Well, I think we’re comparing apples and oranges here.

First of all, Iran, as we know, had enriched uranium for no good civil reason, civilian reason, to about 60 percent purity enrichment. That’s very, very close to the 90 percent that you would need for a significant nuclear weapon. And they had enough material there to produce probably about 10 weapons.

And they could reach that weapons-grade material within weeks. No question about it. Having weapons-grade uranium is the most challenging part of making a nuclear weapon, but it’s not the entire weapon. So what the intelligence community statement is about is what it would take then to go from the material to, I would say, an advanced nuclear weapon that could be seated on and delivered by a missile.

Given the material, I think Iran would go for a much cruder nuclear weapon, one that could be delivered not on a missile, but by other means, trucks, ships, et cetera. It’s been shown that they have a hard time delivering weapons on Israel, certainly weapons of any major size.

So I think that’s a bigger challenge for Iran. How would they actually deliver a weapon? Given the material they have, they could pretty easily covertly develop and put together a crude weapon. But, again, they have to be able to deliver it. And that’s not trivial.