In recent statements, President Donald Trump and his advisers have alleged that Iran has recommenced its nuclear program, claiming that it possesses enough nuclear material to construct a bomb within days and is reportedly developing long-range missiles that could reach the United States. These assertions have been presented as justifications for potential military action against Iran, which Trump has suggested could occur in the near future. However, this narrative has been called into question by an analysis from The New York Times, which casts doubt on the credibility of these claims.

Experts, including Middle East specialist Dag Henrik Tuastad, have supported the view that Trump's allegations may not align with the realities reported by various sources. According to the analysis published by The New York Times, American and European government sources, international weapons inspectors, and U.S. intelligence reports portray a significantly different image of the threat posed by Iran compared to what is being stated by the White House. This discrepancy raises concerns about the motivations behind the U.S. administration's aggressive stance towards Iran, particularly in light of the upcoming military options.

The situation signifies a growing tension in U.S.-Iran relations, with the potential for military intervention looming on the horizon. As credible evidence emerges contradicting Trump's claims, it prompts discussions on the implications of such an intervention, not only for Iran but also for regional stability and international relations. The mounting pressure on the U.S. government to provide factual, reliable evidence that justifies any military action is crucial as the world watches the developments closely.