# Iran Threatens 90% Enrichment if Attacked Again *Tuesday, May 12, 2026 at 10:05 AM UTC — Hamer Intelligence Services Desk* **Published**: 2026-05-12T10:05:18.402Z (4h ago) **Category**: geopolitics | **Region**: Middle East **Importance**: 9/10 **Sources**: OSINT **Permalink**: https://hamerintel.com/data/articles/3628.md **Source**: https://hamerintel.com/summaries --- **Deck**: On May 12, 2026, senior Iranian lawmakers warned that Tehran could raise uranium enrichment to weapons‑grade 90% in response to any new attacks. The remarks came around 09:11–09:17 UTC amid heightened regional tensions following recent strikes linked to the Iran conflict. ## Key Takeaways - On 12 May 2026, an Iranian parliament National Security Committee spokesperson and MP Ebrahim Rezaei both stated that Iran may begin enriching uranium to 90% if attacked again. - Ninety percent enrichment is generally considered weapons‑grade and would exceed existing Iranian enrichment levels, crossing a critical proliferation threshold. - The warnings come amid an unstable regional environment following recent military confrontations involving Iran and its adversaries. - The statements appear calibrated to deter further strikes while signaling Iran’s willingness to escalate its nuclear program as leverage. At approximately 09:11 UTC on 12 May 2026, a spokesperson for the National Security Committee in Iran’s parliament announced that Tehran is considering the option of enriching uranium to 90% purity if it is subjected to another attack. Minutes later, around 09:17 UTC, Iranian MP Ebrahim Rezaei reiterated the same message, explicitly linking any future assaults on Iranian territory or assets to a potential decision to begin 90% enrichment. These public statements, coming from senior legislative figures associated with national security oversight, are significant in that they move the threat of weapons‑grade enrichment from vague rhetoric toward a conditional policy line. While Iran is already known to have enriched uranium well beyond the 3.67% cap set by the now‑defunct Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and has reached levels around 60%, shifting to 90% would represent a formal crossing of the threshold commonly associated with nuclear weapons material. The timing of the warnings suggests they are a response to recent attacks on Iranian assets, widely attributed to Israel and its partners, in the context of the broader Iran conflict. Iranian officials have framed these incidents as acts of aggression aimed at weakening Iran’s deterrent capabilities and regional influence. By tying future attacks directly to nuclear escalation, Tehran is attempting to raise the cost of continued covert or overt military action by its adversaries. Key players include the Iranian political and security establishment, particularly the Supreme National Security Council and the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, which ultimately control nuclear policy and technical implementation. Externally, Israel, Gulf states such as the UAE, and the United States are central, given their roles in recent regional confrontations and longstanding concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The threat matters because it narrows the space for ambiguity around Iran’s nuclear trajectory. While enrichment at 60% already provides Iran with a relatively short technical breakout timeframe, crossing into 90% enrichment would be widely interpreted as either preparation for weaponization or an attempt to accumulate a de facto nuclear deterrent capability without formal declaration. Such a move would likely dissolve any remaining constraints from previous agreements and could prompt regional counter‑proliferation responses. From a diplomatic standpoint, these statements complicate ongoing or prospective talks between Iran and the United States, as well as with European and regional interlocutors. Tehran is effectively presenting weapons‑grade enrichment as a retaliatory measure rather than a bargaining chip, which may limit negotiators’ flexibility. At the same time, by specifying that 90% enrichment is conditional on further attacks, Iran leaves itself some room to avoid actually crossing the threshold if it judges that restraint better serves its interests. ## Outlook & Way Forward In the short term, the most important indicator will be whether Iran takes concrete technical steps toward 90% enrichment, such as reconfiguring cascades, installing advanced centrifuges at key facilities, or notifying inspectors of changes in production plans. Even without formal IAEA access, satellite imagery, procurement patterns, and open‑source technical disclosures can provide partial insight into whether the threat is being operationalized or remains a deterrent posture. For regional adversaries, these warnings will trigger internal debates about the risk‑benefit calculus of further kinetic actions inside Iran or against Iranian assets abroad. Israel and its partners will have to weigh the tactical advantages of continued pressure against the strategic risk of prompting a nuclear breakout. This may lead to a shift toward more covert, deniable operations, cyber activity, and economic measures rather than openly attributable strikes. Internationally, major powers are likely to intensify efforts to re‑engage Tehran diplomatically, potentially exploring interim understandings that limit enrichment in exchange for security assurances or partial sanctions relief. However, mutual mistrust and the legacy of collapsed agreements will constrain options. Analysts should watch for any Iranian announcements on new enrichment milestones, changes in inspection regimes, or parliamentary moves to further codify nuclear policy. If Iran does proceed to 90% enrichment, expect rapid escalation in regional defense posturing, including potential discussions of nuclear sharing, advanced missile defense deployments, and expanded covert operations. The region would enter a more volatile phase with shorter decision times and higher miscalculation risks, making early diplomatic intervention and clear red‑line signaling essential to prevent uncontrolled escalation.