israel/US?

If I point a gun at my wife during a divorce proceeding and a cop shoots me, that's on me, no? Even if I never meant to pull the trigger and the gun wasn't even loaded.

The real reason is this: Israel is in a unique position where they have removed all threats at their borders so they can finally attack their biggest enemy. So they do that, and while doing so pull the US with them. We are at the brink of a massive war that will have millions of casualties, with even more millions fleeing to Europe, destabilizing the world even further.

You probably bought the reasoning about Saddam's WMDs as well.

This thread started with you saying "maybe they are doing it as a negotiation tactic". And yet simultaneously you think it is everyone else's fault if such a tactic is taken seriously?

You can't have it both ways.

I don't know how you could read my comment and conclude that.

Sure, we can call it high stakes negotiation tactic if that's what you prefer, but let's not kid ourselves why the attacks started in reality.

None of your trivia points have any relevance, and it seems your point was to find a way to make wild baseless claims about "Israel and its 5th column".

Propaganda indeed.

Edit: of course the torrent of downvotes landed within minutes of commenting on a message posted 5-minutes ago.

Nevermind the Iranian regime funding terrorists and constantly talking about nuking Israel, attacking the west and using their proxies to actually attack Israel and the West.

Come on you gotta at least try

Yet it's framed as "misconceptions perpetuated by Israel and its 5th column in US media"