Iran's permanent representative to the IAEA, Kazem Gharibabadi, tweeted that Natanz expected uranium enriched to 60% in a week.
That was in April.
Recall that the International Atomic Energy Agency cited only 4.5% purity at Natanz less than a year ago. (Weapons-grade uranium has 90% purity, by the way.) Tehran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Gharibabadi's tweet noted uranium enriched to 60% "will improve significantly... the quality and quantity of radiopharmaceutical products." [Emphasis mine.]
USP describes itself as a scientific nonprofit that works for the global availability of safe and useful medicine. It notes the use of radiopharmaceuticals (radioactive drugs) in medical treatment, therapy, and diagnoses.
On the question of nuclear weapons, nine confirmed nations have them, including Iran's nemeses the United States and Israel. I don't support nuclear weapons for any nation, least of all the nine who have them. Nor do I support the ambition to develop them. In Dark Cities, geopolitical scientist Daniel Deudney describes the human death toll if one were deployed:
"One nuclear weapon, an object roughly the size of a... household refrigerator, can obliterate a large city and kill millions of people."
Altogether, Russia and the United States have more than 11,000 of these refrigerators.
I'm not sure if Iran has nuclear ambitions, but I'm wary until I get more perspective. For instance:
What's the average level of enrichment for radiopharmaceuticals? And if 60% purity will enhance "significantly" Iran's radiopharmaceuticals, why then did it sacrifice production to just 4 percent (3.67) under the nuclear deal?
A comment on "Iran Hopes to Get 60% Uranium Next Week, Envoy in Vienna Says" (G. Arancibia).
Related: "Cybersecurity and Cyberwar" (2020)
Related: Satellite Constellations
Related: International Law
Related: "The Incendiaries" (2019)
Related: Global Recession (2020)