As tensions between Israel and Iran escalate, the airwaves are full of alarmist commentary. Military analysts and political leaders alike are warning that Tehran is "on the brink" of possessing a nuclear weapon. White House Press Secretary KarolineLeavitt even claimed, "Iran has all that it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon and it would take a couple weeks to complete the production of that weapon." This is not just a misstatement. It is misinformationand it risks pushing the United States into a hasty and unjustified war.HOW CLOSE WAS IRAN TO A NUCLEAR WEAPON BEFORE ISRAELS STRIKE ON TEHRAN?The reality is far more complex. Enriched uraniumeven at weapons-grade levelsis only one component of a long, technically demanding process required to create a functional nuclear bomb. Understanding why this alarmism is premature requires a clear breakdown of whats actually involved in building such a device.According to U.S. experts and declassified intelligence assessments, a nuclear weapon requires at least the followingelements:In addition to enriched uranium and implosion mechanisms, a functional nuclear weapon requires several othercomplex components that Iran has not demonstrably mastered. These include a neutron initiator to trigger the chain reaction, precision fusing and arming systems, and reentry vehicle technology if the weapon is to be missile-delivered. A credible nuclear arsenal also demands sub-critical testing infrastructure to validate design functionality and safety protocols to control explosive yield.These technical requirements involve advanced engineering, testing, and materialsnone of which are confirmed to exist in Irans program today.Each of these steps represents a serious technological challenge. While Iran has demonstrated enrichment capabilities, there is no credible open-source evidence that it has mastered the other essential components. The most difficult hurdleweaponizationremains the most classified and technically advanced part of the entire process.Yet Israels recent week of strikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilitiesincluding the deeply buried Fordow enrichment site near Qomwere reportedly driven by fears that Iran had crossed the 90% enrichment threshold. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Iran now possesses enough enriched uranium for "nine nuclear weapons" and the IDFs Chief of Staff EyalZamir warned of an "immediate operational necessity" as Iran had "reached the point of no return." However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and U.S. intelligence assessments have not publicly corroborated any progress toward assembling a usable bomb.The Fordow facility, often portrayed as a doomsday site, is not a weapons lab. It is an enrichment planttoo deep to strike easily, but also too constrained to test, assemble, or launch a nuclear weapon. That fact alone should prompt the question: Why strike now?Netanyahus warnings are not new. In 2012, he told NBCs Meet the Press that Iran would have enough material for a bomb in "six or seven months," urging the U.S. to draw a "red line" before it was "too late." The dire prediction never materialized. No bomb was built. No red line crossed. The episode offers a lesson in how worst-case scenarios, not verified facts, can drive the conversation.Before the United States commits to military action, President Trumpand the American peopledeserve clear answers: Does Iran possess the necessary components, the design knowledge, and the capacity to assemble and deliver a functioning weapon? Or are we risking war based on fear and incomplete intelligence?We have been here before. In 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq over weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. That war cost thousands of lives, almostthree trillion dollars to the present, destabilized a region, and damaged U.S. credibility for decades. To repeat such a mistake would be strategic malpractice of the highest order.CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONNone of this downplays the threat Iran poses. The regimes support for proxy militias, its ballistic missile program, and its pattern of obstructing IAEA inspections are deeply troubling. But deterrence and diplomacynot preemptive warmust be the first response. The United States retains a full suite of tools: cyber operations, regional missile defense, economic sanctions, and multilateral diplomacy. Military action should remain the final optionnot the opening move.As Australian novelist KateForsyth reminds us: "War is an unpredictable beast. Once unleashed, it runs like a rabid dog, ravening friend or foe alike." Let us not unleash that beast over uranium that is dangerousbut not yet detonatable.President Trump, Congress, and our intelligence community must deliver a full, honest accounting. What does the United States knownot suspectabout Irans nuclear readiness? What pieces are still missing? What tools short of war can ensure they stay missing?These are the questions that must be answered before another missile is fired. Panic is not a policy. Precision is.CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM ROBERT MAGINNIS